Open source conservative - Revision history

DavidB4-bot: /* Disadvantages of Closed Source Conservatism */clean up & uniformity

2016-07-13T16:59:33Z

Disadvantages of Closed Source Conservatism: clean up & uniformity

Joaquín Martínez at 14:27, January 13, 2011

2011-01-13T14:27:14Z

Joaquín Martínez: /* Disadvantages of Closed Source Conservatism */

2011-01-13T13:41:31Z

Disadvantages of Closed Source Conservatism

Joaquín Martínez: /* Advantages of Open Source Conservatism */

2011-01-13T13:38:36Z

Advantages of Open Source Conservatism

Aschlafly: improved

2010-07-02T15:54:46Z

improved

Aschlafly: A closed source conservative tacitly accepts the liberal power structure by, for example, subscribing to the liberal ''New York Times''; in contrast, an open source conservative spends that time o

2010-07-02T15:51:48Z

A closed source conservative tacitly accepts the liberal power structure by, for example, subscribing to the liberal ''New York Times''; in contrast, an open source conservative spends that time o

Benp at 15:33, July 2, 2010

2010-07-02T15:33:11Z

Jpatt: Reverted edits by ElizDo (Talk) to last revision by Aschlafly

2010-06-29T02:36:20Z

Reverted edits by ElizDo (Talk) to last revision by Aschlafly

ElizDo at 02:32, June 29, 2010

2010-06-29T02:32:09Z

Aschlafly: added two more

2010-06-29T02:13:37Z

added two more

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 == Disadvantages of Closed Source Conservatism ==
-In order to understand the disadvantages of closed-source conservatism, it is important to understand the history of conservatism--a history of decentralized, citizen-driven initiatives.  The [[Boston Tea Party]] wasn't planned by a massive national bureaucracy; it was a spontaneous response to the failure of political negotiation.  Conservatism, historically, has served as a counterbalance against entrenched interests and power structures.  A closed source conservative tacitly accepts the liberal power structure by, for example, subscribing to the liberal ''[[New York Times]]''; in contrast, an open source conservative spends that time on the [[best of the public]].
+In order to understand the disadvantages of closed-source conservatism, it is important to understand the history of conservatism—a history of decentralized, citizen-driven initiatives.  The [[Boston Tea Party]] wasn't planned by a massive national bureaucracy; it was a spontaneous response to the failure of political negotiation.  Conservatism, historically, has served as a counterbalance against entrenched interests and power structures.  A closed source conservative tacitly accepts the liberal power structure by, for example, subscribing to the liberal ''[[New York Times]]''; in contrast, an open source conservative spends that time on the [[best of the public]].
 However, in recent decades, this has changed.  The [[New Deal]] was such a massive expansion of centralized government that, even as conservatives struggled to resist it, they themselves were affected by it.  Conservatism became more centralized, more reliant on entrenched power, and more bureaucratic.  In short, the traditional conservatism of the [[Founding Fathers]] was replaced with closed-source conservatism.
-Closed-source conservatism relies heavily on the idea of a top-down, entrenched power structure, in which elite expert gatekeepers are responsible for decisions.  In this sense, it is more akin to [[liberalism]] than to traditional conservatism...and, in many cases, closed-source conservatives will sound more like liberals than true conservatives.  Thus, when [[Rush Limbaugh]] raises powerful points against [[liberalism]], liberals will of course howl in outrage.  When [[Rush Limbaugh]] criticizes the failings of a closed-source conservative like [[Michael Steele]], other closed-source conservatives howl with similar outrage, because Limbaugh is challenging the entrenched hierarchy.  Thus, the closed-source conservatives dismiss him as "just an entertainer"--as if an entertainer could not have powerful and enduring insights--and insist that he "does not speak for conservatives"--as if they had the authority to declare who does and does not speak for conservatives.
+Closed-source conservatism relies heavily on the idea of a top-down, entrenched power structure, in which elite expert gatekeepers are responsible for decisions.  In this sense, it is more akin to [[liberalism]] than to traditional conservatism...and, in many cases, closed-source conservatives will sound more like liberals than true conservatives.  Thus, when [[Rush Limbaugh]] raises powerful points against [[liberalism]], liberals will of course howl in outrage.  When [[Rush Limbaugh]] criticizes the failings of a closed-source conservative like [[Michael Steele]], other closed-source conservatives howl with similar outrage, because Limbaugh is challenging the entrenched hierarchy.  Thus, the closed-source conservatives dismiss him as "just an entertainer"—as if an entertainer could not have powerful and enduring insights—and insist that he "does not speak for conservatives"—as if they had the authority to declare who does and does not speak for conservatives.
 In so doing, closed-source conservatives frequently (albeit unwittingly) do the work of liberals for them, and undermine the cause of conservatism.

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 <blockquote>
-Credibility-enhancing actions include: Showing you care about the other person and have their best interests at heart. [http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/credibility.htm]
+(Credibility-enhancing actions include: Showing you care about the other person and have their best interests at heart.) [http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/credibility.htm]
 </blockquote>
@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 <blockquote>
-Language that reduces credibility includes: Totally and absolutely excessive exaggeration. [[Ibidem]]
+(Language that reduces credibility includes: Totally and absolutely excessive exaggeration.) [[Ibidem]]
 </blockquote>

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:41, January 13, 2011
Line 63:		Line 63:

	In so doing, closed-source conservatives frequently (albeit unwittingly) do the work of liberals for them, and undermine the cause of conservatism.		In so doing, closed-source conservatives frequently (albeit unwittingly) do the work of liberals for them, and undermine the cause of conservatism.
		+
		+	<blockquote>
		+	Language that reduces credibility includes: Totally and absolutely excessive exaggeration. [[Ibidem]]
		+	</blockquote>

	==Examples of Open Source Conservatives==		==Examples of Open Source Conservatives==

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:38, January 13, 2011
Line 50:		Line 50:
	*Open source conservatism facilitates learning and improvement better than other approaches.		*Open source conservatism facilitates learning and improvement better than other approaches.

		+	<blockquote>
		+	Credibility-enhancing actions include: Showing you care about the other person and have their best interests at heart. [http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/credibility.htm]
		+	</blockquote>

	== Disadvantages of Closed Source Conservatism ==		== Disadvantages of Closed Source Conservatism ==

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 |Judges who take a broader view of [[standing]] in litigation
 |Judges who take a narrow view of standing in litigation
 |-
 |}

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 The [[censorability]] of an open source conservative (such as a Tea Partier) is lower than the censorability of a traditional conservative (such as a Reagan Republican).  An open source conservative is more opposed to the [[censorship]] of ideas by [[liberals]] or even by other [[conservatives]].
-== Advantages ==
+== Advantages of Open Source Conservatism ==
 There are several advantages to an "open source" approach with respect to the conservative movement:
@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 *Open source conservatism facilitates learning and improvement better than other approaches.
 ==Examples of Open Source Conservatives==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 An '''open source conservative''' embraces the [[best of the public]] and openness, while rejecting traditional controls on discourse.  An open source conservative rejects the traditional priority given to the mainstream media and its [[liberal tricks]] and smear tactics, and instead relies on greater light to overpower darkness.  An open source conservative encourages widespread distribution of information.  An open source conservative supports more speech, rather than more controls as pushed by today's [[liberals]].
-Unfortunately, Phyllis and Andy Schlafly will be spending eternity in Hell due to their acceptance of John Schlafly's flaming homosexuality.
 An open source conservative focuses more on the generation of new insights and good ideas rather than always playing defense against harmful movements.  An open source conservative welcomes advantages brought by technology such as ''Conservapedia'' as a source of learning, rather than remaining confined to books.

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 |Judges who welcome [[amicus brief]]s
 |Judges who raise obstacles to amicus briefs
 |-
 |}