The next Obama

[CAnnoneer]

Ayup.  "Conservatism" regarding social and economic interaction is a mere acknowledgment of reality and the "liberal" position an exercise in shifting who bears the consequences of actions taken.

How exactly does conservatism acknowledge reality? I'd say the opposite is true. Let's look at some issues:

1) Military

Conservatives tend to be hawkish. They want a strong military. They want "nobody to mess with us". Some of them believe policing the world is a necessity and/or a duty. Reality: the country is broke. We cannot even afford maintaining what we have, let alone fight wars across the globe, nation-build, prop up various regimes, etc.

2) Gay marriage

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Everything else is unnatural. We decide what is natural and what is not. Reality: people don't give a *expletive deleted*it about your definitions or your bible or your ideas. They want to live their lives in peace and not be treated like trash or like second-class people. They believe they are equally worthy to partake in the joys and responsibilities of marriage even if they have sex very differently than you do.

3) Fiscal policies

Trickle-down economy works. Let's cut the taxes on the rich, so they spend more and invest more. And that will create jobs. Reality: how much the rich spend or invest will not be affected by even a few percent more or less in taxes. They have numerous loopholes and tricks to run circles around the system, while the middle class is denied upward mobility due to excessive taxation.

4) Religion

This is a Christian nation. The founders were Christian. We have Christian values. Reality: most people are secularists, agnostics, non-practicing this or that. We once were but we certainly are not a Christian nation. Not spiritually, not religiously, not ideologically.

Conservatism is increasingly a shrinking club of the elderly and the 40+ white male heterosexual. Both are endangered species.

[Monkeyleg]

CAnnoneer, everything you said has been said in the past, and then events prove what was said to be wrong.

[CAnnoneer]

CAnnoneer, everything you said has been said in the past, and then events prove what was said to be wrong.

Can you be more specific?

[Monkeyleg]

Not at this time of night (or morning).

[MillCreek]

I am a 40+ white male Christian heterosexual with three grad degrees, and I pretty much agree with Cannoneer's last few posts.  A few niggles here and there, but certainly with the sentiment.

[Perd Hapley]

A basic form of freedom is freedom of association. Marriage is a form of association. Opposing gay marriage is denying gays that form of association.

False.

Reality: Freedom of association has never meant that government must officially recognize one's association. Homosexuals are perfectly free to associate by having their fake weddings, and living together in fake marriages, without government recognition. Their sexual and domestic affairs are their own private concern, and does not concern you, me, or the courthouse.

[Perd Hapley]

I am a 40+ white male Christian heterosexual with three grad degrees, and I pretty much agree with Cannoneer's last few posts.  A few niggles here and there, but certainly with the sentiment.

If you only spot a "few niggles," then you need more degrees, prof.

[roo_ster]

Ayup.  "Conservatism" regarding social and economic interaction is a mere acknowledgment of reality and the "liberal" position an exercise in shifting who bears the consequences of actions taken.

How exactly does conservatism acknowledge reality?

Social interaction:

The general conservative position is to keep your pants on until you can manage the responsibility of the very obvious and predictable results of doing otherwise.

The liberal position is horrified at the thought that folks ought to discipline themselves and be responsible for their own actions.  Therefore, they shift the consequences of sexual incontinence on to the taxpayers via welfare programs or inflict it directly on the child by killing it.

The combination of subsidy and consequence-shifting ensure more and more irresponsibility.


Economic interaction:

The tale is as old as the ant and the grasshopper.  Go read it if you never have or have forgotten.

[MillCreek]

If you only spot a "few niggles," then you need more degrees, prof.

Yes, yes, we should all let our social and political beliefs be guided by the One True Way instead.  Remind me again, is that One True Way the far right Republican party or the conservative Christian churches?   Hard to tell the difference, sometimes.

[MillCreek]

False.

Reality: Freedom of association has never meant that government must officially recognize one's association. Homosexuals Heterosexuals are perfectly free to associate by having their fake weddings, and living together in fake marriages, without government recognition. Their sexual and domestic affairs are their own private concern, and does not concern you, me, or the courthouse.

I would think that a true libertarian would equally endorse this statement.

[Perd Hapley]

Yes, yes, we should all let our social and political beliefs be guided by the One True Way instead.  Remind me again, is that One True Way the far right Republican party or the conservative Christian churches?   Hard to tell the difference, sometimes.

Yawn.

I would think that a true libertarian would equally endorse this statement.

Then the true libertarian has gone soft in the head, solving problems that don't exist.

[MillCreek]

Fistful, let me ask you this: in your view, can someone support gay marriage and still be a good Christian?

[TommyGunn]

Conservatives talk about how great America is, but many of them are for stopping immigration, and are fearful and dismissive of minorities. "America is great, but let's keep it to ourselves. You out there stay in your toilets and die. We are for freedom of labor and freedom of association, but not when it is our living standards on the line." That is inconsistent, some might say hypocritical and self-serving. Others perceive it as racist, likely falsely so.

Instead of spinning impossible tales about self-deportation, how about incorporating the illegals in society, so they get out of the shadows, make more money, pay taxes, and stop being second-class people preyed upon by both consumer and employer? The crushing majority are honest but desperate people wanting to pursue the American dream. What is so wrong with that? Let them legalize, let them do well for themselves. That is the only way to free them from the yoke of Democrats and racist demagogues.

Conservatives are for "stopping immigration?"
WRONG.
We're against ILLEGAL immigration.
How do you "incorporate" illegals into society?  And -- dare I be so bold as to put forward another case -- if Mexicans can break the law, then why can't I?  14th amendment, you know. 
Yeah I know, that's crazy.
But hey, so much is that these days.
As far as self deportation is concerned, that may be a political loser if you're running for office, but it is real.
During the recent recession (which I argue we're really still in) many illegals ..."self deported" back to Mexico because jobs dried up and they thought their opportunities in their homeland would be better.
Also, stpped up deportation efforts have seemed to encourage some illegals to skadaddle.

The world of mirrors is a trick of sly Democrat demagogues. They bait you to take a stand on every issue, so you can piss off as many people as possible. That way, they make a coalition of "Not You", and win consistently. Wouldn't it be smarter to focus on one or two fundamental issues and simply agree to disagree on the others?

If people are asked, "Do you believe in personal freedoms and independence from a corrupt inefficient tyrannical bureaucracy?", how many will say "no"? Accomplish this, then deal with the rest later. Otherwise, you get tricked over and over to work yourself up into a corner and lose consistently while believing in one's own moral superiority.

The Republican party is dead. There are disjoint groups with incompatible agendas that occupy its corpse and try to define themselves inside it, while the leadership is stupid, senile, and completely out of touch with reality. The sooner the corpse dissolves, the better for everybody. Libertarianism will only get stronger as a result, and the Democrats will not have their Boogie man any more to scare people with into voting for them.

The republican party may have rethink its national agenda and how to present itself and to sell itself to many people but it's not dead.
Three fifths of the states have republican governors and we retain control of the House of Rep.   About 350,000 votes in contested states is how Obama won a second term.  That's 0.12% of the population.
As for "disjointed groups" the democrats have them too, the leadership is just better at keeping them covert and maintaining a smear of coherency.  BUT, that works at the voting booth.
Conservatism will come back because it works.  Liberalism/progressive will fail because it will run out of money.  Either that or it will run out of credit and the lenders will stop lending as they either grow distrustful of us or run out of their own money.
Libertarianism will fail too, if it keeps trying to use the platform of "WE NEED TO LEGAALIZE DRUGS" to keep running on.  The argument might have merit but Americans tend to reject it.  Drug use is largely seen as entertainment for the failure class and it's like trying to sell a turd to someone who wants to buy a diamond.

[Monkeyleg]

CAnnonneer, you make blanket arguments that require research to refute. The burden should be on you (and others) to cite sources when saying that "the people want this" or similar statements. It's the same reason that DeSelby gets on my nerves.

Depending upon which poll you read, gay marriage is opposed by about 55% to 36% (source: University Polling Institute). Most "disinterested" polls show more opposition than support.

About three-quarters of Americans describe themselves as Christians (Pew Research).

Neo-con's favor military intervention, while traditional conservatives tend to be more isolationist (go read some books).

I'm still trying to find a neutral source for the effect on tax cuts on investment (although I recall articles from the past). The first 100 pages of Google results for searches on "tax cut effect on investments" and other phrases returns articles biased from both sides. I'll get back to you.

[Perd Hapley]

Fistful, let me ask you this: in your view, can someone support gay marriage and still be a good Christian?

What is the point of the question? What are you trying to learn from it?


"Gay marriage," as a political issue, has little connection to any specific religion. Politically, you should oppose the govt. recognition of homosexual "marriage" because it represents the triumph of a small group of ideologues (leftists, not homosexuals) to take an absurd idea and guilt people into giving it the force of law. Concurrently, those who don't drop the age-old, ordinary view are cast as hate-mongers and bigots, simply because they won't support the new weirdness with their votes.

It is, in short, a text-book case of a nation emoting when it should be thinking. The same recipe that elected Obama twice, and also believed against all evidence that a milquetoast, family-values politician actually believed some rapes are "legitimate."

[TommyGunn]

How exactly does conservatism acknowledge reality? I'd say the opposite is true. Let's look at some issues:

1) Military

Conservatives tend to be hawkish. They want a strong military. They want "nobody to mess with us". Some of them believe policing the world is a necessity and/or a duty. Reality: the country is broke. We cannot even afford maintaining what we have, let alone fight wars across the globe, nation-build, prop up various regimes, etc.

The military is not the biggest slice of the fiscal pie, traditionally it's been pretty small.  Our big economic problem is entitlements.
In so far as policing the world and wanting "nobody to mess with us" is concerned, yes, as the Romans used to say, "Si vis Pacum, Parabellum," ~~ "If you wish to see peace, prepare for war."  
As far as "policing the world" is concerned it is my unfortunate conclusion that we live in a world that is governed by the aggressive use of force.  It abhors a power vacuum.  Maintaining a strong military vigilance may be a pain in the wallet, and I agree it does present a certain hubris which is not particularly pleasant, but if we stop then another power will simply take over.
Are we prepared for that power to be Russia -- which is rebuilding its military?  Or perhaps China -- which is building its military and navy?
We could defeat them fairly easily today but should current trends continue, in 20 or 30 years it will not be anywhere near as easy.
And, trust me, China will br throwing its weight around.  Not necessarily through outright warfare; it won't have to.

2) Gay marriage

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Everything else is unnatural. We decide what is natural and what is not. Reality: people don't give a *expletive deleted* about your definitions or your bible or your ideas. They want to live their lives in peace and not be treated like trash or like second-class people. They believe they are equally worthy to partake in the joys and responsibilities of marriage even if they have sex very differently than you do.

Maybe....maybe not.  Traditional marriage has always been the backbone of society as it allowed for reproduction and rearing of children in a generally safe and protected way.  The biggest argument in favor of gay relationships I see is that there simply aren't enough gays to disrupt the "natural order of things."  
That is not to say it couldn't happen.  
Both Greece and Rome developed a profound lack of respect for traditional relationships (or lacked such respect from the onset if some historians are correct) and history records what happened to those cultures.  However, homosexuality was more of a "symptom" of a far more serious disease in both those cultures.  It was also more widely practiced then than it is today.

3) Fiscal policies

Trickle-down economy works. Let's cut the taxes on the rich, so they spend more and invest more. And that will create jobs. Reality: how much the rich spend or invest will not be affected by even a few percent more or less in taxes. They have numerous loopholes and tricks to run circles around the system, while the middle class is denied upward mobility due to excessive taxation.

In reality only about the top half of income earners pay an income tax.  The higher the income the more is paid in taxes.
The top one per cent of income earners pay @ 39.89% tax revenues received by the govt.
The top five per cent pays  @60.14%
The top ten per cent pays  @70.79%
The top twenty five per cent pay 86.27% and the top half pay 97.01% of the tax revenues
(National Taxpayers Union & National taxpayers Union Foundation provide the stats)

The very rich can "always afford" a few higher percentage points added on their tax bills for very little gain by the government.  Keep in mind that the top 1% of income starts at  a yearly salary of $388,806.00 yearly.
That's three hundred thousand -- NOT million -- dollars there.  Just sayin.'
What is very likely to happen is government will be hitting small business owners with a whopping new burden of taxes and regulations.  It's already beginning; have you kept your eyes open?  Already there are people being laid off.
Obamacare is going to hurt as well, as restaurants fire some employees and then move others down to part-time status in order to avoid the ramifications of St. Obama's wonderful new healthcare law, now firmly ensconced into American jurisprudence due to Justice Roberts' shenanigans and Obama's reelection.
The idea that taxing the very rich affects no one else is also a myth.  During the 1990s a "luxury tax" was instituted on luxury items only "rich" people could afford -- like yachts.  That tax nearly destroyed America's yachting industry as the malevelant rich people stopped buying yachts and began refurbishing the old yachts they already owned.  The tax was quickly abandoned afterwards.
"Trickle-down" economics may be an old saw by now, but if you believe it doesn't work, I invite you to resign your present position and then go find a poor person and ask him to hire you.  Even contemplating this excercise illustrates why "trickle down" works.  It's the natural order of things.  I've worked for a number of employers over the years and never, ever, for one worth less than me.  Don't like that?  Tough.

4) Religion

This is a Christian nation. The founders were Christian. We have Christian values. Reality: most people are secularists, agnostics, non-practicing this or that. We once were but we certainly are not a Christian nation. Not spiritually, not religiously, not ideologically.

Conservatism is increasingly a shrinking club of the elderly and the 40+ white male heterosexual. Both are endangered species.

MOST people are still believers.  Secularism has caught on in the popular culture and is making inroads which will only be tolerable so long as it does not become overbearing.
Conservatism will eventually rebound even as it has taken a hit this cycle, because we won't be able to continue the spending spree we are currently on.  The liberal spending spree will either destroy the nation, which will then be recoverable only through incredibly harsh CONSERVATIVE measures, or we'll grow the wisdom to put the system we have now in check and do it gradually, smartly and with a minimum of pain.  Unfortunatly I have next to no hope this later will happen.

[Perd Hapley]

How exactly does conservatism acknowledge reality? I'd say the opposite is true. Let's look at some issues:

1) Military

Conservatives tend to be hawkish. They want a strong military. They want "nobody to mess with us". Some of them believe policing the world is a necessity and/or a duty.

So conservatives want:
a) a hawkish foreign policy - meh, possibly true. But "hawkish" is such a subjective term that it doesn't tell us much.
b) a strong military, and nobody to mess with us - Of course. Is that bad? Should we favor a weak military?
c) America to be the world's policeman - Reality: that has never been a distinctive of conservatism. "Globocop" has never been a policy position of either party; just a pejorative term that some people (of either party) use against other people (of either party), when they disagree on specific foreign policy issues.

Reality: the country is broke. We cannot even afford maintaining what we have, let alone fight wars across the globe, nation-build, prop up various regimes, etc.

Yeah, I'll go tell all of my conservative friends, because they all think the country is flush with cash. 

2) Gay marriage

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Everything else is unnatural. We decide what is natural and what is not. Reality: people don't give a *expletive deleted* about your definitions or your bible or your ideas. They want to live their lives in peace and not be treated like trash or like second-class people. They believe they are equally worthy to partake in the joys and responsibilities of marriage even if they have sex very differently than you do.

"We decide what is natural and what is not."  Yeah, you've really got us pegged. Hint: When someone tells you that something is "unnatural," they are obviously telling you that it can NOT be decided by anyone.

"They believe they are equally worthy to partake in the joys and responsibilities of marriage even if they have sex very differently than you do." They also believe they are worthy to live off of your tax money. People tend to have stupid ideas, but what's your point?

3) Fiscal policies

Trickle-down economy works. Let's cut the taxes on the rich, so they spend more and invest more. And that will create jobs. Reality: how much the rich spend or invest will not be affected by even a few percent more or less in taxes. They have numerous loopholes and tricks to run circles around the system, while the middle class is denied upward mobility due to excessive taxation.

Reality: Excessive taxation, on any class of people, has never been a distinctive of conservatism. Quite the opposite, in fact. So why bring it up?

Reality: "Trickle-down" is another pejorative term; not something anyone actually claims to believe in.

Reality: If the wealthy aren't going to pay any of those high taxes, there is no reason to increase their tax rates. (And wasn't Romney promising to junk a lot of those exemptions, anyway?  )

Reality: "Taking advantage of a loophole" is another way of saying "following the law."

4) Religion

This is a Christian nation. The founders were Christian. We have Christian values.

Reality: Other than the middle statement (which is partially true), that bears no relation to the actual views of conservatives.

[CAnnoneer]

False.

Reality: Freedom of association has never meant that government must officially recognize one's association. Homosexuals are perfectly free to associate by having their fake weddings, and living together in fake marriages, without government recognition. Their sexual and domestic affairs are their own private concern, and does not concern you, me, or the courthouse.

So, your marriage is "true" but theirs is "fake". Yours should be recognized by government, but theirs should not. You are better than them. Yeah, that is a very equitable, fair, and even-handed position. Good luck with that.

[Perd Hapley]

So, your marriage is "true" but theirs is "fake". Yours should be recognized by government, but theirs should not. You are better than them. Yeah, that is a very equitable, fair, and even-handed position. Good luck with that.

Better? I never said anything about better.

But, yes, it is fair. By marrying someone of the opposite sex, I am actually practicing marriage. People who don't want to be married (people who prefer to commit themselves to someone of the same sex) are doing their best to be unmarried. Government should recognize things that are, well, recognizably marriage-ish.

[Monkeyleg]

The idea that taxing the very rich affects no one else is also a myth.  During the 1990s a "luxury tax" was instituted on luxury items only "rich" people could afford -- like yachts.  That tax nearly destroyed America's yachting industry as the malevelant rich people stopped buying yachts and began refurbishing the old yachts they already owned.  The tax was quickly abandoned afterwards.

The "trickle down" effect of that tax extended beyond the yachting industry to support industries. I remember it well, as yacht manufacturers cut their ad budgets. Ad agencies lost revenue and I did, too, as the yacht accounts I had didn't do as much photography.

If you want less of something, you make it more expensive. If you want fewer rich people, make it more expensive to be rich.

[Strings]

Tax the rich to feed the poor, until there are no rich no more!

[CAnnoneer]

Then the true libertarian has gone soft in the head, solving problems that don't exist.

How does the problem not exist? The gays exist and their grievances for equality and freedom exist. Dislike them if you will, but saying they don't exist is silly.

[CAnnoneer]

Conservatives are for "stopping immigration?"

NumbersUSA and similar organizations are very prominent in the argument. They flat out say they don't want more immigration, and not just illegal. They strike me as pretty conservative. They keep lobbing for stopping the importation of skilled labor, because native computer programmers cannot find jobs, for example.

How do you "incorporate" illegals into society?  And -- dare I be so bold as to put forward another case -- if Mexicans can break the law, then why can't I?  14th amendment, you know. 

Yes, incorporate them. Welcome them. Treat them as equals. Legalize them in exchange for them following the laws of the country, paying taxes, doing jury duty, etc. Like everybody else. Why is this hard to understand?

They went from hell through hell to come to America. I bet most believe in America more strongly than many natives.

During the recent recession (which I argue we're really still in) many illegals ..."self deported" back to Mexico because jobs dried up and they thought their opportunities in their homeland would be better.
Also, stpped up deportation efforts have seemed to encourage some illegals to skadaddle.

If some self-deport, that is fine. But when you get up and say that you will apply pressure for them to leave, what hispanics hear is something very different.

[Perd Hapley]

How does the problem not exist? The gays exist and their grievances for equality and freedom exist. Dislike them if you will, but saying they don't exist is silly.

Their "grievance" is not. They are free. They can start being equal anytime they wish.

[CAnnoneer]

The republican party may have rethink its national agenda and how to present itself and to sell itself to many people but it's not dead.

Reps lost not because of how they present themselves but because of who they are and what they believe in. That is another thing that absolutely stunning to me - all the talk in the media about how they have to "bribe" and "woo". Translation to me: We still think what we think, we keep our outdated attitudes, but we well buy and dupe people into voting for us. Except nobody is fooled anymore. That is why I talked about a profound soul-searching and redefinition of priorities and goals towards more freedom and less pettiness.

Three fifths of the states have republican governors and we retain control of the House of Rep.   About 350,000 votes in contested states is how Obama won a second term.  That's 0.12% of the population.

That is not going to last. It is only the beginning of a widening gap. If Reps remain the same, they will consistently lose and increasingly badly so from now on. This year was the watershed. It is downhill from now, all the way to marginalization and irrelevance.

As for "disjointed groups" the democrats have them too, the leadership is just better at keeping them covert and maintaining a smear of coherency.  BUT, that works at the voting booth.

They do have their problems, but demographic changes work for further solidification for them, not disintegration. When the crazies die off like Biden and Kucinich (sp?), you see the new guard emerging the likes of Obambie. They will not fall apart. And they are shifting attention from gays and gun control to fiscal and ethnic issues. They are far smarter and more dangerous than you give them credit.

Conservatism will come back because it works.  Liberalism/progressive will fail because it will run out of money.  Either that or it will run out of credit and the lenders will stop lending as they either grow distrustful of us or run out of their own money.

Conservatism can only come back in prosperity. No poor country is conservative. If things start falling apart, I predict Venezuela, not Switzerland. Liberals can never run out of money. They simply blame it on others or take it from others.