Why is Conservatism failing?

[roo_ster]

Michael Medved is head and shoulders above Limbaugh, Hannity, et. al.  If you have never read any of his books, or listened to any of his recordings, especially on the history of our country and the legacy and stewardship thereof,  I strongly urge you to do so.   Medved understands democracy and the founding principles, whereas Limbaugh and Hannity are just self serving bigmouths.

Medved is also the biggest (Republican) "Party Man" of the bunch.  Meaning, "Vote GOP, no matter what they are supporting at the moment."

I do agree, his history bits are very well done.

[Perd Hapley]

I think Conservatism has failed because it has been abandoned.  There simply are no practitioners.  Instead the word has come to mean a sanctuary for a bunch of misfits and malcontents.  These people would not otherwise have a platform from which to express their abject disapproval of just about everything.  Their entire lives revolve around being against.  Very seldom do you hear them speak of anything in positive terms.  Everything is negative, apparently in reflection of who they are.  They come across as selfish and bitter.

These people gravitate toward the Republican party.  They spend so much time and energy being against, that they haven't developed a group vision of what they're for.  This is evidenced by their increasing disdain with their political candidates.  They seem to love Reagan, but like his VP, GHW Bush less.  They largely dislike GWB, yet voted him into office twice.  They really dislike McCain, but will vote for him only because they hate somebody else worse.   They are motivated only by the negative; whatever they dislike.

And the more they dislike it (IOW, the more different it is) the more contempt it deserves, expressed in the most demeaning and disparaging terms possible.  They even look around for people and situations that have absolutely no relevance to them or their lives in order to ridicule.  Maybe then think they build themselves up by tearing everything/everybody else down.  Who knows?

Their national leaders are Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, Beck, and host of others who spit daily venom at whatever they determine is not 'conservative'.   This gives the whole group a cohesiveness and a sense of belonging they would not otherwise have.

How successful are this group's tactics?  It depends on what the definition of 'success' is.  Each day seems to bring something new for them to oppose, which seems to be their primary goal.  I don't know how the group derision helps the constituency, but it makes millions for the fomenters.  In the end, I think they're just a bunch of suckers who, for the time being, have found a home.

I don't think I've ever seen a description of conservative Republicans that was more detached from reality.  A lot of projection in there, too, Paddy. 

[The Annoyed Man]

I don't think I've ever seen a description of conservative Republicans that was more detached from reality.

OK.  Then tell me what principles 'conservative Republicans' promote, where they promote same, where those principles are in practice, and how they are of benefit.

[Iain]

Medved will swallow anything, including English wine that doesn't exist.

[Perd Hapley]

I don't think I've ever seen a description of conservative Republicans that was more detached from reality.

OK.  Then tell me what principles 'conservative Republicans' promote, where they promote same, where those principles are in practice, and how they are of benefit.

Oh, get serious.  No one is going to believe your silly ideas.  You're just projecting your own faults (malcontent, anti-everything, negative whiner) onto people that have better, more positive, more intelligent politics than you.  You're very cute challenging me to tell you about the principles of conservatives, as if they were not quite obvious.  You're not even being consistent.  For months, now, you've been telling us that the so-called conservatives are "corperatists," or whatever it is you're calling us. 

So, go pound sand.     

Oh, and thanks for never pointing out where I've said that religion has a place in political activism, or whatever you claimed about me.  You can quit peddling that, too.

[The Annoyed Man]

You're just projecting your own faults (malcontent, anti-everything, negative whiner) onto people that have better, more positive, more intelligent politics than you

If you're referring to 'conservatives', why is their 'better, more positive......' blah blah on the decline?  I don't see 'conservatism' (as you describe it) on the ascendancy.  Why is it failing if it's so intelligent?

[grampster]

It's on the decline maybe because the principles of present day conservatism; low taxes, smaller government, less regulation, more freedom started to scare the crap out of the professional R and D politicians who saw their power, money and influence threatened by those attributes.  The actually woke up and saw the danger to the socialist state they are succeeding in creating in America.  So they isolated what few conservatives there are in congress.  Some of them just got tired and went home.  Some are working on the sidelines and maybe in 20 or 50 years they will have an impact.

Even though America is more conservative than liberal, although that is changing, thank you government schools, the ruling class knows it's power lies in feeding the sheep.

[The Annoyed Man]

principles of present day conservatism; low taxes, smaller government, less regulation, more freedom

Yet, both the size of government and regulation increased under two of most 'conservative' Presidents in recent history, Reagan and Bush.

[Perd Hapley]

You're just projecting your own faults (malcontent, anti-everything, negative whiner) onto people that have better, more positive, more intelligent politics than you

If you're referring to 'conservatives', why is their 'better, more positive......' blah blah on the decline?  I don't see 'conservatism' (as you describe it) on the ascendancy.  Why is it failing if it's so intelligent?

Because people like you have a lot of statist, socialist ideas, and won't get on board with it. 

[The Annoyed Man]

Because people like you have a lot of statist, socialist ideas, and won't get on board with it.

Another hallmark of conservatism-it's always somebody else's fault. Always.

[Manedwolf]

Because people like you have a lot of statist, socialist ideas, and won't get on board with it.

Another hallmark of conservatism-it's always somebody else's fault. Always.

No, that's the democrat/socialist/statist standpoint. It's someone else's fault, no personal responsibility.

Nobody is saying it's someone else's fault. We're saying that people like you want big government, statist, socialist non-solutions that have failed time and time again.

The definition of madness is to repeat the same actions, expecting a different result. And that's what statists do with welfare, bigger government, more nanny-statism, gun control, people control, everything they do.

It fails everytime. The welfare state has failed horribly in the UK. Government over-regulation strangles business and ruins entrepreneurs. But they keep saying "We can do it right!"

[Perd Hapley]

Because people like you have a lot of statist, socialist ideas, and won't get on board with it.

Another hallmark of conservatism-it's always somebody else's fault. Always.

I thought you were in love with democracy and stuff.  That's what you get with popular govt.  If you don't convince people, then you don't win.  And YOU won't be convinced.  So, yeah, it's your fault. 

[longeyes]

Their national leaders are Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, Beck, and host of others who spit daily venom at whatever they determine is not 'conservative'.   This gives the whole group a cohesiveness and a sense of belonging they would not otherwise have.

I think you seriously mischaracterize the conservative talk show people.  i doubt you listen to them very much.

Unfortunately, conservatism is a stern master and we've evolved a mass culture that is built around instant gratification and willful ignorance.  The demographic trends aren't promising.  If you want to change things, propose limiting suffrage to those who have a clue and a stake.

[Dannyboy]

If conservatism is failing, there's only one reason.  It's simply not profitable. 

[roo_ster]

I wish Calvin Coolidge were running.

"When you see ten problems rolling down the road, if you don't do anything, nine of them will roll into a ditch before they get to you."
----Calvin Coolidge

There was a president who knew the proper place of fed.gov.

[longeyes]

It's not "conservatism" that's failing, it's the legacy of values left to us by the Founding Fathers, who were conservative in some ways, radical in others.  They were about the rights of the Individual, Reason, and Liberty; today's world is about a new kind of tribal socialism married to consumerism.

We are increasingly outnumbered.

[zahc]

tribal socialism? sounds like a fascinating idea, please elaborate. Do you mean tribal is in racial and other 'victim' groups?

[MechAg94]

principles of present day conservatism; low taxes, smaller government, less regulation, more freedom

Yet, both the size of government and regulation increased under two of most 'conservative' Presidents in recent history, Reagan and Bush.

Who told you Bush was a conservative?  If you think that, no wonder you have all these weird ideas.  I knew Bush wasn't very conservative politically while he was still Gov.  He was still better than the alternatives and that never really changed. 

Reagan was conservative in some key areas, but I couldn't say how consistent he was.  I know people considered him a fairly liberal/moderate governor. 

[longeyes]

tribal socialism? sounds like a fascinating idea, please elaborate. Do you mean tribal is in racial and other 'victim' groups?

A philosophy based on "doing for your own," where "your own" means race or ethnicity or clan.  The old version had the decency to be isolationist.  The new version expects The Rest of Us to subsidize their collectivist biases.

[grampster]

The Constitution is not a living document except in the fashion that it itself describes; Amendment.

But the legislature, the executive and the courts have twisted it, disregarded it, added to it, and claimed that it said things it didn't.  The government that was created by it, did not follow its proscription to use amendment to change it.  Why?  Probably because we as a people who elected our representatives that we do, allowed it.  Why?  Because we are impatient and have done the thing that the founders hoped we wouldn't.  We changed into a people who would be ruled by man rather than law.  We allowed our leaders themselves to limit us in times of stress and disorder, something the founders hoped that the Constitution would not allow.

The founders believed we would constrain ourselves to live by its principles rather than twisting it to suit our fear, wants, and factional lust for power and riches.

The evolution of political parties became the factions and factionalism that the founders hoped to prevent by creating a Constitutional Republic, a Federalist system where all would be involved. 

So Liberalism, Conservatism, Libertarianism, Greens, Constitutionists etc etc are all fluid representations of factionalism.  They will always change and or evolve or devolve according the moment or the decade or whatever.  That's all well and good as long as we adhere to the framework of that magnificent document.  We've not done that.  And probably won't.

[gunsmith]

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

I had Trotskyite friends who insisted the same thing about Communism, something about how the Soviet Union settled for "Communism in one country" not for global revolution. According to them this is why the Soviet Union failed.

I still hear the old adage now and then "Communism looks great on paper"

It's not "conservatism" that's failing, it's the legacy of values left to us by the Founding Fathers, who were conservative in some ways, radical in others.  They were about the rights of the Individual, Reason, and Liberty; today's world is about a new kind of tribal socialism married to consumerism.

We are increasingly outnumbered.

Wow, longeyes, that sounds so damm accurate it is scary.

Now that you mention it "Tribal Socialist" seem to be everywhere.
it takes a village?
All the cool kids have tribal tattoos and vote For O, here in Reno and CA
The burningman tribe is huge.
If you don't fit in the tribe you can get in serious trouble, (this one applies even here or thr)
Damm, longeyes, that was a good one, we generally don't know what our tribal leaders are doing and we listen to the witchdoctors.
I am getting seriously more depressed every day.

[MechAg94]

I had Trotskyite friends who insisted the same thing about Communism, something about how the Soviet Union settled for "Communism in one country" not for global revolution. According to them this is why the Soviet Union failed.

Wow!  That logic is so bad it makes my head hurt.  So it wouldn't have failed if there was no other more successful system to compare it with.  That is like saying I would have passed the test if the passing grade was 40 and not 70.

[gunsmith]

Wow!  That logic is so bad it makes my head hurt.  So it wouldn't have failed if there was no other more successful system to compare it with.  That is like saying I would have passed the test if the passing grade was 40 and not 70.

I would tell them that but they're all
mad at me over my debunking med/mj