AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

...promote preservation of traditional American values that have proven their worth and benefit.

We parted company there, Foxfyre.

I'm sure you see the possible problems with this addition.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Foxie, What exactly are "traditional American values?"

1 Reply

@blatham,

And how long are you going to wait?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
...promote preservation of traditional American values that have proven their worth and benefit.

We parted company there, Foxfyre.

I'm sure you see the possible problems with this addition.

I see no problems whatsoever Frank. Either something has proved its worth and benefit or it has not. To accept that is not rocket science to me, but just very good common sense. For instance, to evaluate something on its merits rather than on prejudice and bigotry is a traditional American value. It is a value that I wish was easier for those who want to demonize groups of people, such as conservatives or Republicans, would embrace so that we could remove the bigotry and prejudices from the debate.

To me discussing reasonably and with interest in arriving at the best possible truth about something is not a problem, but an opportunity.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

A night out at the movies for $ 3.00.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

Yanno, it has occurred to me lately when I go to the movies and sit in a theater with 80 or 90% of the seats empty, that a $3.00 ticket price that would fill those seats would be a better business strategy than charging $6.00 or $10.00 for that seat and having most people stay home waiting for the movie to show up on HBO.

I can only assume that folks who think raising taxes automatically generates more revenue to the treasury--a concept not supported by most MACs--must be running those theaters. Smile

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre…I understand where you are coming from…and I can probably come up with some items that I consider traditional American values that have proven themselves…but I suspect that although we might find accord on one or two…we might be miles apart on others.

The moment you introduce, as you did, “…promote preservation of traditional American values that have proven their worth and benefit”…you leave the door open to all sorts of argument about what is a “traditional American value”…and which “have proven their worth and benefit.”

In fact, besides the area I already stressed several times (the appeal to racially intolerant people), the other significant feature preventing me from even considering American conservatism…is their constant references to “traditional American values.”

Some, accept it or not, would put “marriage is an institution meant only for a male and female” as a traditional American value that has proven its worth and benefit.

I couldn’t disagree with that more if it were presented as 2 plus 2 equals thirteen! Given the kind of changes in society now present in our country and in the world…I think notion sucks.

Just one example. There are others.

In any case, I stand by what I said. I was following your argument and found myself in surprisingly decent agreement with much (not all) of what you were saying…but got turned off completely when that last part was added.

As I said, that item happens to be one of the two major adjustments that would have to be made in American conservatism for me to even consider adjusting my regard for it.

But that’s just me.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Yes because 'you are just you' and "I am me" is why we have so often been at loggerheads and in opposition, Frank. You see me as a probable racist because I describe myself as a conservative. I see you as prejudiced because I think that point of view is intolerant and prejudicial. In the way I look at it, to condemn an entire ideology because some of its advocates are racist is just as prejudiced as condemning an entire race because some of its members are lazy or stupid or irresponsible or murderers.

Of course we won't agree on what traditional American values have proven their worth and which have not, but that does not have to be a problem. Why can't they be looked at and considered and judged on their merits or lack thereof instead of drawing immediate prejudicial assumptions about the motives or ignorance of each other?

That plus other components that make up Modern American Conservatism was the whole purpose behind this thread. I would like to look at those separate components without prejudice and explore their individual merits or lack thereof.

To use this thread (or any thread) to telegraph our own prejudices and/or to bash those we have chosen to despise doesn't generate anything more than irritablity, frustration, contempt, or anger. I prefer to understand that we can all feel passionately about something and disagree without anybody needing to be evil or sometimes even necessarily wrong.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre I have never for one second thought you to be a racist. I do NOT think all conservatives are racist. I thought I made that pretty clear.

I do think American conservatism appeals to racists. I don't see how anyone can dispute that, because damn near every acknowledged racist (there are plenty of those) subscribe to American conservatism....and to the Republican Party.

Not sure how else to say that, Foxfyre.

Frankly, I think American conservatism is a blight on the country...and I am anxious that it not gain (or re-gain) traction with the American public. So I am happy to see so many conservatives thinking the racial attraction of American conservatism NOT to be a problem, because I see American conservatism being grievously wounded by that problem.

But please, DO NOT think that I think you are a racist. I have heard what you have to say on the issue...and I am convinced you are being straight forward...and ARE NOT EVEN REMOTELY racist.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

But don't you think, Foxfyre, that "traditional values" change as society changes?

I mean, what has been a "traditional value" in ... let's say in 1620 - can't be considered "traditional American": it was imported.
Out of these 'imported' traditons certainly new American traditions arose.

Property and freedom are inseparably connected.
Civilized society requires orders and classes;
Society must alter slowly.

But they changed as well or were altered.
And might be still a great value.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxie, Your use of MAC is just about as confusing as most positions you opine on many topics. What you can't seem to grasp is that each individual who claims to be a conservative has their own perception of what it means to be a republican. MAC doesn't describe anything except your personal perception. Your label of "liberals" is just as confusing; it really doesn't address much based on your posts. There is no line drawn between liberals, moderates and conservatives; they are all cross-breeds.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

But don't you think, Foxfyre, that "traditional values" change as society changes?

I mean, what has been a "traditional value" in ... let's say in 1620 - can't be considered "traditional American": it was imported.
Out of these 'imported' traditons certainly new American traditions arose.

Property and freedom are inseparably connected.
Civilized society requires orders and classes;
Society must alter slowly.

But they changed as well or were altered.
And might be still a great value.

Certainly traditional values change, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. It was once considered a traditional value as well as a mark of professionalism for nurses to wear starched white dresses and hose. We other women on the job were expected to be in skirts or dresses, hose, appropriately fashionable shoes all designed within certain parameters of what was appropriate. It wasn't easy to break down the cultural taboos so that the far more practical pantsuit could be seen as just as appropriate and professional.

Traditional taboos re appropriate occupations for men and women have also been erased so that people are less likely to assign gender appropriateness to most.

In more critical context, the ugly and wrongheaded belief that one race could be superior to another broke down easily compared to the more persistent notion that 'separate but equal' was an important value. Perpetuated by both blacks and whites, interracial dating and marriage or even social mingling was severely frowned on. But in time common sense and reason prevailed, and those taboos also tumbled and segregation was no longer accepted as a traditional value.

Other values have persisted and been protected such as common courtesy, marriage, respect for the dead, protection of children and the helpless, honoring heroes, etc. though some traditions to respect those things have changed somewhat.

Basically however, in my opinion MACs, being the descendents of classical liberalism, do look to preserve what is good, honorable, and beneficial, and are more than willing to fix or change or scrap what is not.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxie wrote:

Quote:

Basically however, in my opinion MACs, being the descendents of classical liberalism, do look to preserve what is good, honorable, and beneficial, and are more than willing to fix or change or scrap what is not.

And who amongst the conservative leaders exactly promoted your ideals?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Foxfyre I have never for one second thought you to be a racist. I do NOT think all conservatives are racist. I thought I made that pretty clear.

I do think American conservatism appeals to racists. I don't see how anyone can dispute that, because damn near every acknowledged racist (there are plenty of those) subscribe to American conservatism....and to the Republican Party.

Not sure how else to say that, Foxfyre.

Frankly, I think American conservatism is a blight on the country...and I am anxious that it not gain (or re-gain) traction with the American public. So I am happy to see so many conservatives thinking the racial attraction of American conservatism NOT to be a problem, because I see American conservatism being grievously wounded by that problem.

But please, DO NOT think that I think you are a racist. I have heard what you have to say on the issue...and I am convinced you are being straight forward...and ARE NOT EVEN REMOTELY racist.

Well thank you for that, Frank.

Perhaps an ideology that does not cater to people based on race appeals to racists in the same way that an ideology that does cater to people based on race appeals to the most corrupt of politicians? I think pandering to people to gain power is the number one cause/basis of government corruption and is one of the most dishonest and harmful form of politics.

Liberalism that puts environmental issues ahead of people's needs surely attracts those who would spike trees or sabotage fishing boats with no concern for who might be injured or killed. Shall we then denounce all environmentalism and concern for the environment because some take it to extremes?

It was extreme liberalism that appealed to Ted Kaczynski (the unabomber). Shall we assume that all advocates of liberalism are then suspect in what they tolerate or consider appropriate?

Does any of this suggest that liberalism must repair itself to be seen as acceptable in any way or that all liberals condone the corrupt, illegal, irrational, hateful, or misfits in their midst?

If I see liberalism as a blight on the country, is that from a reasoned conclusion or is it a prejudiced point of view?

Until you can show me any ideology that attracts only the pure, righteous, correct, competent, etc., based on your reasons to despising conservatism, I will have to believe that you are looking through eyes of prejudice rather than from any reasoned point of view.

Again to judge an ideology on the basis that some racists identify with it is as irrational as judging all people of a race on the basis that some really bad people are members of that race.

1 Reply

According to Fox's definition, we here in Massachusetts must all be conservative. We believe strongly in traditional American values like the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We believe in the Constitution of the US and the Constitution of the Commonwealth and the rights they guarantee. We believe in equal rights for everyone.

We believe in government BY the people, FOR the people. We believe that everyone has the right to vote and should vote and that the people we elect should represent our voice.

All traditional American values, therefore conservative bedrock.

Which is why, when the MA Supreme Court said that same sex marriage gave equal rights to an unjustly discriminated-against group, we agreed by close to 70%, according to a Boston Globe survey done shortly after the decision.

Which is why, when a small group of state legislators bloviated incessantly about the decision, we voted them out of office. Now, four years later, somehow the legislators never seem to talk against it. Wonder why. Maybe conservative will of the people has had an effect.

Which is why, what is striking to me, is that, when gay couples talk about the reaction they get to their marriage from straights, the most common reaction they seem to have had is "It's about time".

Thank you for welcoming us to the ranks of conservatives, Foxfyre. I'm sure we'll find room in your big tent.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Yup MJ there is lots and lots of room in our big tent. No two of us who identify ourselves as conservatives on this thread or anywhere else on A2K or out in the real world will agree on every issue. In fact we will usually disagree on some point within the issues that we mostly do agree on.

And its silly to pick any one characteristic or 'virtue' of an ideology and say that you can't have that because that is what I believe. It's silly to think there aren't some shared values among liberals and conservatives because we all are after all Americans.

There are quite a few of us conservatives who have no problem at all with same sex marriage and there are quite a few folks who describe themselves as liberal who do. That one isn't really clearly identifiable as clearly a conservative or liberal issue any more than "Republican" or "Democrat" is a reliable label to substitute for liberalism or conservatism.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

What you can't seem to grasp is that each individual who claims to be a conservative has their own perception of what it means to be a republican

And therein lies part of the problem.
You automatically equate conservative with republican, assuming that the two are one.

You dont acknowledge (or wont) that they are not the same.
I am a conservative, and proud of it, but I am not now nor have I ever been a repub.
I admit that many of those thar claim to be conservative are repubs, but there are also many conservative dems.

You need to realize that conservative does not equal repub, just like liberal does not equal dem.

Unless you are willing to admit that, you will never understand conservatives.
I have posted before about what I think it means to be a conservative, and my definition does not 100% agree with Foxfyre, but that doesnt make her definition any less valid.

Do you think that ALL dems or ALL liberals think exactly alike also?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

It was extreme liberalism that appealed to Ted Kaczynski (the unabomber).

Still trying to understand the US-political terms ...

Is that a quote from the sentence, or an expert opion?

And is "extreme liberalism" Socialism? Communism? Or even left of that?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

When I say 'extreme' Walter, it means taking something to the extreme way beyond what most people would do. It isn't intended to be an officially recognized political party or ideology or anything like that but is used to differentiate between most people and those who are excessive radicals/kooks/etc.

1 Reply

@blatham,

The Republican Party that is in such disrepute today is not the party of Reagan. It is NOT the party of Rush Limbaugh, IT IS NOT THE PARTY of Ann Coulter, BUT IT IS THE PARTY of Newt Gingrich, of George W. Bush, of Karl Rove. It is not a conservative party, it is a party built on the blind and narrow pursuit of GOING ALONG TO GET ALONG.[/quote]

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know