Post by: Paddy on March 24, 2008, 07:37:39 AM
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.
Post by: mtnbkr on March 24, 2008, 07:42:13 AM
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
Post by: Finch on March 24, 2008, 08:03:04 AM
Ronald Reagan was an excellent example of Conservative values, was he not?
No. Not horrible like Bush or McCain, but he was no Paine.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 24, 2008, 08:17:25 AM
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.
Post by: longeyes on March 24, 2008, 08:20:15 AM
Post by: Paddy on March 24, 2008, 08:25:06 AM
Quote
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.
Post by: MechAg94 on March 24, 2008, 08:36:09 AM
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.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 24, 2008, 09:07:08 AM
Quote
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.
Post by: K Frame on March 24, 2008, 09:11:26 AM
Eventually someone will come along and swing things in a new direction.
Statis is, in many ways, FAR worse than change.
Post by: Paddy on March 24, 2008, 10:12:19 AM
Quote
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?
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 24, 2008, 10:22:03 AM
Quote
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?
Post by: BrokenPaw on March 24, 2008, 10:22:54 AM
Quote
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
Post by: Paddy on March 24, 2008, 10:35:15 AM
Quote
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.
Quote
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?Quote
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.
Quote
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?
Post by: K Frame on March 24, 2008, 10:48:54 AM
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.
Post by: Paddy on March 24, 2008, 11:05:28 AM
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?
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 24, 2008, 11:06:11 AM
Quote
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.
Quote
Quote
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.
Quote
Quote
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. Post by: K Frame on March 24, 2008, 11:22:29 AM
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.
Post by: grampster on March 24, 2008, 11:49:45 AM
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.
Post by: K Frame on March 24, 2008, 11:54:49 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on March 24, 2008, 01:45:07 PM
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.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 24, 2008, 02:03:51 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: thebaldguy on March 24, 2008, 02:05:20 PM
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.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 24, 2008, 02:14:05 PM
Quote
Conservatism is failing because many of today's so called conservatives are really right wing authoritarians.
What a pant-load.
Post by: grampster on March 24, 2008, 02:39:15 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 24, 2008, 02:40:22 PM
Post by: Bogie on March 24, 2008, 03:03:39 PM
For instance, I don't care what someone does about birth control, I don't care what they do in the privacy of their own bedroom as long as it doesn't hurt children or animals, I'm not for the death penalty (but I am for Really Really Hellish Desert Prisons), I'm not concerned about the damage to the desert habitat, I think they should legalize any recreational substance anyone wants, as long as they do no harm to other people (in which case there's that desert thing...), etc., etc... I think that some social financial programs do have a place, but I think those places oughta get looked at occasionally, and if the pantry's full of junk food and there's a big screen, bye-bye check... Do it twice, well, there's a chance to get real friendly with Mr. Gila Monster, who is real pissed about that habitat thing...
Pretty much the ONLY thing holding me toward the "conservative" side is gun control.
I don't want to go to a gun show, and have some genius telling me at the door that the only way I can be "saved" (using several syllables to do so...) is via his own particular brand of twaddle, and no other. I shoot snakes - I don't dance around with 'em.
There are LOTS of right-leaning folks... Problem is, we lean to far, and we get completely disgusted.
If the Republicans up and said "Hey, we're gonna leave this abortion thing alone - people can work it out in their own consciences" and "who you wanna have for a life partner is between you and them, not you and the state," they'd likely gain a good 20-25% right there. And the anti-abortion activists, etc., would go vote for someone with the same chances as Ron Paul, who would have about the same numbers.
Post by: thebaldguy on March 24, 2008, 03:08:58 PM
The term "Conservative" used to mean conserving government. It has been twisted over the years to mean someone in the Moral Majority or religious right, someone who wants more laws made controlling our behavior, choices, and freedoms. I once heard a self proclaimed "Conservative" state we have too many freedoms in the US. He didn't know how wrong he was.
People are looking to the government for help instead of helping themselves. I work in the financial industry, and I have many co-workers who are spending themselves into debt and not taking advantage of the company's 401k plan. When I asked them about how they are saving for retirement, they respond with something along the lines of "The government can't let us all starve". These are the same people who want the government to help people keep their homes from forclosure that they couldn't afford in the first place.
This is exactly why convervatism is failing; because people are getting used to the idea that government can solve all problems, and will always be there to take care of us.
Like Homer Simpson once said, "Can't someone else do it?"
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 24, 2008, 03:21:56 PM
Post by: Bogie on March 24, 2008, 03:34:28 PM
Okay... Musta offended -someone- just got an "unavailable" call playing some sort of disco... Twice.
Post by: charby on March 24, 2008, 03:59:45 PM
I agree in almost everything Bogie wrote, except there has to be rattlesnakes included with gila monsters as prison pets.
Post by: Paddy on March 24, 2008, 05:00:26 PM
Ronald Reagan was an excellent example of Conservative values, was he not?
No. Not horrible like Bush or McCain, but he was no Paine.
Interesting you would say that. Thos Paine was an advocate of free public education and a guaranteed minimum wage among other socially progressive ideas.
Post by: Bogie on March 24, 2008, 05:45:40 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on March 24, 2008, 06:36:34 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 24, 2008, 07:44:00 PM
Quote
The term "Conservative" used to mean conserving government. It has been twisted over the years to mean someone in the Moral Majority or religious right.
No, not really. The term "conservative" has a much broader meaning today than just the Religious Right. Think of all the figures that most people think of as conservatives, and you'll find plenty of them that don't fit the Religious Right template. Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Bush I and II, the late Buckley, a whole host of columnists and pundits. And Reagan was no altar boy. Look at the vitriol that Goldwater had for the Religious Right, and he's still held up as a model by secular and religious conservatives.
If you don't think religious conservatives are interested in small government, then you don't understand them at all. An interest in "social issues" doesn't stop a person from being very interested in gun rights, or low taxes, or any of the other planks in the conservative platform. Many of them are. Just as Libertarians have differences of opinion on abortion or gun laws, conservatives can have differences of opinion on issues, and still have most of the platform in common.
Has the Republican Party been influenced by conservative religious groups? Definitely. But I suspect those religious groups have come around to small-government conservatism, to the same degree they've influenced the secular conservatives.
Quote
someone who wants more laws made controlling our behavior, choices, and freedoms.
That's what laws do.
Post by: Paddy on March 24, 2008, 08:08:32 PM
Post by: Archie on March 24, 2008, 08:19:43 PM
As mentioned, most people want their back scratched in some fashion without any cost to them. One of the hidden costs of 'fewer laws and regulations' is the need for serious moral fiber. John Adams said,
Quote
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.
andQuote
Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.
The problem is, as a nation we have confused liberty with license.
Post by: LAK on March 25, 2008, 02:41:57 AM
-------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: MechAg94 on March 25, 2008, 05:21:29 AM
Sorry, fistful, but religion has no business in political activism.
These days, if you go that route, then the same goes for atheistic views, agnostic views and any other anti-religious views.
Sort of hard to separate all that out isn't it. Might be better to just let other voters make their own choices as long as they are not trying to make you follow their religion.
Post by: Bruce H on March 25, 2008, 04:30:31 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on March 25, 2008, 05:04:06 PM
Which piece of your definition of conservatism did he fall short?
Post by: Bruce H on March 25, 2008, 07:03:15 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 25, 2008, 07:22:07 PM
Sorry, fistful, but religion has no business in political activism.
Where did I say that religion has a place in political activism? What would that even mean? Or is that just your knee-jerk, meaningless response to anything I say about the RR?
Post by: LAK on March 26, 2008, 03:18:35 AM
---------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://sunitedstates.org
Post by: gaston_45 on March 26, 2008, 07:53:06 AM
Ronald Reagan was an excellent example of Conservative values, was he not?
You mean the Ronald Reagan that instituted gun control in California?
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 26, 2008, 08:40:58 AM
There were also a series of more anarchic riots that took the intervention of NG troops to put down.
20/20 hindsight reveals the perceived threat to be overblown, but objectively and limited to the knowledge those leaders had at the time it wasn't too out of bounds to consider the situation as almost requiring "martial law"-type restrictions.
He wasn't just throwing up gun restrictions in a vacuum. You can disagree with the reasoning or the decision, but it is overly simplistic to simply state "Gov. Reagan was for gun control" with the implicit "to disarm the law-abiding" attached.
Context, as always, is key.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 27, 2008, 08:30:12 AM
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.
Post by: MechAg94 on March 27, 2008, 08:55:04 AM
I do agree that many of the original "conservative" principals of recent times have been left behind by the people in D.C.
Post by: grampster on March 27, 2008, 09:13:29 AM
It's easy to be a bit cynical when the liberals only keep proposing the same old statist, big government, tax and spend garbage. Progressives haven't had an actual progressive original idea that didn't try and stultify individual effort and many of the freedoms we enjoy through government control and redistribution of wealth. They don't even have the courtesy to call themselves what they really are:Socialists at the best and Marxists at the worst.
Post by: MechAg94 on March 27, 2008, 10:12:54 AM
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.
Interesting that Limbaugh is the only one of that group I listen to occasionally. Medved you didn't list. Medved is more thought than most, but he is not real critical.You need to listen to Walton and Johnson in the morning at 950 AM in Houston. Look up the web page.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 27, 2008, 10:42:47 AM
Post by: roo_ster on March 27, 2008, 11:36:58 AM
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.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 27, 2008, 12:58:51 PM
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.
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.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 27, 2008, 02:24:25 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: Iain on March 27, 2008, 03:04:37 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 27, 2008, 05:42:34 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 27, 2008, 06:18:47 PM
Quote
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?
Post by: grampster on March 27, 2008, 06:46:16 PM
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.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 27, 2008, 07:17:13 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 28, 2008, 02:33:38 AM
Quote
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.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 28, 2008, 05:37:30 AM
Quote
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.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 28, 2008, 05:38:56 AM
Quote
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!"
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 28, 2008, 12:27:52 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: longeyes on March 29, 2008, 12:25:08 AM
Quote
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.
Post by: Dannyboy on March 29, 2008, 03:47:07 AM
Post by: roo_ster on March 29, 2008, 05:02:22 PM
"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.
Post by: longeyes on April 02, 2008, 09:22:55 AM
We are increasingly outnumbered.
Post by: zahc on April 02, 2008, 11:09:30 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on April 02, 2008, 12:48:33 PM
Quote
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.
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.
Post by: longeyes on April 02, 2008, 02:28:23 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: grampster on April 02, 2008, 05:35:11 PM
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.
Post by: gunsmith on April 03, 2008, 01:24:53 AM
Quote
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"
Quote
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.We are increasingly outnumbered.
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.
Post by: MechAg94 on April 03, 2008, 10:46:02 AM
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.
Post by: gunsmith on April 03, 2008, 02:17:22 PM
Quote
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