55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2008 09:20 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Conservatism as a ideology is first and foremost rational. It resists making decisions on feelings/emotion ...


Might be. Thanks God, our Conservatives are at least more coined by Christianity than your idols.


What idols would that be, Walter? You're starting off rather petulant this morning.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2008 10:21 am
@Foxfyre,
Looking at the website of our German conservatives, the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU) is non-denominational Christian-based party, applying the principles of Christian Democracy and serving to "unite Catholics and Protestants, Conservatives and Liberals, proponents of Christian social ideals, and men and women from various regions, social classes, and democratic traditions".

One of their principles certainly is social justice.
The conservatives, Erhard mainly, 'invented' what is the main economic model in Europe: the Soziale Marktwirtschaft (social market economy).
Their Nationalist-conservative thinking is based on Christian faith, emphasising a defense of traditional German culture and values.

Most other European conservative parties - all members of the "European People's Party (EPP)" and the "International Democrat Union (IDU)" share these ideologies.

The Conservative and Unionist Party (UK, aka Tories) is since a couple of years more and more tending to become a centrist parts (like Labour is already) - though there are still some traditionlist versus the larger part of 'modernisers' towards what is called a "social conservatism".
Christianity doesn't play such a role in party politics as elsewhere in Europe: the Church of England is the officially established Christian church in England
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 08:00 am
Conservatives discuss way forward...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 10:41 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Your post is interesting and informative, Walter, but it again illustrates that you can't use European definitions for 'conservative', 'liberal' etc. or their histories to define American Conservatism in 2008. Nor is the term 'Christian' useful in this context.

We have ultra-conservative Christians and ultra-liberal Christians and everything in between here. Various Christian denominations may trend more one way or the other. Mormons and a lot of Baptist groups, for instance, will most likely come down mostly on the conservative side while members of the United Christian Church (Barack Obama's denomination) will almost always come down pretty far left/liberal. Most of the more mainstream denominations will include a broadly mixed bag.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 11:06 am
Coulter's way forward...
Quote:
Indeed, the only good thing about McCain is that he gave us a genuine conservative, Sarah Palin. He's like one of those insects that lives just long enough to reproduce so that the species can survive. That's why a lot of us are referring to Sarah as "The One" these days.

Like Sarah Connor in "The Terminator," Sarah Palin is destined to give birth to a new movement. That's why the Democrats are trying to kill her. And Arnold Schwarzenegger is involved somehow, too. Good Lord, I'm tired.

After showing nearly superhuman restraint throughout this campaign, which was lost the night McCain won the California primary, I am now liberated to announce that all I care about is hunting down and punishing every Republican who voted for McCain in the primaries. I have a list and am prepared to produce the names of every person who told me he was voting for McCain to the proper authorities.
http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2008/11/05/the_reign_of_lame_falls_mainly_on_mccain?page=2
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 11:12 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Your post is interesting and informative, Walter, but it again illustrates that you can't use European definitions for 'conservative', 'liberal' etc. or their histories to define American Conservatism in 2008. Nor is the term 'Christian' useful in this context.


You asked me about that. And I know that 'liberals' in America follow a political line similar to our our conservatives while the conservatives would be far right to extreme right.

And most certainly I won't compare the various histories ... starting in 1690 in England (in Germany only around 1848/9, with the Social Democrats founded in 1863. [The first official "liberal" = 'libertarian' party in Germany was the Deutsche Fortschrittspartei (German Progress Party), founded in 1861.]

I'm not sure why Christian isn't useful in this context - many European conservative parties have the prefix 'Christian' : Christlich-demokratische Volkspartei CH (Christian-Democratic People's Party Switzerland), Krestanka a demokraticka unie CZ (Christian Democratic Union Czech.), Christlich Soziale Union CSU (Christian Social Union, Bavaria/Germany) [the CDU isn't present in Bavaria], Kristendemokraterne DK (Christian Democrats, Denmark), Christian Democratic People’s Party HU (Hungary), UDC - Unione dei Democratici Cristiani e dei Democratici di Centro IT (Italy), Homeland Union - Lithuanian Christian Democrats LT (Lithuania), Chrëschtlech Sozial Vollekspartei LU (Christian Social People's Party Luxembourg), Christian Democratic People's Party Moldova, ... ... ..., and even the Partito Democratico Cristiano Sammarinese SM (Christian Democratic Party of San Marino, San Marino).

Certainly we have here left and ring wings within all those parties as well - but generally, they are right of the center and even more to the right.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 10:17 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre, now that the election is over, I am interested in what you think in regard to what McCain did wrong, and perhaps more importantly, what about Sarah Palin, what is your impression now? I have my opinions, and I understand that Republicans and conservatives are all over the map in regard to Palin.

Just quickly, I think the country has turned leftward, but we lacked a coherent, consistent, and strong spokesmen or advocate for conservatism. I also understand more voters describe themselves as conservative than liberal, but it doesn't show at the ballot box. At the same time, a democracy that has experienced the prosperity that we have, it is understandable to drift towards apathy, and even discontent, and that is what we are seeing, I think, and we have an electorate that has learned it can vote more entitlements to themselves, which is not part of a conservative agenda, so are the voters accurately describing what they actually are, in terms of being conservative or liberal?

What are your thoughts?

Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 01:13 am
@okie,
I've some problems with what you understand, okie.

• since conservatism is represented in political parties more or less only by the Republican party and "lefter" ideology by the Democrats - how do you know that more voters are conservative than liberal?

• since the voter outcome on November 4 was larger than any other the last dozen years - how is that related to what you call 'apathy'?

• why are Republicans and conservatives "all over the map in regard to Palin"? Wasn't she the one chosen by McCain, a shining example of true modern American conservatism?
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 07:48 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
• since conservatism is represented in political parties more or less only by the Republican party and "lefter" ideology by the Democrats - how do you know that more voters are conservative than liberal?


walter
Here, okie refers to consistent polling results where, when americans are asked whether they identify themselves as 'conservative' or 'liberal', majorities go with 'conservative'.

Conservative movement people forward this as defintive but as you can see quite immediately, it really isn't. When deeper policy questions are asked, eg "Would you favor universal medical coverage?", majorities respond with a preference for the policy that would fall under the 'liberal' heading.

What is at work here is, in large part, the consequence of several decades of effective marketing designed to brand 'conservatism' in one way and 'liberal' in another way. So, the response Okie refers to is to that branding itself.

An illuminating illustration here was the PR campaign, begun really in the late seventies (it saw full fruition under W's 2000 campaign) to link 'conservatism' with 'compassion'. This was an attempt to rebrand conservatism, which had, particularly in the sixties, gained connotations of selfishness, uncaring, aristocratic, screw the underpriviledged, etc. Alongside that PR campaign to rebrand 'conservative' ran another campaign to rebrand 'liberal' and 'liberalism'.

These words become symbols and cliches. They are often not well reflected upon and begin to become quite useless by themselves. But I expect you knew most of that.

Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 09:40 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

These words become symbols and cliches. They are often not well reflected upon and begin to become quite useless by themselves. But I expect you knew most of that.


Thanks, blatham. And, indeed, I'd thought so.

And I know, Foxfyre likes to tell me that American conservatism 2008 is different, American conservatism per se, than any other. Due to history etc..

But I still think that this makes it difficul to discuss: everyone seems to have some -slightly- different clichés for her/his definition.

I admit that it's not easy to put a political into some short sentences.
But what just two parties representing to different (?) political ideas - I really thought it would be easier to follow .... for me.

(And I really wonder why U.S. conservatives don't form an own party ...)
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 10:09 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
But I still think that this makes it difficul to discuss: everyone seems to have some -slightly- different clichés for her/his definition.

I admit that it's not easy to put a political into some short sentences.
But what just two parties representing to different (?) political ideas - I really thought it would be easier to follow .... for me.


Walter
I think the fact of only two parties creates some of this problem you speak about. How can we possibly fit into one category (conservatism) the range of related ideas/philosophies we see across western nations, across time, or even across those in contemporary america who think of themselves as conservatives? The simplistic way out is to claim that one's own version is the correct version (of course, that isn't merely the simplistic way out, it is the authoritarian/extremist ideologue's way out too).

Similar mistakes can be made by 'liberals' too and we can see various versions of "liberalism must include X and cannot include Y...period!" But I think this particular failure (the failure to be resilient, open-minded or inclusive) falls mainly to any philosophy which seeks to ground itself in 'tradition'. Probably, liberalism's greater failures arise out of a knee-jerk rejection of that which has come before. There are clear correlations with generational conflict in all of this, of course. And class conflict.

Quote:
(And I really wonder why U.S. conservatives don't form an own party ...)

Philosophically, they ought to. Electorally, not very viable presently. In Canada, the left vote is divided across two parties and therefore Harper is the PM.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 10:16 am
@blatham,
There is an American Conservative Party. Foxfyre even found it's website. She doesn't care to support it though. Conservatism comes in second to voting pragmatically with her. It's kind of hard to take her serious about this magical perfect system that she won't even support.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 11:45 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

I've some problems with what you understand, okie.

• since conservatism is represented in political parties more or less only by the Republican party and "lefter" ideology by the Democrats - how do you know that more voters are conservative than liberal?

I heard that exit polling indicated that, in terms of how voters identified themselves. This does not verify that they are conservative or liberal, but simply what they think they are, as indicated by exit polling.

Quote:

• since the voter outcome on November 4 was larger than any other the last dozen years - how is that related to what you call 'apathy'?

Good question, but I base my opinion on more than voter turnout, I base it upon the fact that very few people here know very much about what politicians are actually doing, or even who their congressmen are for example. Not many people are interested in day to day politics, even if they do vote.

Quote:
• why are Republicans and conservatives "all over the map in regard to Palin"? Wasn't she the one chosen by McCain, a shining example of true modern American conservatism?

Well, to begin with, Palin was a virtual unknown, so every Republican or conservative has a learning curve, and secondly, Republicans and conservatives think independently, they do not think like groupees do, and follow the party line. This is a think a key reason why Republicans are less unified, less able to pass legislation, because we tend to be more individualistic, we have our own ideas, less influenced by the masses. For example, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are examples of being very in the tank for Palin, while I have never been very enthusiastic about her being picked for vp, and I remain unconvinced that she will ever be a credible politician on the national stage. Conservatism does have some aspects of libertarianism, we want to be able to mind our own business, and be independent, but we believe in personal responsibility, so we do not believe government solutions are commonly the right solutions, so we therefore would not need to band together and make sweeping legislative changes. We can do it when necessary, but legislating and ruling is not in our genes. We are not as power hungry as Democrats.

I hope those explanations clear it up for you.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 12:08 pm
@okie,
Quote:
This is a think a key reason why Republicans are less unified, less able to pass legislation, because we tend to be more individualistic, we have our own ideas, less influenced by the masses.


That flies in the face of legislative history for the last decade.
I would have to do some checking but everything I have read says the GOP is much more likely to keep their caucus in line when it comes to voting than democrats are.

I checked and it seems since the 105th congress, the GOP has been the party more likely to vote with their party in all but 3 of the 12 congressional house/senate bodies.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/105/house/party-voters/
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 12:10 pm
@parados,
You can thank Tom Delay for that - he controlled the purse, to such a degree, and was quick to punish those that didn't toe the line.

Cycloptichorn
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 12:20 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Yes, but in 5 of the last 7 Senates, the GOP members were more likely to vote with their party than the Dems were. So Delay alone doesn't explain it.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 12:48 pm
We're hoping, though not deluded enough to hope very much, that people such as these will find themselves once again relegated to the powerless periphery of a sane Republican party.

Focus on the Family fundraising letter:

Quote:
Dear Friend,

The spirit of Winston Churchill was alive and well on Tuesday night at Focus on the Family Action headquarters.

You may recall that in the most desperate days of World War II " when Great Britain was being pounded daily by Hitler’s Luftwaffe " that Winston Churchill called on his countrymen not to despair from danger but to rise to the challenge.

“Do not speak of darker days,” he said. “Let us speak rather of sterner days. These are not dark days; these are great days " the greatest days our country has ever lived; and we shall all thank God that we have been allowed, each one of us according to our stations, to play a part in making these days memorable. ...”

As our incredible team of staff members watched the election results pour in on Election Night, an amazing thing happened that Churchill might have recognized. Despite some sobering disappointments, there was no mood of despair and no “bunker mentality.” Instead, a firm sense of resolve began to permeate our team " a spirited and determined recognition that now, more than ever, we must prayerfully and boldly shine the light of truth in the public arena and defend what is right.

Let me speak plainly. Our nation has never faced the kind of anti-family, pro-abortion assault that we’re likely to see in the coming weeks and months. We don’t have to guess what the Left will do now that they control Congress and the White House; they’ve told us:

President-elect Obama has promised, “The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” That bill could wipe out every abortion restriction in state and federal law and result in an increase in abortions each year in America.
He has also pledged to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act " signed by President Clinton in 1996 " and force every state without a constitutional amendment or specific state law protecting traditional marriage to recognize same-sex marriages.
And religious freedom will be badly damaged if and when the gay lobby’s two top bills " hate crimes and Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) " become law. A veto threat is all that has stopped them before, and Obama has vowed to sign them.
To stop these tragic outcomes " and much more that I won’t take time to list right now " we must mobilize extraordinary numbers of citizens who care about upholding virtue, defending life and safeguarding religious liberty.
http://www.unbossed.net/index.php?itemid=2395
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 12:54 pm
Or...like this: Glenn Beck on project leper and the life expectancy of John McCain as President...
Quote:
I mean, I have to tell you if I heard once, I heard 1,000 times from people, and I never said this, never said this on the air because you just don't say these things, but I heard a million times from people, "I'm going to vote for John McCain and, you know, I mean, he's old. Maybe we get Sarah Palin in the first term." You know what I mean?
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/17856/
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 01:03 pm
@parados,
I don't buy it, regardless of your statistical analysis. Among the evidence, how do you explain a maverick, McCain, winning the Republican nomination if we are all in lock step? I firmly believe we are a collection of pretty independent thinkers. We are not groupees.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 01:09 pm
@okie,
Quote:
I don't buy it, regardless of your statistical analysis.


Why on earth would you? Truth exists inside your head and not in some other airy-fairy place outside.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 05/11/2024 at 09:57:40