Why are conservatives conservative?

[Citizen James]

Well, there's the short and the long of it.

The short of it is that it is a part of human nature to be wary of things which are different.  At times that can serve us well (Gee, that large overgrown cat is  called a tiger.  I wonder if it's friendly and if I can pet it?  Let try it - aauurgh...), other times less so (gee, that guy has a different skin color.  I bet he's dangerous).

The long of it is that people tend to group things and ideas together.  It's a sensible trait, as otherwise we would be utterly overwhelmed with all the information we come across.  However, it is not without it's flaws as the more we generalize the less accurate our collective information becomes.   'Conservative' and 'liberal' are at best vague terms about a person's tendencies, not concrete listings of ideologies.  In addition, connected terms sometimes have a downright contrary meaning - I see little to nothing from 'neo-conservatives' which is particularly conservative.  They actually strike me as quite radical, desireng to implement social and political change through force of arms in a manner similar to Mao's infamous "political power flows from the barell of a gun" mantra.

My somewhat tounge in cheek classifications for liberals, conservatives, progressives, and reactionaries is as follows:

Conservatives believe "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Liberals believe "some things are broke, and need fixing"

Progressives believe "lets tinker with things and see if we can make them work better"

and reactionaries think "I liked it better broken".

But because of this human tendency to generalize, we end up trying to classify people with widely varying beliefs (Say, an NRA blue collar unionist with a gay stockbroker, or a reporter who believes in open government and low taxes with a welfare recipent who opposes abortion) all in the same tiny classifications.

I find Dazzlemans perspective facinating, as he notices flaws in your questions, while committing the exact same sins.

I have never met anyone who wanted high rates of crime, though there are some who want a more reform minded system.  The crime rate (both violent and property) did drop signifigantly under Clinton after all.  Bussing is controversial, but what about bussing some students from an "unsafe" school to yours, of just claiming that the "lesser" elements of society deserve to be forced into the poorest and worst funded/supported schools.  Granted, the work I've done with rural poor students has shown me a lot of kids with a solid work ethic and a desire to succeed, despite their disadvantaged backgrounds, while some of the kids in the more "well-to-do" places get stuck with an entitlement attitude that they don't have to work and should get everything on a silver platter. (think Opebo lite).

Do you really believe the old propiganda that welfare recipients are a bunch of inner city blacks popping out kid after kid (rather than rural poor whites with multiple children - often based on their religious beliefs), and individuals who work multiple jobs but still can't make ends meet.
Even if that were the case, do you believe that children should be punished for who their parents were?

I have to admit I chuckled at your claim that "Your implication that liberals want peace, and conservatives don't, is also highly naive and presumptuous.  Conservatives want peace, but don't want us to lose our freedom as the price of peace. " made me chuckle.  I have to wonder if you were able to keep a straight face in the "lose our freedom" part, unless your are implying (as I have) that Bush is actually a radical rather than a conservative.

As for religious conservatives, that is only one subsection of what is called "conservatives".  They have a dispropotionate influence right now, but that tends to ebb and wane over the years and will likely do so again.