AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I disagree. I do not see myself as on the far right side of conservatism; in fact quite the opposite. Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell (another who describes himself as a conservative liberatarian) share my views on marriage, abortion, and immigration. It is those views that are conservative, not the label itself....

Remember we are using liberatarian as an adjective (little "L") and not in the sense of the platform of the American Libertarian Party which is a different subject..

capitalized: a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libertarian
________________________________

When you claim to be a "libertarian," you claim to be a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action. However, we know without a doubt that you do NOT uphold individual liberty with respect to fundamental liberty interests (e.g., marriage, privacy, procreation, etc.).

You are an AUTHORITATIVE (adjective) CONSERVATIVE (noun), which means that you advocate using (abusing) the power / authority of the government to impose your anti-libertarian views on all others in society through the operation of our laws. You are NOT a libertarian.

1 Reply

To CI who wrote

Quote:

I describe myself as being an Independent politically, but that doesn't say anything about all the other people who describe themselves as an "Independent."

Then what does being an “Independent” mean? Please provide some kind of deifnition or definitions of what an Independent is. Are you saying that you are one of a kind and no other Independents share views with you? Does being ‘independent’ carry no meaning whatsoever? The terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' have definitions. "Independent' does not? Then why claim to be one?

At no time have I said that conservatives are all alike or agree on every issue nor do I assume anybody is 100% in agreement with anybody else. I hsve described what definitions I would attach to the term ‘conservative’. Parados doesn’t like my definitions but won’t say what is wrong with them after repeatedly being asked to do so. Nor will he offer his own definition after being repeatedly asked to do so.

To TKO who said

Quote:

I was a Christian once. I've stepped in that ring. So have many people here. You can't tell others that they don't understand it because they are on the outside. Being a Christian does say something about who you are. Perhaps you aren't prepared for what it says and how it is different than what you say about yourself.

(You said awhile back that you were leaving the thread because it was of no interest and not worth your time. Not much a man of conviction are you.)

But nevertheless, I haven’t told anybody that they don’t understand. Please don’t put words in my mouth or twist what I say to be something different from what I said. And please don’t assume what I am or am not prepared for. You have no authority to determine that. One conservative principle is that it is a virtue to be able to deal with what is actually said rather than rewrite it so that it is easier to answer or attack.

TKO also said

Quote:

By this same logic you would not be able to understand liberalism/progressivism unless you a liberal or progressive. You see conservatism is being perfect. I won't claim liberalism is perfect. I prefer nuance to universalism.

You seem to infer you wouldn’t be able to understand. I certainly did not say that. I also have never said that conservatism was perfect. That is something you made up and insert periodically. I have said and would say that most modern conservative principles are preferable to most modern liberal principles and at times have offered specifics for discussion, but unfortunately the liberals on this thread don’t seem as interested in discussing specifics as they are interested in making erroneous statements about what others have said.

(P.S. It doesn’t really work to compare Christianity which must be experienced in order to be better understood with a sociopolitical ideology with specific definitions. And no, that is my opinion, but I will not get into a detailed discussion on that on this thread because it would completely derail it. If you would like to to discuss that concept more fully, please start a separate thread.)

TKO finally wrote

Quote:

It's not that you understand conservatism better than others, it's that you don't understand the alternatives.

I did not say I understood conservatism better than others. Nor do you have any basis for assuming that I don’t understand the alternatives. I have repeatedly asked for those alternatives even, but most liberal members on this thread won’t even attempt that but prefer to say that my definition of conservatism is wrong while not being able give a definition they would deem as right. Based on that I can logically conclude that many liberals posting on this thread don't know what they are talking about, but any one of you could correct my impression by showing that you do.

Your metaphor of the lady with the car is pretty much on point, however. You can’t really have a reasoned discussion about anything if one person insists that the other doesn’t know what he or she is talking about but has nothing better to offer.

Parados writes

Quote:

My problem Fox, is that you haven't provided any support for your opinion.

We are 120 pages and about 2400 posts into this thread with reams of material, references, examples, and comments posted that provide a lot of background for my comments. As I recall, you refused to deal with those then and you refuse to deal with them now.and you have ignored every question I have presented to you for specifics on what would make you happy. Again, when you care to discuss the issues instead of your continuous litany criticizing others, I will be happy to have that discussion. Until then, just carry on with whatever. Just please understand that I find it tedious and uninteresting and probably won’t respond.

Walter writes

Quote:

I'm just not sophisticated enough with bad European education to follow here.

I'm clueless - to give you a pleasure

.
I didn’t ask for pleasure. I asked for an explanation for your observations about me and another point or two that I thought needed clarification. Or are you now admitting that you were clueless when you posted that?

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

Foxfyre wrote:

I disagree. I do not see myself as on the far right side of conservatism; in fact quite the opposite. Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell (another who describes himself as a conservative liberatarian) share my views on marriage, abortion, and immigration. It is those views that are conservative, not the label itself....

Foxfyre, since you do call yourself a libertarian, and since you mentioned these examples: Perhaps it would help if you could explain to us how the government serves individual liberty by forbidding same sex couples to marry, pushing back on no-fault divorce, curtailing abortion rights, and erecting fences against immigrants. With the possible exception of abortion, I don't see how any of these policies promotes individual liberty or limits the power of government to meddle in people's lives.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Or are you now admitting that you were clueless when you posted that?

Did I write something which looked like that? As said, I'm an uneducated European. And as a "liberal" of course impolite plus whatever else, too.

But as Christians, both of know of this: "Quid autem vides festucam in oculo fratris tui, trabem autem, quæ in oculo tuo est, non consideras?"

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre, since you do call yourself a libertarian, ...

Endlich mal 'nen richtiger Liberaler ... Wink

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Fox asked:

Quote:

Then what does being an “Independent” mean?

This is why it's practically impossible to describe an "Independent."

Quote:

Abstract:

This paper will examine the nature of citizens’
perceptions of political parties, focusing on those who consider
themselves political independents, or unaffiliated with the two major
parties. I will attend to the following outstanding questions in the
literature: (1) Is there a temporal component to this self definition
(Blais et al. 2001; Timpone and Neely 1997)?
(2) Is this disposition largely cognitive or affective (Burden and
Klofstad 2003)?
(3) To what degree do independents form a sense of belonging to that
group (Greene 2002; Weisberg and Greene forthcoming; Neely 1997)?
(4) To what extent is political party independence gendered (Norrander
1997)?
(5) Are most independent identifiers merely closet partisans (Keith et
al. 1992)? In addition, I examine the dimensions of an independent
identification: autonomy, anti-partyism, variability, and neutrality
(Dennis 1988).
The research on party affiliation has relied largely on quantitative
data from secondary survey sources and more recently from experimental
designs. I make a modest first step at complementing those studies with
a qualitative approach.
I ran six focus groups in the spring of 2003 in order to gather data on
this topic. Those participants were grouped by gender (men, women) and
party disposition (true independent, Republican leaners, Democratic
leaners). This paper will report the focus group results focusing on
the above points of inquiry.
This is the first stage of a larger project in which I hope to employ
survey and experimental methods on the same topic. Therefore,
this paper will also provide some comment on future empirical designs,
both quantitative and qualitative, that may shed more light on the
nature of political independents.
I hope this work contributes to the academic literature by (1)
extending and developing a theory of party affiliation and identity,
and (2) testing hypotheses related to the points of inquiry above.
Practically speaking, parties of all types stand to benefit from the
application of this research. Understanding the orientations of
political independents is a prerequisite for appealing to that group,
and it informs the strategic deployment of party resources. If some
independents are perennially pushed away from the concept of a party,
then it is not apparent why parties would court them. On the other
hand, if some independents find the current party choices lacking,
identifying the missing ingredients could benefit both major and minor
parties.

Do you understand what the Abstract says?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Yop but it doesn't tell me a thing about what you mean when you describe yourself as an independent.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

And that's because you still don't understand any concept that has to do with the party system (or religion) in the US or elsewhere.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I disagree. I do not see myself as on the far right side of conservatism; in fact quite the opposite. Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell (another who describes himself as a conservative liberatarian) share my views on marriage, abortion, and immigration. It is those views that are conservative, not the label itself....

Foxfyre, since you do call yourself a libertarian, and since you mentioned these examples: Perhaps it would help if you could explain to us how the government serves individual liberty by forbidding same sex couples to marry, pushing back on no-fault divorce, curtailing abortion rights, and erecting fences against immigrants. With the possible exception of abortion, I don't see how any of these policies promotes individual liberty or limits the power of government to meddle in people's lives.

I describe myself as a conservative libertarian, and as a conservative I think there are values and traditions that have served humanity well and are worth conserving or preserving. Marriage in its traditional definition of one man and one woman is one of those values/traditions. It has proved to be the strength of community, the strongest foundation for safe, orderly, and pleasant places to live, work, educate the kids. Most importantly humankind has determined that there is value in recognizing the traditional family and this has also proved beneficial both for medical tracking reasons, purpose of inheritance and basic rights of children to be supported, and also for the rearing of children. (Conservatives believe that children, whether straight or gay, benefit from having a loving mother and father in the home and acknowledge that children living in such circumstances are far more likely to not be in poverty, to not become a crime statistic, and are more likely to complete thekr education. All of these are of mutual benefit to the community as a whole.)

That is not saying that single parents or gay parents can't do a great job of parenting because many do. But marriage has proved itself to be the most stable and financially beneficial circumstances for kids and, while we can appreciate and encourage single or gay parents, I don't think we should discourage the traditional family in any way. That is not saying that everyone who marries will or even intends to have children, nevertheless the primary purpose of marriage is for the begetting and rearing of children or at least that is the way many if not most conservatives look at it.

The civil marriage contract comes with a list of requirements to deal with the age of participants, blood relationships, and expectations of shared property, none of which are required for people who do not enter into the marriage contract. The marriage laws as they currently exist are 100% equitable without discrimination against anybody by virtue of sociopolitics, race, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation. Anybody and everyboy can get married according to the existing law, but everybody has to marry somebody of the opposite sex.

To allow same sex marriage changes the definition and character of marriage so that it becomes something different than it was before, and that will further weaken marriage as an institution. Also some of the contractual requirements for marriage would be unnecessary in the case of same sex couples--first cousins marrying for instance--and it is inevitable that such issues would soon be challenged and there would certainly be challenges regarding the structure of marriage etc. so that, in my opinion, mariage as we know it now would likely cease to exist within a generation or two. We have a good thing now and it has been proved to be worth conserving.

Far better to leave a tried a true institution intact and undisturbed and instead create a new institution for everybody, not just gays, who for whatever reason do not or cannot marry, but who wish to form themselves into recognized family units with all the rights of inheritance, hospital visitation, assumed co-ownership of property ect. that exists within the marriage contract. If they chose they could add a religious or civil ceremony to mark the event though that would not be necessary any more than it is necessary in order to be married.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

And that's because you still don't understand any concept that has to do with the party system (or religion) in the US or elsewhere.

No I understand the concept of party and religious systems just fine, but this discussion is not about party or religious affiliation but the values or ideas that are defined as conservative or liberal. You will find both ideologies within any viable political party in the United States as well as among many religious groups. I also understand what I mean by independent just fine. Apparently you don't however since you aren't answering the question.

1 Reply

Addendum to Thomas: Libertarianism is not the same thing as anarchy. Libertarians support an order to civilization with sufficient laws and regulations to enforce it. I am conservative in the sense that I can appreciate, articulate, and defend certain values that I see as beneficial to humankind. I am liberatarian in the sense that I think government should not be meddling in affairs of people that are more efficiently and effectively managed at the local level or by the private sector. Libertarians probably resist more legislation and regulation than do conservatives and will see an even more limited role for government than do conservatives and certainly more limited than do liberals.

In some ways we are all something of a mixed bag though.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

You have just put the cart before the horse; "ideologies" may be defined by someone, but practice is a whole new arena that cannot be measured, because it's impossible to know what people (everybody) will think and do. When you voted for Bush, did you know what he was going to do? I think not.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Ideology is what it is. Some of us on this thread have provided a pretty good list of what we think is included in conservative ideology though no doubt some stuff got left out and we are certainly not of one accord when it comes to some specific issues or principles. I think all conservatives see a reason to preserve traditional marriage for instance, but not all conservatives are in agreement that including gays in that would be detrimental to the institution. That is a debate that we continue to have. Many people describing themselves as liberals also want traditional marriage preserved, so that is one value most often described as conservative that such persons hold.

In most areas, President Bush was true to his campaign promises and has held to most stated principles expressed when he was campaigning,. In those areas is is clearly conservative. He turned out to be quite liberal in some fiscal policies, big government initiatives, and immigration, however, and it was these areas that got him into trouble along with a general initial incompetence in managing the Iraq war.

But I know what I mean when I describe myself as a conservative libertarian which has very little to do with the political party that I affiliate myself with.

So again, what do you mean when you describe yourself as Independent? Do you simply mean that you aren't affiliated with a political party? Or does it reflect certain principles that you hold as your truths?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Ideology is fine; but your ideology is not the same as other's when it comes down to belief and practice. I also believe in a) small government, b) less government intrusion into our lives, and c) freedom from discrimination.

You believe 1) gays are detrimental to the institution of marriage, and 2) your religious' beliefs should outweigh the rights of minorities.

You have no understanding of the concept of discrimination or "love thy neighbor as thyself." You believe your religious rights outweigh the rights of gays and lesbians. You don't even understand our Constitution which states "all men are created equal."

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre: I'm sorry, but I don't see how your posts answer my question. When you defend hetero-only marriage, opposition to no-fault divorce, and opposition to immigrants -- are you saying that these things are good because they promote liberty, albeit in non-obvious ways? Or are you saying they are good although they aren't promoting liberty, because conservative principles override libertarian principles in these cases?

As an aside, I'm curious what you mean by "traditional marriage". Just as traditional as 1950, when it was clear that it was hetero-only, to be divorced only when one partner demonstrated a fault by the other? Or as traditional as in the founding era, when women lost their legal identity when marrying, in effect becoming the property of their husbands? (I'm sure Debra can supply you with the legal details of the time.) "Traditional" civil marriage has changed enormously over the centuries, so to understand what you mean by "traditional marriage, it would help me if you can give me a year.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I do not believe gays are detrimental to the institution of marriage at all and I did not say that they were.

You have no authority to know or claim what I do or do not have a concept of and you certainly don't get that right..

You either will not or cannot explain what you mean when you describe yourself as "independent'.

Now if you wish to continue to direct ad hominems at me rather than participate in the discussion that's cool. At least you stay in character that way based on most experience with you on threads like this so far. But like I said to Parados, I find people who can only offer ad hominem, criticism, and insults to be really tedious and boring so I probably won't respond further as long as you choose to be of that ilk.

Do have a great day though.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

I defend the traditional definition of marriage. I haven't ever discussed no-fault divorce to the best of my recollection, so I don't know how that one got in there. I certainly don't oppose immigrants. I don't know where you got the idea that I did. By traditional marriage I mean the traditional definition of one man and one woman.

Discussion of what constitutes a good or bad marriage or cultural changes across the years is an entirely separate discussion.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

No, you said some conservatives and liberals hold that view, but why even bring up a straw man when that's not even the issue under discussion?

You make impressions to others by what you have a tendency to bring up during any discussion. You make a claim that it isn't "your" position, but that also negates your idea about what you opine as "conservatism." There are no limits to what conservatism means to many, but you try to imply that there is.

You even try to credit conservatism to "home ownership through hard work." You can's see your own biases and myopia.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Libertarians support an order to civilization with sufficient laws and regulations to enforce it.

This has never been true of all libertarians or classical liberals. This tradition had anarchistic proponents since Godwin (1793), and has continued to do so through Thoreau (1849), Tucker (1881"1908) Rothbart (1962), and Friedman (1971).

But on sexuality, libertarians have consistently disagreed with your general attitude, whether they thought the state necessary or not. Jeremy Bentham argued for the legalization of gay sex in 1785, when it still was a capital crime. John Stuart Mill, Bentham's student, did not write about homosexuality as far as I know, but argued passionately that the Mormons in Utah had a right to polygamy (On Liberty, 1859).

So the libertarian position on sex and marriage has traditionally been permissive. By arguing for the restrictions that you do, you are dissenting from 200 years of classical-liberal and libertarian tradition. I am not saying that this is necessarily good or bad. But either way it's what you're doing -- you're helping noone, certainly not yourself, by refusing to face up to it.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I defend the traditional definition of marriage.

"Traditional" as of when? The American marriage laws of which year, or which span of years, are you defending?

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know