Why is Conservatism failing?

[Paddy]

Ronald Reagan was an excellent example of Conservative values, was he not?  He was a elected twice, both times in landslides.  His Vice President was easily elected in 1988, yet served only one term.  We then had two terms of Bill Clinton (hardly a 'conservative', by any measure), followed by two terms of GWB, who won by running on 'conservative' principles.  But remember, GWB only won by squeakers, both times.

Now, the Republican party is about to nominate John McCain, no 'conservative' by any standard, AFAICT.

If Conservatism is so great, why haven't we continued to elect leaders in the tradition of RR?  And please don't try to pass off the blame on MSM, or some other nonsense.  The values of Conservatism must stand on their own.

I'd seriously like to hear your thoughts about why Conservatism is on the decline.

[mtnbkr]

Very few people really want "Conservatism".  They want govt security nets, laws against/for their dislikes/interests, etc.  Everybody wants to use the power of .gov as a bludgeon against that which they dislike in one way or another.

Yeah, everyone wants the govt out of their life, but they're still willing to use it to interfere with the lives of others.

Chris

[Finch]

Ronald Reagan was an excellent example of Conservative values, was he not? 

No. Not horrible like Bush or McCain, but he was no Paine.

[Perd Hapley]

Ronald Reagan was an excellent example of Conservative values, was he not? 

No. Not horrible like Bush or McCain, but he was no Paine.

Paddy don't like Reagan, neither.  I think when he says "conservative," he's talking about Reagan conservatives.  He's got his own idea about what the term really means. 

[longeyes]

"Conservatism" isn't failing, but a lot of people are.  Today's society encourages people to be giddy with perpetual adolescence (if they get that far).  The conservative way is a sober way, and that means it requires clarity, self-discipline, reason, and moral responsibility.  That sounds like work to an increasing number of souls in these nation, and today we live for pleasure and nothing else.

[Paddy]

Paddy don't like Reagan, neither.  I think when he says "conservative," he's talking about Reagan conservatives.  He's got his own idea about what the term really means.

Please don't get off track.  This is a serious question, and I intend to remain objective.  We're talking 'principles', not personalities.

Thanks. 

[MechAg94]

Conservatism generally works when it is tried.  Who is trying it these days? 

Bush/Congress did good with tax cuts, but fell off the bus with other laws he passed.  He proved he is little different from his father.
Clinton/Congress did okay to cut spending and reform welfare.  Bad because they cut the military to get much of the spending cuts and raised taxes earlier in his term.  Pulled back on his "middle class tax cut promise". 
Reagan did good cutting taxes and cutting some regulation, but then passed a net increase in taxes. 
Bush I fell off the bus by raising taxes. 

I wouldn't say McCain is anti-conservative.  I think he is conservative on some things and not on others.  He has a decent record against out of control spending, but sketchy on taxes, and bad on things like campaign financing.  He is a mixed bag.

I don't know where Obama or Clinton would touch on any conservatives views at all.

[Perd Hapley]

Paddy don't like Reagan, neither.  I think when he says "conservative," he's talking about Reagan conservatives.  He's got his own idea about what the term really means.

Please don't get off track.  This is a serious question, and I intend to remain objective.  We're talking 'principles', not personalities. 

Please.   

[K Frame]

It's not failing, it's changing, currently moving to the left.

Eventually someone will come along and swing things in a new direction.

Statis is, in many ways, FAR worse than change.

[Paddy]

Conservatism generally works when it is tried.  Who is trying it these days? 

That is the core of my question. If Conservatism works, why isn't it the/a dominant political system in our democratic Republic?  The next question is, Conservatism works for whom?  For everyone? 

IOW, we have free and open elections where candidates with Conservative principle run, but aren't elected.  Why not?

Also, why would  something that works have to change?

[Perd Hapley]

Also, why would  something that works have to change?

This from the guy who drives a Prius?  Why don't you drive a Model T?  If the measure of good conservatism is "whatever works" then one would expect it to change - a LOT. 

I try to tie my conservatism to "What is right?"  Which explains why no one wants to do it.  Don't you think? 

[BrokenPaw]

That is the core of my question. If Conservatism works, why isn't it the/a dominant political system in our democratic Republic?

Exercise works, yet not everyone is in shape.

-BP

[Paddy]

This from the guy who drives a Prius?  Why don't you drive a Model T?

I don't drive a Prius.  It belongs to SWMBO.  I don't drive a Model T because much better alternatives are available to me, as the result of improvements over the years.

If the measure of good conservatism is "whatever works" then one would expect it to change - a LOT.

Does that mean that a turn to the left is an improvement for Conservatism?

I try to tie my conservatism to "What is right?"  Which explains why no one wants to do it.  Don't you think?

Not sure what you mean by this.  It sounds a little sanctimonious.

Exercise works, yet not everyone is in shape.

Agreed.  Yet most non exercising out of shape people would agree that exercise IS good, and they SHOULD be doing it.  Do most people who don't vote pro Conservative agree that Conservatism is the best, and they should have voted for it?

[K Frame]

"Also, why would  something that works have to change?"

You're joking, right?

We're not talking about a an absolutely static entity.

"Conservatism," or any politicial "ism," for that matter, comprises the ideas, ideals, and efforts of a vast number of people. Those people change over time, and the factors the external factors that influence those people ALSO change.

Reaganite conservatism was NOT all Ronald Reagan's idea. It was the collective idea of a large number of people who had worked with Ronald Reagan over a period of many years.

Many of those people are now retired, others are dead, and most have long since passed the reigns of party leadership to others.

As I said, in many ways statis is FAR worse than change.

[Paddy]

Of course every 'ism' changes in some ways, usually operational, to meet new challenges of changing times.  'Adapt or die' is a long proven axiom.  A look at any of the world's religions will show that. However, when that 'ism' begins to abandon its core principles, does it any longer exist?

For example, the core principles of the Roman Catholic church are (not in any particular order) The Holy Trinity, Jesus as Saviour, His death and resurrection, the resurrection of the dead, etc.  They are the same today as they were 2000 years ago.  Whatever change occurs in the Church does not alter those basic tenets.

Core principles of Conservatism would include smaller, less intrusive government.  Restraint in public spending and taxation. Maximum personal liberty and generally a 'live and let live' attitude.   Those are not prevalent values in the political system today.  Are you saying that abandoning those values is an improvement?

[Perd Hapley]

This from the guy who drives a Prius?  Why don't you drive a Model T?

I don't drive a Prius.  It belongs to SWMBO.  I don't drive a Model T because much better alternatives are available to me, as the result of improvements over the years.

Exactly.  Your Ranger runs on the same principles as the Model T.  It just does a much better job of it.  So the answer is that things that work often benefit from change, while sticking to core principles.  Which makes it ironic that you tout the virtues of the Prius, which is a pretty big change from the old Model T. 

If the measure of good conservatism is "whatever works" then one would expect it to change - a LOT.

Does that mean that a turn to the left is an improvement for Conservatism?

No.  It means that pragmatism should not be the only basis of a political philosophy. 

I try to tie my conservatism to "What is right?"  Which explains why no one wants to do it.  Don't you think?

Not sure what you mean by this.  It sounds a little sanctimonious.

You just always think I sound sanctimonious.  I'll explain.  Whatever you might call my political view (and I'm sure you've got some choice epithets  ), I think the guide should be one of principle, rather than pragmatism.  Don't you?  But people generally don't want to do the right thing.  Hence, most of the conservative principles you and I believe in are not much in evidence.  That was all was I meant by it. 

[K Frame]

Notice how I said that as the people change, the system changes.

Not everyone has the exact same vision of what constitutes low taxes, small government, or personal liberty.

Even the constituency served by such a politicial vision changes over time.

You may want to read up on the life and rather sudden death of the Federalist Party in the United States.

The party refused to see/accept that change was inevitable and that the nation was, in fact, changing dramatically over very short periods of time. The Federalists attempted to maintain the status quo, and in a very short period of time the party imploded and ceased to be a political power at either the federal or state levels.

[grampster]

I guess I'd have to disagree a bit with Mike's observation that ''...stasis is FAR worse than change.  I've been rereading a bit of C.S. Lewis lately.  Lewis was talking about Christian apologetics and how stasis (Mike's term) is actually the way of proper Christianity.  Change is something (in Christianity) where we twist a given so that it fits our particular "modern" notion of what our faith should be. 

Please let me quote him a bit in order to make my point more clear: "It is not, of course, for me to define to you what Anglican Christianity is.....But I insist that wherever you draw the lines, bounding lines must exist, beyond which your doctrine will cease to be Anglican or to be Christian....I think it is your duty to fix the lines clearly in your own minds: and if you wish to go beyond them you must change your profession.  This is your duty....as honest men."

In thinking about what Lewis was saying, one could ascribe to the same notion with respect to conservatism.  The point being is that the change that has been wrought politically has actually done an about face.  The modern Conservative is actually closer to the Liberal of the past and vice versa.  Now that is change.  It is also confusion.   Listen to Democrat JFK speeches regarding taxes and he sound to the right or RR.


"Core principles of Conservatism would include smaller, less intrusive government.  Restraint in public spending and taxation. Maximum personal liberty and generally a 'live and let live' attitude.   Those are not prevalent values in the political system today." (Paddy) 

Those core principals are not complicated.  The problem is that most Republicans (politicians) today don't ascribe to them.  Most of them are statists as deeply entrenched Democrats.  The Contract With America was thrown under the bus not long after those principals put Republicans in charge of the Legislature.  I remember talking with my wife at the time and saying that I wondered how long it would be before the Republicans were spending more time paying back political slights over the last 40 years and wallowing in their perceived power instead of actually keeping to the Contract.  The Grace Report was handled in the same way.

Present day conservatism works and The People actually ascribe more to those principals than not.  Individually we're all selfish.  But, Americans are benevolent and noble as a group.  Being charitable, noble and unselfish as a nation is not contrary to conservative thought.  Conservatism is at it's core, keeping to what is simple and what works.  Modern Liberalism is not that way at all.

I guess I've taken up enough bandwidth for now.

[K Frame]

When you're talking about large, complex entities like governments, and the government's interactions with the governed, statis, or near stasis, eventually leads to one outcome -- revolution.

[MechAg94]

I think Mike is using stasis to mean a situation where everyone in govt on both sides of the aisle agrees.  I agree with him that is not a good thing to see.  Govt is improved with a competition of ideas. 

A good example of change that worked out for the better is the breakup of the national telephone system.  A lot of people didn't like that move, but I think everyone would agree that it has worked out pretty well.  Conditions no longer required a monopoly on communications.

Conservatism is an ideal or a philosophy that says less govt is better.  The less impact the Govt has on the lives of the people, the better the govt is.  Govt solutions to problems should reflect that philosophy with a minimalist approach that only enacts just enough regulation or requirements to get the job done and do nothing if govt solutions aren't needed.  The problem is that this is not always the popular way to go and doesn't always give immediate results that politicians can hang their hat on come election day.  There are a lot of people also who fit the "there ought to be law" mentality that have this notion that govt should solve all their problems regardless of the consequences. 

[Perd Hapley]

Conservatism is an ideal or a philosophy that says less govt is better. 

I'm sure you knew this, but -

Conservatism is a tendency to resist change, or to conserve the status quo.  Modern American Conservatism on the other hand - is more or less as you have described.   

[thebaldguy]

Conservatism is failing because many of today's so called conservatives are really right wing authoritarians. They have brought in more, not less, government.

It's also failing because Americans are getting lazy. It's easier to depend on a government than to depend on yourself. Check out the recent thread about welfare in England. It's getting like that in the US now too.

[Perd Hapley]

Conservatism is failing because many of today's so called conservatives are really right wing authoritarians.

What a pant-load.   

[grampster]

Go on....finish the sentence.  "What a pant load...because those that are authoritarians are not Conservatives.

[Perd Hapley]

That's not quite what I was thinking.