AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

But for more of that 'statistical analysis' nonsense, in this case on the question of whether americans tend to favor liberal or modern conservative values/policies, here are some more. Links to those analyses available at bottom of piece.
http://mediamatters.org/altercation/?f=h_column

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

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.

Obviously, I (and we in Europe generally) have a different understanding of what apathy in politics is and how you notice that.

Thanks. I've learnt something new about the USA again.

okie wrote:

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.
[/quote]

Thanks, okie.

As said, we Europeans are different - conservatives don't show a notable of amount of liberal ideas (aka liberalism) here - but some liberal parties are quite conservative, positioned even more right than the conservatives (like e.g. in Austria; the German liberals have "both wings").

0 Replies

A recent phenomenon worth attending to. There clearly is a project underway presently to rehabilitate Bush's reputation and legacy. Gerson is typical. One could hypothesize that folks (like Gerson) who were key supporters or figures in the administration are motivated at least partly to defend their own personal reputations. But my guess is that this is a continuation of marketing strategies. If the present narrative of the Bush administration continues (failure, ineptness, corruption, worst or one of worst administrations ever, etc) it will continue to work serious damage on future Republican electoral hopes.

Here's an example from todays WSJ...

Quote:

President Bush will soon be heading home and for many that day cannot come soon enough. Count me among those who will miss him and his bedrock decency.

He had a rough road from day one. His first inauguration struck me as a portent. I was there, shivering in the grandstands on Pennsylvania Avenue. At the exact moment the president heard "Hail to the Chief" for the first time and was announced to the audience, a sleet storm descended from the skies.

It has never let up...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122611181065310615.html

Even the weather has been unjustly cruel to this example of 'bedrock decency'.

0 Replies

Here's a factor which the RNC number crunchers will be well aware of, even if Michelle Malkin and Brent Bozell aren't or don't want to think about it....

Quote:

Friday, Nov. 7, 2008 16:27 EST
Record turnout? Only for Democrats
Leading up to the presidential election, there was a lot of discussion about possible record turnout at the polls.

But according to Curtis Gans, an election expert at American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate, that didn't happen. Gans released a report Friday that estimates that between 126.5 million and 128.5 million ballots were cast this year. That would mean that roughly 60.7 percent of the electorate voted -- nearly the same number who voted in 2004.

But that's not the whole story. Gans also found that the number of Republican voters dropped by 1.3 percent, while the number of Democratic voters rose by 2.6 percent, marking the seventh straight increase for the Democratic share of the presidential vote since 1980. So in fact, there was record turnout this year; it just didn't spread across the electorate.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

1 Reply

Two visions of the path ahead...
http://www.rebuildtheparty.com/

http://www.redstate.com/diaries/erick/2008/nov/05/operation-leper/

0 Replies

Jeffrey Hart is professor emeritus of English at Dartmouth College. He wrote for the National Review for more than three decades, where he was senior editor. He wrote speeches for Ronald Reagan, when governor of California, and for Richard Nixon.

Quote:

So here we are in 2008. With its indispensable Southern and, more widely, evangelical base, the Republican Party has become the stupid party.

In the election, the McCain-Palin ticket received the highest percentage of votes in South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia. The Southern Strategy succeeded. It succeeded in facilitating a Democratic landslide. This can not be good for the nation. We need two viable parties.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-11-06/the-republicans-are-now-the-stupid-party/

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Quote:
Friday, Nov. 7, 2008 16:27 EST
Record turnout? Only for Democrats
Gans also found that the number of Republican voters dropped by 1.3 percent, while the number of Democratic voters rose by 2.6 percent, marking the seventh straight increase for the Democratic share of the presidential vote since 1980. So in fact, there was record turnout this year; it just didn't spread across the electorate.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

striking

0 Replies

It seems to be exactly what I suggested in my opening post for this thread. The GOP has abandoned their conservative roots and have been governing like psuedo Democrats and that is why conservative Republicans are abandoning the party. So far not much here has convinced me that I'm wrong. A lot of people have been saying for a long time that there isn't much difference between the two parties. With a very few exceptions, I think that attitude is correct.

We conservatives may have to get busy now and form a third party that does promote and effectively articulate conservative values which would not include the far right extremism that is far more liberal than conservative and would also carefully evaluate the globalization promoted by the so-called neocons.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

... which would not include the far right extremism that is far more liberal than conservative ...

Either you misspoke or that is an oxymoron right out of the textbook.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

That was altogether a fascinating run-on sentence. I was just mulling its possible meaning when you posted.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
... which would not include the far right extremism that is far more liberal than conservative ...

Either you misspoke or that is an oxymoron right out of the textbook.

No, it was intentional. Conservatism is not extreme such as outlawing all abortion for any reason. For example, extremists who would outlaw all abortion by law are behaving as liberal extremists who would use the law to force others to bend to their version of morality. Such extremism from the far right is not from conservatism but from something quite different.

Conservatism allows personal freedom in all things that do not violate the unalienable, civil, legal, or Constitutional rights of others and/or does not disturb the public peace. Also conservatism requires a definitive rationale for what such rights entail.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Agreeing with ebeth that it was a REALLY run-on sentence though. Smile

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

My response actually was thought to point at the oxymoron that the "far right extremism" is 'left' (if 'liberal' here is used in the American way).

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

My response actually was thought to point at the oxymoron that the "far right extremism" is 'left' (if 'liberal' here is used in the American way).

And my point was that using government to impose the morality of a relatively small group of people upon the whole is a liberal concept, not a conservative one. And that is true no matter what group of people are doing it.

4 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Don't you realize Walter, that if anyone considers it "bad" then it is a liberal concept?

Your statement kind of points out how intellectually bankrupt your form of conservatism is Fox. Rather than accepting problems with conservatism, you just define them away. Then when someone points out that you did that, you will accuse them of attacking you personally and ignore them. It creates a safe little world for you perhaps but it certainly doesn't support any claim that conservatism is "rational."

1 Reply

@parados,

You're more than welcome to offer your own definition of conservatism and liberalism, Parados. I have extended that invitation to those of you who seem to want to make this just another Bush bashing or GOP bashing or anybody-you-don-t-agree-with bashing thread. So how about it? Instead of attacking me, offer your own rationale for why my point of view is incorrect. I would appreciate you actually participating in the debate.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

So lets examine your claim that it is a liberal concept to impose the morality of a few on the many.

What does the constitution do if not protect the minority from the morality of the many?
No one is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex.
No one is forcing you to have an abortion.
You are not being forced into a particular act. You are only being told that other people can do it but you are not required to. Morality is what? Your action or merely your perception of how others should act? Because others are doing things that you think are immoral doesn't mean they are "imposing their morality" on you. When you prevent people from doing something than you ARE "imposing your morality" because you are forcing them to act a certain way. Sometimes it is good to force morality on others when we declare certain acts criminal. But those acts are ones where a person violated the rights of another. Your rights are NOT violated if 2 men marry. They didn't invade your home. They didn't take any real property from you. I can't think of any right of yours they violated. You are merely upset that they are doing something you wouldn't do.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

attacking you? ROFLMAO.. what did I just say you would do.
If anyone disagrees with you or points out the logic errors of your arguments, then they are "attacking you."

1. you claim conservatism is rational.
2. You claim to be a conservative
3. You make a claim that isn't logical.
4. If anyone points out that your illogical claim shows the claim of conservatism being rational is innaccurate, you accuse them of attacking you personally.
5. If conservatism as you practice it was rational then you would explain your logic instead of accusing others of personal attacks when they attack your arguments.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

And my point was that using government to impose the morality of a relatively small group of people upon the whole is a liberal concept, not a conservative one. And that is true no matter what group of people are doing it.

You don't think you've put yourself in a difficult spot there?

transcription: R/republicans used government to impose the morality of a relatively small group of people on the whole - they were actually liberal and C/conservatives aren't to be blamed.

Really, that's a bit convoluted and doesn't make a great deal of sense at its base.

It does follow what's been going on for a couple of years where R/republicans have tried to disassociate themselves from the Bush R/republican brand and re-label themselves as C/conservative, but it's transparent.

I find gopusa.com one of the best places to watch the process ... once claiming to be a Republican voice, it switched to Conservative, recently it's re-labelled itself again - recently popping this into the mission statement

Quote:

We strive to be the first source Republicans and conservatives turn to for news and information, both at the state and national levels.

.

Gotta love this guy - he wants to take on Fox/Rove/Gingrich etc.
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/ckincaid/2008/ck_11071.shtml

I highly recommend the gopusa commentary section for a take on the Michelle Malkin/Sarah Palin brand of conservatism.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

So lets examine your claim that it is a liberal concept to impose the morality of a few on the many.

What does the constitution do if not protect the minority from the morality of the many?
No one is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex.
No one is forcing you to have an abortion.
You are not being forced into a particular act. You are only being told that other people can do it but you are not required to. Morality is what? Your action or merely your perception of how others should act? Because others are doing things that you think are immoral doesn't mean they are "imposing their morality" on you. When you prevent people from doing something than you ARE "imposing your morality" because you are forcing them to act a certain way. Sometimes it is good to force morality on others when we declare certain acts criminal. But those acts are ones where a person violated the rights of another. Your rights are NOT violated if 2 men marry. They didn't invade your home. They didn't take any real property from you. I can't think of any right of yours they violated. You are merely upset that they are doing something you wouldn't do.

The Constitution represents the morality of the many actually. It establishes the basic rules of conduct by which we would govern ourselves. The first principle of that is to protect the unalienable, legal, civil, and Constitutional rights of the people within the mutually agreed shared values of the whole.

Where did I say anyone is forcing me to have an abortion or forcing me to marry someone of the same sex? I have said nothing even approximately that nor has any other Conservative that I know. How does that apply to your rationale here? No, my rights are not violated if two men married, but neither are those two men's rights violated by society choosing a different definition than that for marriage. No, my rights are not violated by me not having to have an abortion nor somebody else being allowed to have an abortion, but somewhere in there is the life of a person who is given no choice that should be a consideration in that debate.

And it is not necessarily an issue of morality that judges whether an act is criminal but rather whether the act of one violates the unalienable, civil, legal, or Constitutional rights of another. "Illegal" and "criminal" can be but are not necessarily the same thing.

3 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know