AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Because none of the definition out of the dictionary or academia or whatever accurately describe the modern American conservative as I define myself and I define myself as a conservative. I never claimed to be an authority. I claimed to be a conservative and I don't fit the definitions others would really, REALLY like to assign to me.

How you define yourself is irrelevant Fox. You can call yourself whatever you like, it's meaningless. It won't change who you are nor will it change what it means to be conservative.

What you attempt here is to demand that others accept your definition, but never allow them to hold you accountable.

Foxfyre wrote:

I affirmed nothing about Rush other than he describes himself as a conservative and provides examples of what that entails. I do share at least many of the same convictions and I do define those convictions as conservative. Does Rush have any liberal convictions? I dunno . I'm guessing he probably does since nobody is 100% anything.

Pants on fire, fox.

Foxfyre wrote:

sounds pretty conservative to me.

You confirm his own conservative identity as being congruent with your own.

Foxfyre wrote:

But the list Rush provided for his own beliefs also doesn't fit the definitions others want to attach to modern conservatism here.

What's your point? You were the one that called his beliefs "pretty conservative" and then said you never claimed he was one.

You want to use his talking points to support your ideas on conservatism but you want none of the collateral. He is or he isn't conservative. Pick one and stick to it and make sure to support it.

Foxfyre wrote:

But for the sake of argument, if you all are so gol darned convinced that I have no right to describe myself as I choose or assign whatever lable I think appropriate to myself, then what sort of designation would you assign to me? To a Rush? To an Ican? To an Okie? To a Thomas Sowell? To a Walter Williams?

As I specifically wrote before Fox, you can call yourself whatever you like. I don't know what you are so insecure about but I've yet to hear you tell us what the weaknesses or vulnerabilities are with conservatism (by any definition). I don't think liberalism/progressivism is perfect.

Newsflash, you're going to have to accept that no ideal is perfect, and that it is about matching an idea to a fit, not addressing a wide range of issues with a blanket solution. Cough syrup works great on coughs, so it's perfectly fine to say that cough syrup is a good medicine. It doesn't mean that I'm going to take it when I have a headache.

It's not even about conservatism being "wrong." I just think it has to know it's fit and it's domain.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Just another one of Foxie's contradictions. They just pile up like so much shite.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

I accept that you are assigning a different intent to my Rush post than what I intended and as I doubt I will change anybody's mind about my intent, I will hope that will drop. I will apologize for confusing people. My intent was not to be dishonest.

Moving on....

I think you may have missed the point of the thread.

It was my hope that we could discuss modern American conservatism.

What it is.

What it isn't.

What are its strengths.

What are its weaknesses.

And also how all that fits into the American culture--politics, society, business, commerce, the whole gamut.

I have strongly resisted allowing the numbnuts making this into another Bush-bashing or Republican-bashing thread. I am perfectly willing to discuss examples of what people see as modern American conservatism that is bad or good or examples of modern liberalism that people see as bad or good.

The thread starter suggested that the Republicans got themselves into trouble with their constituency because they abandoned the conservative principles that put them into the majority. Some others disagreed with that but would never say why other than citing one poll that suggested differently.

I have tried again and again to provide some specific examples of what I think conservatism is and have a dialogue, but all that seems to generate is complaints about semantics or my examples are stupid or I don't have the right to define the terms used.

So....I'm offering the rest of you an opportunity to come up with a different word you'll like better. That's all.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I accept that you are assigning a different intent to my Rush post than what I intended and as I doubt I will change anybody's mind about my intent, I will hope that will drop. I will apologize for confusing people. My intent was not to be dishonest.

You're being held accountable for what you say. This is not about your intent being misunderstood.

Foxfyre wrote:

Moving on....

You're retreating, but whatever. I have low expectations for you on owning up. People aren't confused.

Foxfyre wrote:

I think you may have missed the point of the thread.

Here we go again. Nobody gets it but you...

Foxfyre wrote:

It was my hope that we could discuss modern American conservatism.

The adverb "modern" seems to be the escape clause for accountability.

Foxfyre wrote:

What it is.

Which IS the Republicans. Don't like that? You're the one voting for them. While you may want to redefine conservatism, there are others already doing it. They are called the GOP. They are active, they define it, not you.

Foxfyre wrote:

What it isn't.

Accountable for anything.

Foxfyre wrote:

What are its strengths.

Apparently everything.

Foxfyre wrote:

What are its weaknesses.

Apparently nothing.

Foxfyre wrote:

And also how all that fits into the American culture--politics, society, business, commerce, the whole gamut.

But what you seem to reject is that it may not fit in the whole gamut. Maybe it only fits in a small niche.

Foxfyre wrote:

I have strongly resisted allowing the numbnuts making this into another Bush-bashing or Republican-bashing thread. I am perfectly willing to discuss examples of what people see as conservatism that is bad or good or examples of modern liberalism that people see as bad or good.

The perfect examples of bad modern day conservatism you reject. Case and point, you flee from the example made by characters like Rush. If you are so willing to discuss this, you would simple acknowledge that he is an example, and a blemish at that.

Foxfyre wrote:

The thread starter suggested that the Republicans got themselves into trouble with their constituency because they abandoned the conservative principles that put them into the majority. Some others disagreed with that but would never say why other than citing one poll that suggested differently.

A valid post, I remember it. However, you say dissenters never said why. Last time I addressed this with you, I went back and found Asherman's post directed at you which I think was the answer to your question. He alternatively proposed that conservatives had got themselves in trouble because they catered too much to the base. A sort of reminder of how small tent the group is.

Foxfyre wrote:

I have tried again and again to provide some specific examples of what I think conservatism is and have a dialogue, but all that seems to generate is complaints about semantics or my examples are stupid or I don't have the right to define the terms used.

The problem with you defining terms is not your end product, it's that you insist that it's accepted. You have your idea of what conservatism is, so does Rush, but at the end of the day, the bottom line is your use of the terms.

Foxfyre wrote:

So....I'm offering the rest of you an opportunity to come up with a different word you'll like better. That's all.

It's one you don't like, but despite not liking it, the fact is that modern American Conservatism is the Republican party. They certainly don't meet a classical definition, but I thought we are talking about "modern" times. Don't like it? You vote for them, your prerogative. You have cultivated this new modern conservatism, not me.

Take responsibility.
K
O

0 Replies

Well since we have found absolutely no common ground or any agreement on my intent or what I think the subject is anywhere here, I guess we won't be discussing it TKO. But do have a really great evening.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Didn't you claim to be a libertarian at one time?

Thomas is an libertarians par excellence.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Come on guys. What label am I allowed to use for myself?

You can use whatever labels you like. But if you prefer your own, non-standard coinages to dictionary definitions, don't expect to be making sense to anybody else.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Didn't you claim to be a libertarian at one time?

I did. Actually I still do, though with less confidence than I used to. My support of universal healthcare, and for Keynesian stimulus as a last resort in a deep recession, arguably make me less of a libertarian and more of an (American) liberal than I used to be.

As it happens, I do think that both programs can be defended on libertarian terms, because I think their benefits in expanding individual rights outweigh their costs in expanding the size of government. But if others don't want to go with that and prefer to call me a liberal instead -- fine with me. Unlike Foxfyre, I'm not demanding that others change their use of language just so that I can keep my old label.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

I accept that you are assigning a different intent to my Rush post than what I intended and as I doubt I will change anybody's mind about my intent, I will hope that will drop. I will apologize for confusing people. My intent was not to be dishonest.

No, your intent was to deny something you obviously said. Your intent is to not stick by your own statements when they are used against you but to deny you even said them, then when they are pointed out you deny any intent in the statement. Your intent is to show that you have no convictions worth standing up for but only want to right at any cost even if you have to deny what you believe.

Quote:

Moving on....

Of course, we should move on because you don't want to discuss your personal principles even though you want your definition of conservative to be personal.

Quote:

I have strongly resisted allowing the numbnuts making this into another Bush-bashing or Republican-bashing thread.

You have resisted any criticism of conservatism at the same time you resist defining it.

2 Replies

@parados,

Conservatives have already tried to redefine themselves as "neo-conservatives" a euphemism for digging back into the past to resurrect authority over their own chaos.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

okie wrote:
Didn't you claim to be a libertarian at one time?

I did. Actually I still do, though with less confidence than I used to. My support of universal healthcare, and for Keynesian stimulus as a last resort in a deep recession, arguably make me less of a libertarian and more of an (American) liberal than I used to be.

As it happens, I do think that both programs can be defended on libertarian terms, because I think their benefits in expanding individual rights outweigh their costs in expanding the size of government. But if others don't want to go with that and prefer to call me a liberal instead -- fine with me. Unlike Foxfyre, I'm not demanding that others change their use of language just so that I can keep my old label.

Unlike Thomas (and some others), I don't presume to say what people intend or demand that those people do not intend or demand.

I specifically did ask you to provide your own definition for 'modern American conservatism' however, and you refused the request as has every other member here who objects to my definition. You provided dictionary definitions for the term 'conservative' with no consideration that what I see as modern American conservatism does not fit into those definitions.

I am open to accepting whatever term the group can agree on, and would appreciate that in lieu of thinking that telling Foxfyre that she can't provide her own opinion of the defintiion is sufficient to settle the matter.

1 Reply

What is it that leads any of you to support or oppose conservatism. First define what you think it is now and then criticize it or defend it.

My definition of what is American conservativism now, is it seeks to conserve the rule of law, in general, and conserve the rule of the Constitution of the USA as amended, in particular.

My defense of American conservatism now is that it limits the powers of our federal government to those powers granted it by our Constitution. Those powers are necessary and sufficient to secure our unalienable rights. Among these unalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Governments ought to be instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, to secure these rights.

It is my opinion that the danger of not preserving American conservatism now is that it will lead to the end of the Constitutional Republic of the USA. Here's another person's opinion about only one aspect of current corruption of the USA Constitution:

Wisdom circa 1778: Alexander Fraser Tytler, better known as Lord Woodhouselee (1747-1813) wrote:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, and from dependency back to bondage.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

I think your defnition of modern American conservatism and my definition of modern American conservatism are very close, Ican, though as we have seen, we do have some minor differences of opinion in a few fine points of application.

I think a critical review of history will recognize the wisdom and accuracy of Lord Woodhouselee's words.

I think application of modern American conservatism, as you and I understand it--I'm going to include Okie in there too as I believe he has approved the broad definitions thus far--would arrest the cycle at the liberty and abundance point and would conserve/preserve that which is what conservatism does.

I think we are in agreement that the definition that conservatives are opposed to change that weaken or compromise the content/intent of the Constitution. And we do not oppose new innovations as it is often been modern American conservatives who have been instrumental in promoting positive and necessary change while resisting impractical or imprudent change just for the sake of change. I think it is the modern American conservative who better recognizes the unintended negative consequences of imprudent change, and I think it is the modern American liberal who are more likely to have their heels dug in to prevent any undoing of those negative consequences.

All IMO of course and leaving open the possibility that I have included Ican and/or Okie in this concept inaccurately.

1 Reply

@parados,

amen. Her definitions change more often than those lizards who change color.
I wonder if she's capable of summarizing all of her past definitions into a summarized paragraph? LOL

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

My definition of what is American conservativism now, is it seeks to conserve the rule of law, in general, and conserve the rule of the Constitution of the USA as amended, in particular.

It would seem there are no American Conservatives, then, other than Libertarians; b/c not a damn one of you cared one whit for Bush trampling the Constitution of the US in several ways during his presidency. In fact, you defended it as necessary.

Neither you nor Fox meet your own definition, which is pretty funny Laughing

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I think a critical review of history will recognize the wisdom and accuracy of Lord Woodhouselee's words.

As written in multiple commenst (Library of Congress, snopes, the office of The Office of Lord Advocate of Scotland* etc etc) there is no record that Tytler had written such.
Actually, the quote wasn't published before 1959 and not attributed to Tytler before 1964.

But it's not bad for quoting on various occasions ...

* that's a personal information I just got by phone, because a friend (dean of a Scottish law faculty) is working there. Wink

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

It's interesting to note that those conservatives on these threads talk about "the rule of law," but did absolutely nothing to challenge what Bush did during his eight years in office. They ignore the facts like a) torture of prisoners, b) ignore habeas corpus, c) illegal wiretaps, and d) roundup of Arab-Americans even though they were not guilty of any crimes but because they were Arabs.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

It's interesting that the left fails to credit GW Bush with winning in Iraq in spite of the left saying it was a lost cause...
and the left forgets that GW Bush prevented any additional attacks from occurring on our soil.
GW Bush accomplished these feats without any support from liberals.

cicerone imposter wrote:

a) torture of prisoners, b) ignore habeas corpus, c) illegal wiretaps, and d) roundup of
Arab-Americans even though they were not guilty of any crimes but because they were Arabs.

What's wrong with a,b,c & d in a time of war?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

It really doesn't change the accuracy of the words if they are incorrectly attributed to Tytler though does it? I don't mind correction of that fact if the words were coined by somebody else. It is the truth of the words that are important in this context, however, and I personally think for the most part they are spot on.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Of course. But it's also interesting that these words were written in the second half of the 20th century.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know