55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 01:41 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

I just did.


No, you didn't. Name them again explicitly or link to where you did.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 01:43 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Yes. I did. Just before you post saying that I didn't.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 01:45 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
So, the Constitution is what causes MAC to fail? Are you serious?

Are you serious?

Wow! Your logic is hilarious!

So you think that the failure of enforcement of the Constitution is the fault of the Constitution and not the failure of too many humans!

MALs too think that their individual failures are failures of X, where X is anything they can think of other than themselves.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 01:46 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
So, the Constitution is what causes MAC to fail?


No, an inability to read and understand the Constitution is what causes MAC to fail?
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 01:47 pm
@Foxfyre,
I missed it.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 01:49 pm
@JTT,
The only thing that has caused MAC to fail is the failure to adhere to the principles within in. Those most likely to sidestep those principles and therefore set us all up for failure are the MALs, the RINOs, and the CINOs. Unfortunately, they have the MACs outnumbered in leadership positions these days. He who robs Peter to pay Paul can count on the support of Paul.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 01:49 pm
@JTT,
Look back just a few posts and if you really want to not miss it, you won't.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 01:59 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Yes. I did. Just before you post saying that I didn't.


You added this part to your post after you first posted it, so my earlier posts claiming you hadn't were accurate.

Quote:


But if you want a real life 'conservative' who met most of the definition of a MAC, Ronald Reagan came pretty close. And every President and most congresspersons who preceded FDR. And every member who wrote and produced that original Constitution. I've never heard Fred Thompson say anything that would be contrary to a MAC and I believe Brownback and Hunter came pretty close too. There are others....if I think about it. As Thomas and I discussed earlier, Ron Paul holds dear many MAC principles, but he also veers off course here and there.

Again nobody is perfect or ever will be, but these guys came pretty close to meeting the definition.


Thompson, Brownback and Hunter have significant issues which you have failed to mention, where they do not exactly match your definition. They also do not represent leadership of the modern Conservative party. They also hold social positions which contradict your own definition; as Thomas pointed out earlier, your MAC should not be against gay marriage; yet, all the ones you listed are against this.

I agree that you named people - on edit - but I do not agree that these people match your definition very well at all. It seems to me that these people match the traditional definition of 'conservative' better than they do your definition.

How do you explain the fact that the Republican party is not ran by Conservatives? How do you explain to all those that call themselves conservative, are wrong, and you are right about who and who isn't a 'true' Conservative? If the principles you espouse are so clear and easy to understand, then why do no politicians from the party you support, support them?

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 02:00 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
So, the Constitution is what causes MAC to fail? Are you serious?

Are you serious?

Wow! Your logic is hilarious!

So you think that the failure of enforcement of the Constitution is the fault of the Constitution and not the failure of too many humans!

MALs too think that their individual failures are failures of X, where X is anything they can think of other than themselves.



Yes, I'm serious! The Constitution is not being interpreted incorrectly and it is not the cause of the failure of Conservatism; Conservatives are the cause of failure of Conservatism.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 02:02 pm
@Foxfyre,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Name a single Modern American Conservative politician who is alive, or your theory is meaningless.

Foxfyre wrote:
I just did.

No you didn't. You named Reagan, who is dead. You named the presidents that came before FDR, all of whom are dead. You named the framers of the constitution, all of whom are dead.

You have yet to name a single politician who is alive, and who fits your definition of a Modern American Conservative.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 02:04 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't need to question it at all. Modern American Conservatism is a much different animal than liberals want it to be. I won't agree that it includes definitions that MACs reject.

It matters not to liberal what they want MAC to be Fox, Liberals and Progressives are going to have to deal with the same group of people either way and none of them are the MACs as you desire. The entirety of this conversation is meaningless unless you understand that no matter the infoulable definition you create for MAC, to be a MAC is defined in reality by the actions they take.

If MAC is such a great idea, why aren't there an overwhelming number of MACs in government? You don't seem to want to claim any REAL people, such as the Republicans that clearly identify as conservatives. But why? Don't like the baggage? What are you ashamed of? These are the people you keep voting for...

T
K
O


Please take any point from my definition and explain or provide an example for why it is not a 'great idea'.


This is my point Fox: What is the logical progression here?

Your definition is loaded with ideas not unique to Conservatism. It would be easy to find single ideas that are agreeable? Does that men then I must accept the whole of what you are selling? That's con artist talk.

The simple reason that MAC is not good is that it exists nowhere in reality. Liberalism isn't perfect, but there are plenty of liberals to point to and make an example of. I don't need a perfect solution right now, I'm fine with a political ideology that makes new and improved iterations of newer and better solutions. The Liberal and Progressive movement has been wrong so many times, and that perhaps is why it is superior, because after those wrongs, it learns from them. The brand of conservatism you sell is it's own seeds of destruction: A world that doesn't, but more importantly, must not change despite the reality that it will and already has. It's like trying to take a rowboat up a waterfall.

I have no problem with the political community I identify with. It's you who are struggling to reconcile your feelings about the people you vote for. I'll repeat: You vote for these non MACs--You. The identity crisis fall on your lap. What is it that you're ashamed of?

The answer to that uncomfortable question will be more inciteful than trying to redefine conservatism such that you don't have to address the shameful realities of the real actions and beliefs of your ideological choir.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 02:05 pm
@Thomas,
We all know Foxie can't list any modern conservative that lives by "her" definition of MAC, but will continue to push her personal definition until the day she dies. She can't see that her description is not a "living" definition.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 02:07 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
"Modern Conservative Party"? I've never belonged to such nor do I think there is any such animal.

In my opinion, the gentlemen I mentioned campaigned on many principles listed in the MAC definition and I can't think of a thing any of them said that would be contrary to the MAC definition. You'll have to give a specific xample of how they do not fit the description very well at all. I'll refer you to each of their websites for support for my opinion or you an get a pretty good thumbnail sketch here: http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm

Does that mean that I agree with each one of them on every point or that all MACS think alike on every point? Of course not. But not every issue or every point is a part of the MAC defnition either and on those things that do define what a MAC is, they all fit pretty well.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 02:08 pm
Foxfyre,

I'm going to say some things here to Cycloptichorn that you may consider demeaning or gratuituously insulting to you. I don't mean them that way...but I want to talk frankly to Cyclop...and I am going to do it here.

Cycloptichorn

I have come to respect Foxfyre as an able debater...and someone who almost invariably presents her opinions without the rancor and ugliness so many of us bring to our post. I gotta be honest with ya...there was a time a couple years ago when I would have thought that impossible. But it is so.

In any case, I think she is barking up the wrong tree here...and I think that any more energy you bring to combating her, besides being a lesson in futility, is counterproductive. (At least it is counterproductive to my agenda"and I suspect it is counterproductive to yours.) Here is why I think that.

My agenda is to see the world finally rid of American conservatism"or at least to see it crippled as much as possible. I think American conservatism is a blight on the planet...and an unacceptable insult to our country. I say this despite the fact that so many of my friends, relatives, and other people for whom I have love and/or respect subscribe to it.

As I see it, the kinds of adjustments Foxfyre and Ican are suggesting here...are examples of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

The most egregious faults of American conservatism are glossed over; denied as even existing; or not even considered. The ideas proposed here have as much chance of stimulating or widening interest in American conservatism as would changing the name of the effort to The Brand Spanking New Conservatism!

Obviously the effort Foxfyre is making here is just one example of many efforts of this kind being made all over our country. American conservatism seems always to be reinventing itself.

Those of us opposed to American conservatism should not be battling conservatives on this...we should be encouraging them to spend as much time doing this sort of thing as possible.

Anyone gullible enough to be influenced by these kinds of changes...already is a conservative.

Unless your battle is just for its entertainment value...don't bother fighting it any more.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 02:12 pm
To TKO, I will say that we are not discussing the 'sins' of individual people here. You can find a plethora of threads where that kind of thing is encouraged and people can be just as critical and/or hateful and/or viscious and/or insulting as they want to be about anybody there.

Here I am interested in discussing basic principles of what a nation should be and what government should be and for me MAC is it. I think many of our national leaders over the history of this country have agreed with or agree with that and many haven't veered off that mark very far. I am prepared to defend each and every point/principle in that definition as well as any subtitles that might fit into the broader categories.

If you are interested in that join in. By all means offer your input as to how the MAC philosophy/principles are in error if you believe they are. But I won't be drawn into another Republican and/or conservative bashing discussion that has nothing to do with that. Again, there are other threads where that kind of discussion is appropriate and will be praised.

JTT
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 02:19 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
The most egregious faults of American conservatism are glossed over; denied as even existing; or not even considered.


Them and prescriptive grammarians, eh, Frank? Smile
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 02:22 pm
@Frank Apisa,
The only really insulting thing in that is that you are as bad as Cyclop. You condemn an entire ideology without providing any example or credible evidence to support your opinion. How is one to see that then, other than as prejudice based on emotion/fear/bias/etc.?

Sure its easiest not to talk about the elephant in the room and to pretend that it isn't there. But it was not MAC principles that got us into the mess this country is in right now.

From my morning's email. I beg everybody to read and consider it with an open mind. I disagree with the writer that the tax cuts helped directly create the deficits and I wish she had added a paragraph offering hope, as I would have done, but otherwise I think her view is what we all are going to have to learn before we'll begin to dig out.

THE PARTY'S OVER

Linda R. Monk, J. D., is a constitutional scholar, journalist, and nationally award-winning author. A graduate of Harvard Law School , she twice received the American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award, its highest honor for law-related media. Her books include The Words We Live By: Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution, Ordinary Americans: U. S. History Through the Eyes of Everyday People, and The Bill of Rights: A User's Guide. For more than 20 years, Ms. Monk has written commentary for newspapers nationwide, including the New York Times,
Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and Chicago Tribune

Quote:
THE PARTY'S OVER
By Linda Monk

The Crash of 2008, which is now wiping out trillions of dollars of our people's wealth, is, like the Crash of 1929, likely to mark the end of one era and the onset of another.

The new era will see a more sober and much diminished America. The 'Omni power' and 'Indispensable Nation' we heard about in all the hubris and braggadocio following our Cold War victory is history.

Seizing on the crisis, the left says we are witnessing the failure of market economics, a failure of conservatism. This is nonsense. What we are witnessing is the collapse of Gordon Gecko ('Greed Is Good!') capitalism.

What we are witnessing is what happens to a prodigal nation that ignores history, and forgets and abandons the philosophy and principles that made it great.

A true conservative (Rep or Dem) cherishes prudence and believes in fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets and a self-reliant republic. He believes in saving for retirement and a rainy day, in deferred gratification, in not buying on credit what you cannot afford, in living within your means.

Is that really what got Wall Street and us into this mess -- that we followed too religiously the gospel of Robert Taft and Russell Kirk? 'Government must save us!' cries the left, as ever.

Yet, who got us into this mess if not the government -- the Fed with its easy money, Bush with his profligate spending, and Congress and the SEC by liberating Wall Street and failing to step in and stop the drunken orgy? For years, we Americans have spent more than we earned. We save nothing. Credit card debt, consumer debt, auto debt, mortgage debt, corporate debt -- all are at record levels. And with pensions and savings being wiped out, much of that debt will never be repaid.

Our standard of living is inevitably going to fall. For foreigners will not forever buy our bonds or lend us more money if they rightly fear that they will be paid back, if at all, in cheaper dollars. We are going to have to learn to live again within our means.

THE PARTY'S OVER! Up through World War II, we followed the Hamiltonian idea that America must remain economically independent of the world in order to remain politically independent. But this generation decided that was yesterday's bromide and we must march bravely forward into a Global Economy, where we all depend on one another. American companies morphed into 'Global Companies' and moved plants and factories to Mexico, Asia, China, and India, and we began buying more cheaply from abroad what we used to make at home: shoes, clothes, bikes, cars, radios, TVs, planes, computers.

As the trade deficits began inexorably to rise to 6 percent of GDP, we began vast borrowing from abroad to continue buying from abroad. At home, propelled by tax cuts, war in Iraq and an explosion in social spending, surpluses vanished and deficits reappeared and began to rise. The dollar began to sink, and gold began to soar. Yet, still, the promises of the politicians come. Barack Obama will give us national health insurance and tax cuts for all but that 2 percent of the nation that already carries 50 percent of the federal income tax load.

Who are we kidding?

What we are witnessing today is how empires end. The Last Superpower is unable to defend its borders, protect its currency, win its wars, or balance its budget. Medicare and Social Security are headed for the cliff with unfunded liabilities in the tens of trillions of dollars. What we are witnessing today is nothing less than a Katrina-like failure of government, of our political class, and of democracy itself, casting a cloud over the viability and longevity of the system. Notice who is managing the crisis. Not our elected leaders. Nancy Pelosi says she had nothing to do with it. Congress is paralyzed and heading home. Hank Paulson of Goldman Sachs and Ben Bernanke of the Fed chose to bail out Bear Sterns but let Lehman go under. They decided to nationalize Fannie and Freddie at a cost to taxpayers of hundreds of billions, putting the U. S. government behind $5 trillion in mortgages. They decided to buy AIG with $85 billion rather than see the insurance giant sink beneath the waves. Unelected financial elite is now entrusted with the assignment of getting us out of a disaster into which an unelected financial elite plunged the nation. We are just spectators.

What the Greatest Generation handed down to us -- the richest, most powerful, most self-sufficient republic in history, with the highest standard of living any nation had ever achieved -- the baby boomers, oblivious and self-indulgent to the end, have frittered away.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 02:33 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

To TKO, I will say that we are not discussing the 'sins' of individual people here. You can find a plethora of threads where that kind of thing is encouraged and people can be just as critical and/or hateful and/or viscious and/or insulting as they want to be about anybody there.

I'm not talking about outside criticism Fox. This isn't about liberals pointing out the "sins" of the conservatives. I'm asking you to do it. You. I ask you to do it, because if a liberal does it, you dismiss it immediately. I'm asking you to come to terms with the people YOU elect/vote for. You.
Foxfyre wrote:

Here I am interested in discussing basic principles of what a nation should be and what government should be and for me MAC is it. I think many of our national leaders over the history of this country have agreed with or agree with that and many haven't veered off that mark very far. I am prepared to defend each and every point/principle in that definition as well as any subtitles that might fit into the broader categories.

Defending every principle is fine, but like communism, if it doesn't play out like it does on the paper, it's worthless. I care not what you think of the principles. Show me it in action. Where is it?
Foxfyre wrote:

If you are interested in that join in. By all means offer your input as to how the MAC philosophy/principles are in error if you believe they are. But I won't be drawn into another Republican and/or conservative bashing discussion that has nothing to do with that. Again, there are other threads where that kind of discussion is appropriate and will be praised.

Stop it with the victim act. You embarrass yourself. Won't be drawn into a "bashing" of conservatives eh? You really do sound like you're prepared to "defend every principle." What I've seen now for a great deal of time is you request a challenge, fail to meet it, pose as a victim, then act as if it's below you to address the criticisms presented to you.

If MAC is all about principles that don't get played out, then it's just a bunch of talk and a waste of time. You just keep voting for Republicans that not only fall outside of your definition, but some who fully contradict it. They LOVE you for it.

What are you so ashamed of?

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 02:36 pm
I'm ashamed of you TKO. Okay?

That's about all I can come up with at the moment.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 02:36 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
But it was not MAC principles that got us into the mess this country is in right now.


This is highly disingenuous of you, Foxfyre. Through most if not all of the last 8 years you were in there pitching about what grand guys the outgone jokers were. Why didn't you see that they didn't represent these great MAC principles way long ago -- the signs were everywhere.

And this lady, please.

Quote:
Is that really what got Wall Street and us into this mess -- that we followed too religiously the gospel of Robert Taft and Russell Kirk? 'Government must save us!' cries the left, as ever.


Do you, does she, really think that the vast majority of Wall streeters are 'left'. Yes, I think pretty much everyone thinks that government intervention is necessary in order to stimulate the economy, but Ms Monk blames it on the left.

Quote:
Seizing on the crisis, the left says we are witnessing the failure of market economics, a failure of conservatism. This is nonsense. What we are witnessing is the collapse of Gordon Gecko ('Greed Is Good!') capitalism.


Brought on by [fill in the blank].



0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 01/11/2025 at 08:40:39