AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Debra Law,

[quote[img][/img]="Debra Law"]

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I understand the pitfalls and invitation for corruption that exists with the tax code, and it is ONLY conservative principles as law of the land that prevents most corruption from occurring.

(Foxfyre submits a list of four vague statements that may or may not be "conservative" principles.)

parados wrote:
First of all, these are NOT in the law so they don't support your previous statement.

Foxfyre wrote:
I didn't say they were in the law as what is in the law does not determine what is and is not a conservative principle.

Can anyone decipher Foxfyre's doublespeak? Participation in this thread is an exercise in circuituous futility. Foxfyre says "A," Foxfyre denies saying "A," Foxfyre says "B," Foxfyre denies saying "B" and says "A," and so forth.

What's the point of discussing "American Conservatism" in 2008 and Beyond and where "conservatives" got it right and where they went wrong?

Maybe I am going too fast for you? I could try typing more slowly and perhaps it wouldn't be so confusing to you? Let's take one of my statements that seems to be difficult for you.

"What is in the law does not determine what is and is not a conservative principle."

I think most conservatives would say that law usually should be based on conservative principle. The law itself does not determine what the principle is. The principles exists just the same independent and separate from the law. Do you have a problem with that concept? Or is that incomprehensible to the liberal mind?

Let me try to explain it in more practical terms.

A congressman may describe himself as conservative while proposing and/or voting for a law or regulation that is in no way conservative. It is not the lawmaker of whatever ideology that makes legislation conservative or liberal but rather it is the legislation itself that is conservative or liberal. The Republicans have passed quite a bit of non-conservative legislation and the Democrats on occasion have passed legislation that would meet the definition of conservative.

In other words it does not matter WHO proposes or passes or obstructs whatever legislation. Conservatives believe in most cases that when policy, regulations, and laws are based on conservative principles, the results will generally be far more satisfactory than when they are not, and it doesn't matter WHO passes them. The frustration with conservatives with our current President and Congress, even before the Democrats took over again, is that in several areas it was not demonstrating or defending conservative principles.

Am I still going too fast for you?

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

"Typing more slowly?" Your brain is too slow to comprehend what Debra has written. Your typing speed has nothing to do with it.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Maybe I am going too fast for you? I could try typing more slowly and perhaps it wouldn't be so confusing to you? Let's take one of my statements that seems to be difficult for you.

"What is in the law does not determine what is and is not a conservative principle."

I think most conservatives would say that law usually should be based on conservative principle....

It doesn't matter how fast or how slow you type. Garbage in = Garbage out.

You declare that conservative principles and ONLY conservative principles are the pancea for all that ails the country. Yet, you fail to define what those principles are except through meaningless vague amorphisms which are not characteristic of "conservative" thought alone. You talk in circles and you don't practice what you preach.

1 Reply

The Evidence Establishes, without Question, that Republican Rule Is Dangerous: Why It Is High Time to Fix This Situation, For the Good of the Nation

By JOHN W. DEAN

Quote:

The Republican Approach to Government: Authoritarian Rule

Republicans rule, rather than govern, when they are in power by imposing their authoritarian conservative philosophy on everyone, as their answer for everything. This works for them because their interest is in power, and in what it can do for those who think as they do. Ruling, of course, must be distinguished from governing, which is a more nuanced process that entails give-and-take and the kind of compromises that are often necessary to find a consensus and solutions that will best serve the interests of all Americans.

Republicans' authoritarian rule can also be characterized by its striking incivility and intolerance toward those who do not view the world as Republicans do. Their insufferable attitude is not dangerous in itself, but it is employed to accomplish what they want, which is to take care of themselves and those who work to keep them in power.

Authoritarian conservatives are primarily anti-government, except where they believe the government can be useful to impose moral or social order (for example, with respect to matters like abortion, prayer in schools, or prohibiting sexually-explicit information from public view). Similarly, Republicans' limited-government attitude does not apply regarding national security, where they feel there can never be too much government activity - nor are the rights and liberties of individuals respected when national security is involved. Authoritarian Republicans do oppose the government interfering with markets and the economy, however - and generally oppose the government's doing anything to help anyone they feel should be able to help themselves.

In my book Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches, I set forth the facts regarding the consequences of the Republicans' controlling government for too many years. No Republican - nor anyone else, for that matter - has refuted these facts, and for good reason: They are irrefutable.

* * *

The leading authority on right-wing authoritarianism, a man who devoted his career to developing hard empirical data about these people and their beliefs, is Robert Altemeyer. Altemeyer, a social scientist based in Canada, flushed out these typical character traits in decades of testing.

Altemeyer believes about 25 percent of the adult population in the United States is solidly authoritarian (with that group mostly composed of followers, and a small percentage of potential leaders). It is in these ranks of some 70 million that we find the core of the McCain/Palin supporters. They are people who are, in Altemeyer's words, are "so self-righteous, so ill-informed, and so dogmatic that nothing you can say or do will change their minds.". . .

0 Replies

Were there ever two individuals who slunk from highest office with the same ignominy as Mr Bush and Mr Cheney?

1 Reply

@McTag,

Probably not, but Bush, Cheney, and many conservatives believe they are "honorable, patriotic, public servants."

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I think the contents of the following references consitute a more articulate argument for the propriety of my interpretation of "all duties, imposts, and excises shall be UNIFORM throughout the United States'' per the Constitution Article I, Section 8, 1st paragraph.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/fed.asp
THE FEDERALIST PAPERS

Concerning the General Power of Taxation
FEDERALIST PAPERS 30 THRU 36
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed30.asp

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed36.asp
THE FEDERALIST PAPERS #36 RE: UNIFORM IMPOSTS

Quote:

Let it be recollected that the proportion of these taxes is not to be left to the discretion of the national legislature, but is to be determined by the numbers of each State, as described in the second section of the first article. An actual census or enumeration of the people must furnish the rule, a circumstance which effectually shuts the door to partiality or oppression. The abuse of this power of taxation seems to have been provided against with guarded circumspection. In addition to the precaution just mentioned, there is a provision that "all duties, imposts, and excises shall be UNIFORM throughout the United States.''

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Apparently I am going too fast for you or otherwise you would not so badly misread and misinterpret what I have said or else you do that on purpose (which I have long expected.) And would it possibly be to cover your own inability to understand the concepts that causes you to dismiss them as vague?

I can assure you there is nothing vague about any one of the principles expressed, but of course it does require ability to understand concepts rather than focusing purely on demonizing, discrediting, or insulting somebody.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

I'm still not buying it Ican. I think duties, imports, and excise taxes are uniform when they are applied uniformly throughout the various states. A larger duty imposed on say imported steel and a lesser duty on imported coconuts would still be uniform so long as each duty was applied the same no matter which state imported it. (Being a free trader, which is a conservative concept no matter who advocates it, I think such taxes should be imposed sparingly and with great caution lest they diminish the economy they are intended to protect.)

I look at income taxes much the same way. While I think a graduated tax system does punish success and is therefore counterproductive, I don't see that it violates any uniformity law as long as the same kinds of income are taxed the same uniformly throughout the country. I also think income taxes are a different kind of tax from duties, import, and excise taxes. (Our founders probably would have frowned on the idea of an income tax in their day, but then they couldn't see into the future and changing circumstances either.)

Curiously, in reading the thoughts of Thomas Jefferson, he took the view that the way to extract more government money from the rich was through those duties, imports, and excise taxes as he thought only the rich would be able to afford imported or non essential goods and therefore would be the ones who would pay those taxes. He would not have agreed to punish their success, but was willing to exploit their appetites. Smile

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Fox wrote:

Quote:

I think most conservatives would say that law usually should be based on conservative principle. The law itself does not determine what the principle is. The principles exists just the same independent and separate from the law. Do you have a problem with that concept? Or is that incomprehensible to the liberal mind?

As Debra said, garbage in-garbage out. It's incomprehensible to over 90% of people reading your post. Maybe Bush, Cheney, and Palin understands it, but you'll have to explain yourself into American English before we can understand what you mean.

Why don't you provide some examples of what you mean?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

1. No evidence that it is conservative. Just your say so.
Are you claiming New Mexico is conservative because they do this but no other state is?
Certainly, this isn't a concept that all or even most conservatives agree on unless you are arguing that the US is not conservative as a nation. The Federal government has never said that congress couldn't vote on their pay raises. I would think that legislators that do so are subject to one of the most stringent of checks on that power. They have to stand for election again.

2. What was the system of homesteading if not a gift of land from the government?
What about the railroad right of ways given to railroad barons for nothing? Your use of "charity" is vague because you define it then ignore acts of the federal government giving federal property away before FDR.

3. Totally vague in that there is no definition by you of what is constitutionally mandated and no definition of what can be better performed by the states. This also violates your first statement about compensation. Congress is given the power to set the pay rate for itself in law. The only requirement is that it can't take effect until after the next election (at which the majority will probably be reelected.)

4.

Quote:

For most willing to live on the public dole, that way of life is quite comfortable or they would do something about it

Your statement doesn't seem to meet the facts about how long people have typically been on "the dole." This is nothing more than a RW myth.

3 is universal, the difference is the definitions of what is within the scope of the constitution.

2 Replies

@parados,

I like the way you get down to the nuts and bolts of the why's and wherefore's of Fox's idea about "conservatism." I'll wait for her answer, but I'm not expecting any straight answers.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

1. No evidence that it is conservative. Just your say so.
Are you claiming New Mexico is conservative because they do this but no other state is?
Certainly, this isn't a concept that all or even most conservatives agree on unless you are arguing that the US is not conservative as a nation. The Federal government has never said that congress couldn't vote on their pay raises. I would think that legislators that do so are subject to one of the most stringent of checks on that power. They have to stand for election again.

2. What was the system of homesteading if not a gift of land from the government?
What about the railroad right of ways given to railroad barons for nothing? Your use of "charity" is vague because you define it then ignore acts of the federal government giving federal property away before FDR.

3. Totally vague in that there is no definition by you of what is constitutionally mandated and no definition of what can be better performed by the states. This also violates your first statement about compensation. Congress is given the power to set the pay rate for itself in law. The only requirement is that it can't take effect until after the next election (at which the majority will probably be reelected.)

4.
Quote:
For most willing to live on the public dole, that way of life is quite comfortable or they would do something about it
Your statement doesn't seem to meet the facts about how long people have typically been on "the dole." This is nothing more than a RW myth.

3 is universal, the difference is the definitions of what is within the scope of the constitution.

The definition of modern conservatism was posted in various forms many pages back Parados, or at least most of it. Everybody had a chance to comment on or object to that definition at the time. If you object to my definition, why don't you offer your own. Or are you like Debra and incapable of actually discussing a topic at face value without having to be insulting about it?

1) I am not claiming that New Mexico is conservative at all though probably most of its citizens are. Its government is a pretty mixed bag. I used an example of how our legislature is paid to illustrate how a conservative principle can be structured. You translate that into a blanket endorsement of ideology for the entire state. Why do you do that?

2) Who said the 'government' owned the land that was homesteaded? The Homestead Act was an orderly way to regulate distribution of the land to the people. It wasn't a 'gift' to anybody but a process by which people could own land that wasn't owned by anybody. Such regulation is neither conservative or liberal in my view; however, the principle of property ownership acquired legally and ethically by virtue of work and industry is definitely a conservative principle. A 'gift' from the government would assume the government owned the land in the first place--a distinctly liberal notion--and that it is the government's property to distribute it to those who don't have any. Also a distinctly liberal notion. The Homestead Act, however, required people to occupy and work the land in order to qualify for a deed to it. That is hugely different and is a oonservative principle.

3) A principle does not have to provide examples in order to be a sound principle. For instance, the principle that private property precedes government and is not the prerogative of government to control (John Locke) is a conservative principle. I don't have to have any more than just that spelled out in order to understand it. Do you?

4) However long somebody has been on the dole does not in the least change the principle involved. The conservative principle at work here is that he who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul. There is plenty of room to argue for the necessity of a welfare state and where that might be necessary and where it is not, but a second conservative principle that applies in this case is that what many people can acquire for free, they will be much less inclined to be motivated to work for it and public benevolence is a powerful tool to curry favor with the people and that is a corrupting influence.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Fox wrote:

Quote:

...property ownership acquired legally and ethically by virtue of work and industry is definitely a conservative principle.

Show us how this is "a conservative principle?"

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

It is because it fits the conservative definitions previously posted. If you object to it as a conservative principle, then show how it is not.

To enlarge the thought, a conservative principle is that people should prepare themselves to earn their living, should work for and earn what they have to be best of their ability. A liberal principle is that is it unfair that some have much while others have little and that the wealth should be redistributed to benefit the poor, no strings attached and it is the government that is the vehicle through which this redistribution should be brought about.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Fox wrote:
Quote:
...property ownership acquired legally and ethically by virtue of work and industry is definitely a conservative principle.

Show us how this is "a conservative principle?"

Fox is simply trying intellectual land grab. It's been going on for a long time. She sees something she likes and is very agreeable and then defines it to be conservative. Then if you agree with it, you are agreeing with conservatism.If this was a Vin diagram, she's loitering around the purple area where liberalism/progressivism overlap with conservatism and is trying to plant a conservative flag and claim the space hers. Meanwhile the red territory that she should be defending seems to off limits for discussion.

It's not just what conservatives believe or don't believe, it's how they act. Same applies to liberals too, but my point is simple: If conservatism is such a perfect system (Fox shys away from admitting any flaws) then it would have proven itself when tested; it would have been fluid and practical.

But instead it plays out as a rigid, impractical failure.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

1. It doesn't provide any evidence of it being conservative thought when you are willing to admit that New Mexico is NOT conservative. It only shows that New Mexico does something you want to claim as conservative with no evidence of it being conservative. You claim it is conservative. I say that must make it evidence of being conservative and you say it isn't evidence when I try to use it as evidence. So which is it Fox? Is it conservative or not?

2. I suppose you are going to argue that the Louisiana purchase didn't use Federal monies now. Homesteading gave away FEDERAL LAND, plain and simple. Railroad right of ways did the same thing. Now you are suddenly arguing that it isn't charity if the person later gives something back. All people in the US pay taxes of some kind, so your charity argument is wrong. Your argument that the land wasn't owned is just downright silly.

3. A principle has to provide examples to show it isn't just made up. As has been said time and again here Fox, you make claims and then don't back them up. When you are questioned about YOUR definitions, instead of defending them you deflect by saying we should provide OUR definition. When we do that, you deflect by saying that isn't your definition. We have been down this road before. Locke gave examples to support his statements. Why can't you?

4. Yes, Fox. Again, your argument is NOT a conservative principle. If Peter is taxed so he only has $49,000 left but pays $1000 in taxes and Paul is taxed so he has $900,000 left and pays $100,000 in taxes. Would you not agree that if Peter's taxes are raised so he pays $10,000 that Peter is being robbed so Paul can pay less? I would, which means your statement is NOT a conservative principle in its vague form. No one gets money for nothing in the US. Everyone pays taxes of some kind. Your argument is that a conservative shouldn't get more back then they pay in yet it is the "conservative" states that tend to get more back than they pay in. The principles you say conservatives support don't show up in real life which is the problem you have in trying to explain what a conservative is. Either no one is a conservative or your definitions are not based on reality.

Quote:

Everybody had a chance to comment on or object to that definition at the time.

Everybody did comment on it, said your statements were vague, and you didn't clarify. We are back to that again, failure on your part to define clearly. When we point out that conservatives don't follow the principles you claim they are not conservatives. When we point out your principles are vague, you claim we don't understand but won't refine them. You just repeat the vague statements as if that makes it clear when it doesn't. You have been given many examples of how you reasoning is flawed and your statements are vague or universally applicable. "They are not" is not a valid response.

What we are left with from your arguments is -
1. The US is a conservative country.
2. The US government isn't conservative
3. No one elected as a conservative is truly a conservative.

If the above are all true this would leave me to believe that conservatives are generally stupid people since they continue to elect those that aren't conservative.

1 Reply

@parados,

Okay Parados. Since proof seems so important to you and you seem incapable of discussing concepts in any other context, please describe what you would accept as proof that something is or is not conservative. (It would be helpful if you would take one of the examples I've given as conservative and show how it is not conservative too.)

I have posted defintiions of what I consider to be conservative principles. Others have also posted definitions or concepts that they consider to be conservative principles. I'm sure to be fair you will be able to post definitions of what is not conservative since you seem so certain that I don't have a clue about what I think is conservative.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

It is because it fits the conservative definitions previously posted. If you object to it as a conservative principle, then show how it is not.

To enlarge the thought, a conservative principle is that people should prepare themselves to earn their living, should work for and earn what they have to be best of their ability. A liberal principle is that is it unfair that some have much while others have little and that the wealth should be redistributed to benefit the poor, no strings attached and it is the government that is the vehicle through which this redistribution should be brought about.

That is complete and utter nonsense Fox. You argue the center for conservatism and the extreme for liberalism.

It could just as easily be argued that the liberal principle is people should be able to earn a living and the conservative principle is that the rich can pay their workers as little as possible and keep them from earning enough to live on. You have provided no support for your statement and I have provided no support for my statement. That makes my statement as valid as yours.

You argue in circles. You claim something is a conservative principle and provide no support. Then you claim something else and as support point to your earlier statements that had no support.

1 Reply

@parados,

I refer you to the previous question Parados.

Would you like to discuss the ocncept of what constitutes a fair wage in liberal and conservative terms? That might be a good place to start.

You start. Please give me the liberal definition for what a fair wage is.

2 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know