AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Here's a short but informative essay on the history, myths, and possible sources for the quotation:

http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html

Perhaps you didn't realize but only Congress can declare war according to the constitution.

How are we at war without a declaration of war if we have to abide by the constitution?

Thanks, but I'd looked at that already before responding.

We abided by the constitution by Congress authorizing and funding a military action just as it did in Korea and Vietnam. In neither of those earlier conflicts was there an offiical declaration of war either but Congress did authorize and fund them as it did the invasion of Iraq.

In the case of the Bay of Pigs, Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Grenada, Panama, et al, Congress didn't authorize them at all but did authorize payment of the bills for them after the President at the time ordered the action.

In each case there is room for legitimate debate as to whether the military action complied with the Constitutional authority of Congress and/or the President.

And here we might even find a good debate between modern American liberalism and modern American conservatism in what the Congress and/or the President is Constitutionally authorized to do in the interest of the American people when it comes to military action.

Congress authorizing funding for any war doesn't make it right by any stretch of anyone's imagination. Ever wonder why congress had a lower performance rating than Bush?

If then this is your stance, you must acknowledge it exists outside of your definition of conservatism.

T
K
O

I am not discussing my opinion of right or wrong or popularity or unpopularity here as much as what the Constitutional authority is. I am guessing that ones ideology will factor into opinions as to whether Constitutional authority was exercised or breached in these cases.

Okay I'll bite. Why does my stance exist outside of my definition of conservatism that includes Consititutional mandates to 'protect from enemies foreign and domestic' and "promote the national welfare"?

I'll bite back, because if this is your rationale, you still need to provide how Iraq threatened the US. You should have been outraged when the rationale for WMDs was found to e totally bogus. You didn't. You fell right in line with the next thing the White House fed you.

You behaved just like a good republican behaves.

T
K
O

I think you are correct, in discussing the critical tension between Ideology and Political Affiliation that these so-called 'Conservatives' suffer under.

Party trumps everything with the modern Republican; that is to say, their stated ideals of respecting the law never stand up to their leaders' breaking the law. As soon as problems are noted, justifications are sought instead of recriminations. This is why the same Conservatives who bemoaned Clinton's TIA program, welcomed with open arms Bush's adoption of much more invasive measures.

Cycloptichorn

Just came upon this thread this moment. If what I say here has been covered...pardon me. I' m not going to read the entire thing.

This may be a backdoor way to respond to your discussion, Foxfyre, but I think it goes to the thrust of what you are asking.

One of the things that bothers me most about American conservatives is the fact that American conservatism has become almost code for “we hate niggers, spicks, wops, etc.”

Now don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that ALL conservatives are bigots. In fact, I challenge anyone who asserts something like that…because it most assuredly is not so.

But every bigot I personally know considers himself or herself to be an American conservative…and I think that fact says a lot more about the nature of American conservatism than does the fact that not all conservatives are bigots.

There is a reason American conservatism is so very, very popular in the places like Mississippi, Georgia, Arkansas and Tennessee…and I almost guarantee it has nothing to do with a desire for the supposed goals of what you are referring to as “basic conservative principles.” They are not motivated by a desire for greater fiscal prudence…or smaller government"neither of which American conservatives seem able to deliver.

Without the people who think gun ownership is THE defining issue facing our nation…and without the bigots who feel the American conservative agenda best serves their bigotry…and without one other group which I will discuss in a future post…

…American conservatives would be able to hold national conventions in a typical small-town Elks Club rental hall.

And so that we understand each other, Foxfyre, let me finish up by saying that EVERY ONE of my closest friends…the people I see several times a week or more…are American conservatives. My mother and father, now both deceased were American conservatives, and my two brothers and a majority of my first-cousins are all American conservatives…and I love them all dearly.

For American conservatism to have any appeal to me at all…this is an area that has to be repaired.

The reason given for allowing subversion of the constitution was "we were at war."
We were not in a declared state of war. Allowing every use of our troops as an excuse to subvert the constitution means we would have no constitution, would it not?

Korea and Vietnam did not allow for the President to suspend habeas corpus, wiretap American citizens or fail to follow the Geneva convention. Why should this undeclared war allow it?

I think this is a valid and salient observation, Frank.

Since I don't know a single person who calls himself conservative--at least any who, based on word or writing, have indicated they share my definition of modern American conservative--is a bigot or prejudiced in any way, I cannot share your impression of what 'conservatism' stands for. Certainly great highly educated and brilliant writers/educators/historians such as Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Walter Williams et al don't share your concern here.

I do appreciate that this is what 'conservative' means to you and accept the possibility/probability that you arrived at your opinion with cause, either from your own experience or due to the fact that modern liberals regularly and frequently paint conservatives with that brush.

From my perspective it is as foolish to brand modern American conservatives as the ones who carry the legacy of racism as it I think those conservatives who blame it all on the liberals are foolish.

I suppose my hope in starting this thread was both to explore, dissect, test and evaluate some of my conservative beliefs but I think it probably included a more obscure motive to provide a forum to showcase modern American conservatism as I believe it to be and maybe even change some minds that currently see it erroneously.

It has been fascinating reading reviews on this book that really does address the roots of racism and culture that has affected racism in this country about as well as any single source that I've seen:



Hardcore liberals frequently describe it as schizophrenic.

Hardcore old fashioned conservatives--some of whom I think at least in part became modern liberals--are not much more complimentary.

But modern American conservatives generally nod in agreement.

Sometimes I think the 'repair' of which you speak has to come from a 'repair' of erroneous impressions or beliefs.

(I have a lot of you looney libs in my family too, and they're all really great people who I enjoy immensely. I say 'looney' with great affecton of course. )

You're an "inconsistent looney."

Prisoners were not tortured!
Habeas corpus was not ignored!
Illegal wiretaps were not performed!
Innocent Arab-Americans were not rounded up!
Illegal government payments to private citizens and organizations did occur!
Illegal curtailment of free speech did occur!
Illegal counting of votes did occur!
Illegal inprisonment of USA border guards did occur.

Parados, different circumstances require different policies. In Vietnam and Korea, we didn't have an entire group of people wanting to exterminate every man, woman, and child infidel in the USA and who would do the greatest possible damage to us given any opportunity to do so. The only legitimate protecton we have against such intentions is to intercept the intentions and the plans before they can be carried out.

If that condition had existed in Vietnam or Korea, and had personal computers, wireless telephones, and unmanned land lines been available then, I'm pretty darn sure that the leadership of that time would have taken the same kinds of steps to defend the people as are being taken now. I certainly hope so.

Mind you...when I spoke of the bigots I know...

...all I said was that THEY consider themselves to be American conservatives.

I made no attempt to define American conservatism...so I'm not sure of the few comments you made in that regard.

Perhaps I am unfortunate, but I know lots of people I consider bigoted. The standard I use is: Do they often use the words “nigger” “spick” “kike” “wop” and the like?

Some of my closest golfing buddies never go a round without at least one “goddam niggers” or “goddam spicks.” And those guys, Foxfyre, consider themselves to be solid conservatives. I often hear some of them proudly proclaim that they are to the right of people like Rush Limbaugh.

And, as I mentioned, the rural American south is a hotbed of rednecks and bigots…and the American south is (some fissures showing recently) pretty solidly American conservative.

I honestly do not think American conservatism can be a significant political force without the inclusion of bigoted America…and I think for that reason, American conservatism, as a whole, justifies the expectations of bigots.


I cannot imagine American conservatism (for a bit, I want that read, the Republican Party) will do anything to discourage bigots from being an influence in the party…and instead, will do things that encourage them to be a part of the process…to exert influence over the agenda.

I think that has to change.

Bigots have a right to be bigoted. They have a right to hate.

I just think America will not buy into that kind of thinking…and I think America will not buy into the pretence that American conservatism does not encourage bigotry.

At least, not American conservatism as now constituted in our country.

I pretty much experienced the same in Newport Beach, specifically when my business was in Lido Marina Village at Newport Harbor. They shielded their bigotry to a degree but it would slip out no matter how careful they were and not just in words but body language. I do believe that conservatives are more influenced by their demographics than liberals. Live and let live is not in their philosophy as at starter -- control freaks could easily be their middle names.

See you're still insisting on defining conservatism as being guilty of or perpetuating racism. I don't.

I could insist that you read all the hundreds of pages and many thousands of posts on this thread to bring yourself up to speed here, but I will be gentle and won't require that. (Aren't I sweet? )

I do think you are incorrect in your impression of what modern American Conservatism is as I define it.

I have from pretty much the beginning and more recently compared modern American Conservatism to classical liberalism. Look that up on Wikipedia or it was re-posted a day or two ago on this thread. I think that definition is probably pretty close though some of us have posted some specific points of view, most of which the liberals on this thread have branded as 'meaningless' or 'vague' or 'stupid' or "Foxy forcing her own definition on everybody else".

(In other words, they get to say what conservatism is not or attach a different definition that what I agree with, but I should not have any say in this. )

But to your point:

I have some southern relatives who use the "n" word often and without even thinking about it because that is what feels normal to them and they grew up with the word. I didn't grow up with that word, don't use it (except a couple of times in fun fights with a black friend who was as close as a sister to me before she died) and I cringe when I hear it from others.

At the same time, I saw these same relatives go forcefully against their white neighbors who were taking up a collection to buy a house to prevent a black family from buying it. These same relatives fought alongside black soldiers in Vietnam and their grandkids more recently in Iraq, worked beside black colleagues in the workplace, and would lay down their lives before they would let a black person be intentionally harmed or mistreated and I have never heard them describe a black person as incapable or bad or anything else just because he or she was black. They don't use the 'n' word around black friends or colleagues knowing that it would not be appreciated.

So are they bigots?

On the other hand is the person who would never use the 'n' word under any circumstances but who sees black people as disadvantaged and oppressed and incapable of helping themselves a non-bigot?

I do think it necessary to have this discussion before there will ever be a meeting of the minds. But I don't think there will ever be such meeting until we can be heard and allowed to make our case as best as we can make it. It doesn't help for bigotry or prejudice labels to be directed at or most of the world's ills heaped upon Republicans and conservatives as a group.

Oh I almost forgot to say: those relatives I mentioned? Staunch Clinton supporters, Bush-haters, and wouldn't vote Republican if their lives depended on it. But they are also staunch Southern Baptists and pretty much old-fashioned conservatives to the core. A real dichotomy huh?

Foxie wrote:

ROFLMAO