On a whim, last night I published a diary -- a mock history of conservatives. It occurred to me this morning that the entire class might want to review and contribute to this satirical work. As time allows, I will review and edit the input with the hopes that this could become a larger and more comprehensive parody, and something we can all send to our conservative friends who have delighted in distributing aggravating emails like the shopworn and discredited "Bagdhad is safer than Detroit" and other similar tripe. I may republish from time to time to bring it more exposure. So please enjoy, and contribute to, "Conservatives Through the Ages: A History" by Anthem MacTavish, Ph.D (Phony Doctor).
The origin of the "American conservative" is actually nearly as old as humanity. In fact, historical linguists have determined that the first word for "conservatives" was "tribe." We know indirectly that this is true because conservatives and tribes alike placed a premium on national defense. In early conservative times, for example, one leader often replaced another through the new leader dispatching the former with a stone axe or knife. Political historians note this involuntary relinquishing of power as being among the first instances of losing office for being "soft on defense." Some, relying on the characteristic shape of these early weapons, have gone so far as to proclaim this the first use of "wedge issues" (see Blesto 2006, Homeland Security: Not Just for Cro Magnons Anymore). Even if the then-current leader had a stone axe or knife of his own, if it was smaller than that of the aspiring leader, the result was usually a change in government. This encouraged the development of ever larger stone axes and knives, a trend that is believed to have brought about the earliest example of an arms race (cf. Griswold 1966, Simple Origins of the Military-Industrial Complex).
Eventually, conservatives ceased their wandering ways and settlements formed. As cultures became more fully developed, there were many great boons to early humanity (fire, agriculture, the wheel, etc.). However, none was more important to conservatives than religion. Replacing leaders through mortal contests on the defense and security issues had begun to take its toll on the conservative leadership population, so conservatives looked for an answer and found religion. Thus, the concept of "rule by divine right" was established, and the foundaation of leadership became the blessing of supernatural beings to whom the electorate was expected to pay homage. Now, conservative leaders were free to live their lives and govern those who were, by spiritual measures, less worthy individuals than they. As a bonus, questioning the morals, judgment or competence of the local leader could be equated with questioning the wisdom, even the validity, of the local deity – a short step away from the modern conservative practice of calling one’s critics "unpatriotic."
Religion served another purpose as well. Being victorious in military conflict was still essential for the early conservative to justify ongoing rule, so religion became a means of engineering wars to maintain the legitimacy of conservative leadership while avoiding personal engagement in risky conflict. Failing to go to war "for God and King" became anathema to the local populace. Being victorious in war also tended to expand access to goods and natural resources, an early example of the now-hallowed conservative principle of "free trade." War, however, would eventually prove to not just be the domain of the successful conservative. History’s two World Wars were prosecuted and successfully concluded by U.S. presidents who, as Democrats, would be regarded as "liberals" by any standard. Success in war, however, eluded Republican, i.e., conservative, presidents as often as not.
Curiously, the successful American civil war fought by a Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, is regarded with mixed emotions by some conservatives mainly due to Lincoln’s willingness to impose by force strong, federal rule upon the rebellions sovereign American states, something inconsistent with the Republican Party's championing of "state’s rights." Similarly, another Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt, established the National Parks System and enacted reforms against child labor and monopolies, departing from the cherished conservative principles of private ownership and freedom of contract.
Thus, conservatives live with the paradox of claiming Lincoln and T. Roosevelt as being among their party’s heroes even though these men built their presidencies upon some of the most profoundly successful liberal endeavors America has ever seen (cf., Dunwiddy 1978, Nixon went to China AND brought us OSHA, the EPA, and the modern Food Stamp Program – WHAT THE HECK?!). The paradox was made complete when a conservative, wealthy, male, Caucasian Governor of Texas and failed oil speculator, George W. Bush, successfully sued Vice President Al Gore in federal court under the traditionally liberal claim of denial of equal protection under the law in the disputed Presidential Election of 2000.