This week I am learning. This week I began reading the book “The Conservative Sensibility” written by George Will. It is difficult to keep up with the constantly changing political landscape. I believe this book, (though I already realize some disagreement in philosophy), will help me to better understand some basic structure and ideology. I will start with some definitions noting that I am less than 50 pages into the book so planning to come back and see how my understanding changes. The terminology in parentheses reflects my impression at this time.

• Traditional / Classical Liberalism or (Foundational American Conservatism) – champions the rights of the individual; aspires to protect individual liberty and individual choice; believes individual rights are natural rights; believes government should be limited government; and believes there are universal political truths based on universal reason. According to classical liberals, classical liberalism is what the Founders intended.
• Empirical Conservatism or (Practical American Conservatism) – Like classical liberals, empirical conservatives espouse individual rights and limited government but empirical conservatives are skeptical of universal political truths. They believe a political system should be based on experience, must fit the circumstance, should include a small bit of nationalism, and will change/evolve over time. Empirical Conservatives work to uphold the Constitution. According to empirical conservatives, the Founders believed that a universal political system would not work for all nations.
• American Progressivism – Goal is to strengthen the power of the state; progressives are afraid that industrial society, (banks corporations, etc.), may become too powerful. Progressives work to upend classical liberalism and reinterpret the Constitution. Progressives work toward equality of outcomes at the expense of equality of opportunity.
• (Centrist Liberalism) – Centrist Liberals are not interested in conserving a social status quo but they do acknowledge the importance of maintaining traditional rule of law. They are wannabe progressives who work to accommodate change and autonomy (perhaps unavoidably) by prescribing political correctness and dictating (their idea of) morality, which leads to bigger government.
• (Speculative Nationalism) or (New American Conservatism) – Posing as populism, it appeals to emotions and a yearning for the good-old-days; attempts to maintain status quo and (perhaps unavoidably) threatens to do so by strengthening bureaucracy and the power of the few, falsely claiming this maneuvering as equality of opportunity. New American Conservatives pick and choose particulars from the Constitution (and from Foundational and Practical Conservatism, and even from Centrist Liberalism and American Progressivism) that will aid in their battle to maintain a favorable power structure.

According to my understanding, Foundational and Practical American Conservatism had been (for the most part) aligned and working well (or at least okay) together, keeping conservative ideology intact; and they are continuing to work together to find a single compatible identity. But because Foundational American Conservatism has not translated well to other nations and other circumstance in recent decades, in recent years a segment of Practical American Conservatism has evolved or morphed into Speculative Nationalism; i.e. a New American Conservatism. Where Practical American Conservatism is trial and error, Speculative Nationalism appears to be error and trial. To speculate is more impractical than to practice, assess and learn.

So now instead of two schools of thought – Conservative (which is liberal) and Progressive (which is not liberal) – we appear to have four:

1. Progressive, which remains as defined above;
2. Centrist Liberal, which is suffering from an identity crisis, wavering between progressive and liberal;
3. Conservative, which is working to find a liberal identity built on its strong foundation but offering greater fluidity and flexibility; and
4. New Conservative, which is full of bluster and promise and national pride and nostalgia and (from where I sit) hubris and arrogance and overconfidence and derision and division and ignorance.

Yet in upcoming elections, at least for the near future, it appears we will only be offered two selections:

1. Progressive/Liberal (depending on the candidate), or
2. New Conservative (with sprinkles of Foundational and Practical Conservatism for effect).

I believe that ultimately the New Conservative movement will once again be absorbed by Conservatism and (once Conservatism redefines itself) we may be stronger from the experience. If I had to choose one, I suppose this week's thought marks me as more of a Practical American Conservative. But I definitely lean toward some elements of Centrist Liberalism; I am also attracted to some Progressive thought, but in an ideal world I would prefer a Foundational Conservatism if there were such a thing; (I don't believe it exists). I believe this is consistent with personal belief and philosophy throughout my adult life, though in recent years it may appear that I have taken a hard left. This apparent change in direction though, (I believe), is a direct result of two things:

1. Continued learning, and
2. The evolution of an element of Practical Conservatism into Speculative Nationalism.

Even if/when Speculative Nationalism is reabsorbed by a coherent conservatism, I will remain to the left of where I was a decade ago. This personal effort and ongoing enlightenment though is wasted as long as I have only two choices. Our two party system is outdated. Within my limited understanding, currently our Republicans represent Conservatism and our Democrats represent Liberalism and Progressivism. It is too bad that we cannot have (at least) three or (better yet) four or five choices that would more accurately represent the three or four or five schools of thought predominant at a given time. Within the complexity of today's politics, either/or is not adequate to discern the subtlety and nuance (or lack thereof) within a given individual or ideology as represented by an individual. In this two party system it is too easy to sell broad strokes, sweeping gestures and blustery promises.

I will continue to read George Will and perhaps revisit this week's written thought as I continue to learn.