Definition of Conservatism & Political Labels

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary provides the following definition for "Conservatism":

Con*serv"a*tism\, n. [For conservatism.] The disposition and tendency to preserve what is established; opposition to change; the habit of mind; or conduct, of a conservative.

However, "Conservatism," and "Liberalism" for that matter, are pretty poor and even misleading labels, if used as defined by the dictionary. It is obvious that the label "conservatism" holds a much more complex meaning for many, even leading some to write whole books on extensively defining the viewpoint ("Liberty and Tyranny" by Mark R. Levin is an excellent example - I highly recommend it). They all have their points, whether written by a liberal castigating the mindset or a conservative explaining himself.

But the straight-up dictionary definition of "Conservatism" doesn't work. For me, my definition, as an American living in the 21st Century, is pretty simple. Conservatism is striving to preserve, conserve and implement the principles upon which our nation was founded.
So in one sense, it lines up with the dictionary definition, "tendency to preserve."

Yet the dictionary's and mine definitions differ in one very major way. I am not for simply maintaining status quo. I am for preserving the established system so much as it aligns itself with the principles advocated by our nation's Founders, but that is hardly the current system we have today. Furthermore, the principles, ideals and eventually government, established by America's founders were, at the time, literally revolutionary. They were new, different, against the direction the current established system was headed. I would like to think that had I lived during that time, I would have sided with George Washington and the rebel cause. Would I have been called a conservative (as defined by the dictionary) then? Interestingly enough, a British MP supported the American Revolution over in England... his name was Edmund Burke, and he is often referred to as the "Father of Conservatism."

No, change has little to nothing to do with it, for change itself is morally neutral. It could be for the better or for the worse, and that is decided principally by one's viewpoint. Therefore labels like "conservatism" and "liberalism" are not relative to maintaining or altering the establishment. To the contrary, the whole "status quo" standard is quite irrelevant.

I believe and support certain principles based on my viewpoint, or more accurately, my worldview. Everyone does. Conservatism really is about the principles, and so is Liberalism, and any other label being used out there today. If the established system is aligned with our values, principles, worldview, etc, then we will be for preserving it - or maintaing status quo. If we do not agree with the current situation, we will seek to change it. This is not a ground-breaking thought, but it amazes me how widely accepted the fallacy of defining one's politics by our relation to change is. Yet no one can doubt the absolute impact of this concept after witnessing the thrilling success of the current President's campaign slogan, "Change." It was absurd, and it won.

I simply urge my fellow Americans to stop thinking of political labels in terms of their relation to "status quo." We need to start thinking in terms of principles and values - and not just paying them lipservice, but honestly measuring our political motives against the real standard of our worldview.
It might lead to a lot of interesting change.

A little boy called "Yopp!"....

... and the world knew they were there.

I was persuaded to start this blog by a well-known and beloved Children's book, in which success was not achieved by one protagonist, or even several, but by every individual doing his and her part. Not until the very last and smallest person contributed his voice was the sound barrier breached and the truth heard by all in the world above. One of several profound lessons to be learned from "Horton Hears a Who"; not only does every voice count - every voice is needed.

There are so many important and prominent figures who currently provide countless conservative insights via books, publications, blogs, speaking, etc. I hesitate to say anything at all, because, frankly, it's all been said, is all being said- and that much better than I ever could.
Yet, we all have a voice for a reason. The truth is, no matter how many speak up, our individual thoughts and opinions are equally important to our Creator; and funny thing, He seems to make it work out that it takes every one of us doing our part; seeking the truth and standing up for it when we find it.

"This," cried the Mayor, "is your town's darkest hour!
The time for all Whos who have blood that is red
To come to the aid of their country!" he said.
"We've GOT to make noises in greater amounts!
So, open your mouth, lad! For every voice counts!"

The lad cleared his throat and he shouted out, "YOPP!"
And that Yopp...
That one small, extra Yopp put it over!
Finally, at last!... Their voices were heard! They rang out clear and clean.
And the elephant smiled. "Do you see what I mean?"...
They've proved that they ARE persons, no matter how small.
And their whole world was saved by the Smallest of All!"

For of course, "A person's a person, no matter how small."

This is my reasoning, my belief, and now I'm ready to act on it. Thanks for reading. :-)