AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Sorry, but I really didn't get it.

Here, you are either a party member or not. And when you are a member of a party, you elect (by maybe different ways in different parties) your local, regional, state, federal leadership.

If someone outside a political party doesn't agree with the party's leadership - well, that's (nearly) as important as watching paint dry.

Yes, you live in Germany. Sociopolitical dynamics are different there than they are here. Party loyalty must be constantly earned here and it can be an extremely tenuous thing should the party leaders offend their base.

That's the same here. Generally, at least. (Though there certainly are a few examples where someone got a party position shortly after becoming a member - e.g. a Green just today changed to the conservatives and tries to become a parliament candidate there - generally you show your loyality over the years of your membership .... and by climbing up the "ladder of various positions".)

The two entrenched American political parties represent the fundamentally different approaches to government that existed in 1787.

On one side there are those who believe in a strong central government constrained from interfering in the affairs of States, localities and individuals. Each of the three branches is intended to check radical change, or the permanent usurpation of power by a any particular individual or group. The management of government should be left to those representatives of the People elected or appointed to office. The People's representatives are expected to do their duty and represent the interests of the nation as a whole without regard to partisanship, or the emotional demands of fashion. This philosophy anticipates that all humans are flawed, and that all human institutions fall short of perfection. The Constitution is the mechanism adopted to curb on one hand, while granting broad authority for national leaders to guide the nation's destiny. The ancient model is representative Rome, not Athens.

This political philosophy of the Federalists was extremely successful in rescuing a foundering new nation, and acting as the foundation for future greatness. The Federalists lost to the first "real" American political party, the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans in the Revolution of 1800. They continued as a countervailing opposition until their objections to the War of 1812 spelled the end of their power. Federalist ideas and philosophy morphed into the Whigs, and finally into what is today the Republican Party.

The Jeffersonians disliked centralized government, and idealized the sort of localized control of government typified by States and the plantation culture of the South emphasizing the virtues of rugged rural agriculturists over urban manufactures. Their political philosophy was that the central government under the Articles of Confederation was superior to a Federalist system exercising authority over States, localities and individuals. Jefferson tried to undo the strides made toward a Federalist system, and wrecked both the nation's economy and its military capabilities. Though Jefferson always argued against the powers of the Executive Office, he wasn't shy about using and abusing those powers as he saw fit. Hence, the Louisiana Purchase and hounding of those on his personal "enemies list". Jefferson's political philosophy endured and evolved into the Democratic Party that pretty much dominated the U.S. government until the Civil War.

The Democratic Party fragmented along regional lines and the Southern wing of the Party insisted upon secession. Northern Democrats generally argued against the prosecution of that war, urged pacifism and some became secret agents for the Confederacy. The Republicans, led by Lincoln and a group of Radical Republicans, waged all-out war that increasingly became associated with the abolition of slavery. At the end of the Civil War, the most Radical Republicans demanded that the defeated Southern States be made to toe-the-line set by the Republicans. Reconstruction supposedly freed the slaves, and the Southern political establishment was penalized. The South became a Democratic stronghold, and State laws were passed to undermine Republican dictates, especially where Black civil rights were concerned. From 1865 until the beginning of the 20th century, the Republican Party dominated national politics... often by "waving the bloody shirt". The Democratic South languished and its economy produced some of the poorest citizens in the land.

During the last 20 years of so of the 19th century, big business became monopolistic and utilized practices that stifled competition and victimized many working Americans. The Progressive and Reform Movements demanded that the Federal government act to curb unfair business practices. Grover Cleveland, a Northern Democratic mayor, got elected twice, to non-consecutive terms on a popular reputation as a reformer. Federal employment came under Civil Service, and much of the old Spoils System disappeared. The first small attempts at organizing farmers and laborers were made and the Socialist Party in the United States was born out on the Great Plains. Teddy Roosevelt parlayed his heroic image and dynamic personal life into his own political machine after the death of his Presidential predecessor, McKinley. Then the Republican Party was split when Teddy formed the Bull Moose Party after failing to receive the GOP nomination. The result was the election of the Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

Wilson came out of the academic life (Princeton). He was idealistic, and narrow-minded on a whole range of issues including his belief that Blacks were inferior. During WWI, Wilson instituted some of the most severe restrictions on American civil liberties ever. Wilson nationalized railroads, mines, forestry, and a host of other private businesses. Press censorship was tight, and opposition to Wilson's policies and WWI were suppressed to some extent. The Federal Government infiltrated many American organizations, but their focus was on organized labor, and political parties. The Palmer Raids were without precedent. A group of miners in Arizona were awakened in the dark hours of early morning, and herded to a rail station where they were put into freight cars and exiled with the warning don't come back to Arizona... and the government didn't lift a finger, except to support the Phelps Dodge Mining Co. Wilson's idealism sidetracked the settlement of WWI in Paris and set the stage for WWII. Wilson argued for a League of Nations to prevent future wars. The problem was that Americans weren't persuaded to turn over their own national soveriegnty to some international experiment. Wilson had a stroke and for the remainder of his term, his wife ruled as the de facto President of the United States.

Then came the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. The faults in the Treaty of Versailles became evident, as the European economy sagged under run-away inflation. Drastic measures seemed necessary, and radical solutions were put forward by Socialists, Communists, Fascists and Nazis. Il Duce made the trains run on time! Communism transformed backward Russian into a "Worker's Paradise". Meanwhile back in the U.S. thousands were out of work, and the economy came to a virtual stand-still. The demand for the Federal Government to "correct" the situation became a clamor. Poor old Herbert Hoover, an engineer, reformer and top flight organizer, felt constrained by the Constitutional constraints preventing the Federal Government from interfering.

Populists, Communists, Socialists, and assorted bigots all claimed to have the answers to America's problems and gained large followings. FDR managed to win the Presidency and embarked on a set of ambitious programs that came to be known as the "New Deal". FDR's wife became a traveling spokesperson and endeared herself to multitudes of poor and disenfranchised people. Her empathy and defense of the Negro civil rights was widely condemned by the Democratic South. FDR's efforts may have been somewhat effective, but many were declared un-Constitutional by the Supreme Court... just as Hoover and others maintained all along. WWII came along, and FDR was the right man in the right place at the right time. When FDR died his failings died with him and he became one of the great American political icons.

Truman was a tough little man who failed at almost every endeavor. He had been a junior artillery officer in WWI, but was unable to even support his family thereafter. He became affiliated with the Democratic Boss of Missouri. When FDR wanted to rid himself of the equally opinionated VP from Texas, Truman got the job largely because he was seen as a no-body. FDR kept Truman totally in the dark and away from the levers of power. When Truman became President, he hadn't even heard the term, Manhattan Project. Yet, Truman became one of the arguably best Presidents of the 20th century. He fired General MacArthur, an American Hero and media idol for failing to keep his mouth shut. He ordered the integration of the U.S. military over the objections of almost everyone. He was a plain-spoken plain little man who offended many, yet Truman was also an avid student of American history and politics. He understood how public service and politics interacted, and he knew where as President he wanted to go.

During the 1960's the Cold War was omnipresent. The U.S. was committed to propping up a client state against a concerted effort to install Communism. JFK and LBJ and Vietnam. At the same time the American People were demanding an end to Jim Crow Laws, and the brutal suppression of Black Civil Rights in the South. Idealistic young people were coming of age and demanding that all the wrongs of the past be made right, and without any further delay. The reason for American involvement in Vietnam wasn't easy to see, and LBJ was even more unpopular than Bush is today. In retrospect, LBJ wasn't the monster we of the Age of Aquarius painted him as. LBJ was one of FDR's henchmen, and he also firmly believed that the Federal Government had a positive duty to interfere where ever and when ever an apparent injustice occurred. LBJ probably got more of his proposals passed into law with a solid majority in Congress than any other President before or since.

Today's Democratic Party remains essentially Jeffersonian, but with a major twist. Today's Party, especially the left wing of the Party, has come to believe that the Federal Government should be more heavily involved in providing money and policy designed to improve and uplift society. The calls for redistribution of wealth, in one form or another, is not new, but it is a radical invasion of personal liberty that the Constitution was intended to protect us from. The novel notion that the government should insure everyone against risk and against loss resulting from their own actions is and behavior disturbing. However, the most disturbing notions are held by a relatively small number of Left-wing radicals in the Democratic Party... just as the Right-wing of the Republican Pary hold some disturbingly extreme notions.

In the end the extreme wings of the two Parties do not have the power to impose their recondite views on the whole. Both Parties are forced to the center, to court the moderate voters ballot. Both will appeal to the voter's self-interest, because many of the voters have no clear dedication to any particular abstract political philosophy. What counts for most voters is their own financial security, and the traditional values of their parents, grandparents, friends and fellow religionists.

The two American Parties aren't distinguished by one being Conservative and the other Lberal. They are both, as they should be, Moderate and Centrist.

I am going to address this one point, and thats it. You need to go back to school and learn how to spell to start off with. Then you need a major rethinking of your philosophy, which will probably take a life time, but you could shorten the process by running your own business, for at least 5 years or before you go broke, and you might come back here and talk intelligently.

In regard to the conflict between the interest of business and the American people, there is basically none, you don't have to buy anything from anybody that you don't want to, end of story. Business is based on supply and demand, and if you don't want it, they won't supply you. Business is busy supplying what the people want, thank goodness somebody is. You need to wake up every morning thanking your lucky stars for business and the people working for business and for you, that supplies you with pretty much everything you need to live, food, shelter, and clothing. It is government that is the problem that you need to start worrying about, as they will ram anything down your throat that they feel like if they can get the legislation through, and they will tax the bejeebers out of you until the cows come home.[/quote]

Wow. If you bussiness failed after 5 years, ever take the time to just admit maybe you sucked at it?

Get a life.

You are a fool if you think that the government has no perogative to intervien when the interests of it's citizens is threatened by bussinesses.

T
K
O

No. I just don't need to hit spell check here on every little post to catch spelling or typing errors. There is a large disconnect between interaction in a social forum and in real life. social interactoin standards here are much lower, and if you don't believe me look at the presence of leet-speak in the forum.

"LOL"
"OMG"
"I C U R A fan of the arts."
etc

If te standards were different here, you might have a point worth addressing, but as it stands, your just being an a$$hole and trying to invalidate my posts with your very juvenile brand of flaming.

The truth is that I could hit spell check, but I really don't care to. You see plenty of other peopl here are able to read my posts and understand them fine. If I were to spell check all my posts, it would only be for you and your fellow trolls who actually understand my posts but just want to give me a hard time. Frankly, you're not worth it.

A post by me that has not been spellchecked but addresses the issues of the thread is still more valueable than your spellchecked posts whose entire purpose is to harass and/or critique others without contributing.

BTW, I've had to resist numerous times pointing out your spelling and grammer errors. I resist because I won't play your stupid game.

T
K
O

It's because winning has become more valueable than upholding the conservative principle. I actually agree with Fox on the disconnect between the actions of republicans and the ideas of conservatism.

That's why I asked what is conservative about republican politics.
K
O

I don't "spellcheck" my posts. Look, I've certainly never claimed to be infallible, because I certainly am not. I misspell words all the time, and I certainly contribute my share of typos, grammatical errors, and punctuation gaffes to these fora. But I believe they are the exception, not the rule. And by saying that I do not mean to imply that I'm better or smarter than you. I'm just not as lazy as you. And I'm suggesting to you -- a suggestion you have rejected up to this point -- that you ought to take more pride in your communications, because it will reap benefits for you down the road.


BTW, you haven't addressed my post about the AUMF.

Please direct me to the question.

T
K
O

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3164176#3164176

Ok. I read. The lie is that we (the government) knew that there were weapons in Iraq. The lie is that we (the government) knew that Al-Queda was in Iraq.

Both Cheney and Rumsfeld said that there were weapons and that Al-queda was in Iraq. Further that there was a direct connection between Iraq and 9/11. Lies.

The document you linked to isn't entirely lies, but after the removal of the lies, it's only a resolution strong enough for diplomatic efforts and not justification for millitary force. When garnished with the right lies, it's just enough to build a seed of doubt.

T
K
O

All of the following occurred prior to the invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003:


On March 15, 2002, the Christian Science Monitor reported:

A radical Islamist group - with possible links to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein - is growing and threatening the stability of the Kurdish region in northern Iraq. The group - Ansar al-Islam - emerged just days before the Sept. 11 attacks on the US. It delivered a fatwa, or manifesto, to the citizens in mountain villages against "the blasphemous secularist, political, social, and cultural" society there, according to Kurdish party leaders. Since, Ansar al-Islam has nearly doubled in size to 700, including Iraqis, Jordanians, Moroccans, Palestinians, and Afghans - a composition similar to the multinational Al Qaeda network. Villagers here claim it has ransacked and razed beauty salons, burned schools for girls, and murdered women in the streets for refusing to wear the burqa. It has seized a Taliban-style enclave of 4,000 civilians and several villages near the Iran border. With the US dedicated to rooting out Al Qaeda's influence wherever it surfaces in the world, a group of Islamic extremists in northern Iraq with even loose ties to Al Qaeda could complicate further any Iraq intervention. Already the US is in a delicate dance with allies over how to handle Iraq, with many warning that the US must consider the implications of possible instability that a move to topple Hussein could cause.

On July 24, 2002, the BBC reported:

A pocket of militant Islamic extremists, believed to be linked to Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda movement, is causing havoc in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq. The presence of the violently anti-American group, known as the Ansar al-Islam (Partisans of Islam), is likely to attract increasing attention as US moves to overthrow Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime gather pace.

On September 25, 2002, CNN reported Condoleeza Rice:

… said the U.S. government clearly knows "that there were in the past and have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time." "We know too that several of the detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al Qaeda in chemical weapons development," Rice said. "So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad," she said. "There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented." At the same time, she cautioned that "no one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on September 11th, so we don't want to push this too far." Rice added: "This is a story that is unfolding, and it is getting clear, and we're learning more. … When the picture is clear, we'll make full disclosure about it."

On October 1, 2002, CBS reported:

When hijacker Khalid al Midhar arrived in Malaysia in January of 2000 for a meeting of key al Qaeda operatives, he was met at the airport by an Iraqi named Ahmad Shakir, who worked part-time greeting VIPs, a job he got with the help of someone in the Iraqi Embassy. One week later, al Midhar flew to the United States, and 18 months later he was aboard the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon. He is considered one of the most important hijackers because he was in charge of the so-called muscle - the young Saudi men responsible for subduing the passengers That is not a smoking gun linking Iraq to Sept. 11, but it is one of several clues suggesting, though not proving, a connection between al Qaeda and the government of Saddam Hussein. Martin goes on to report on another link that existed before 9/11 The clearest link so far is that at least one senior member of al Qaeda fled to Baghdad after Sept. 11. He has since left Baghdad and there is no evidence Saddam Hussein knew about his visit, although in a police state like Iraq people don't just come and go.

On October 10, 2002, Senator Clinton said in a speech in the Senate:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

You making my point. A lies were told. Nothing about what you posted was ever validated.

"...possible links..."
"...believed to be linked to..."
"...U.S. Government clearly knows..."
"...several clues suggesting, though not proving..."
"...no evidence Saddam Hussein knew about his visit..."
"...no evidence of involvement..."

Just admit it and be done with it. The american people were sold a phoney war on the premise of WMDs and Terrorism.

T
K
O

Prove they were lies. You said it, now prove it.

Well what if they were lies? It opens up a whole new area of possibilities.

Wouldn't you think it would give pause for thought that all those folks from the Clinton administration could be so snookered by the uneducated, ignorant, stupid George W. Bush? You gotta hand it to him. Even before he declared his intention to run for President, he was able to meddle with and fool all those Democrats who wrote that letter petitioning the then President Clinton to do something about Saddam Hussein. He had sufficient influence to fool Hillary Clinton, the smartest woman in the world, into believing Saddam Hussein was a major threat with stockpiles of WMD. And this was even before 9/11. He had the vision to get a really early start on all that.

Don't you see what they are saying? George W. Bush is a genius, master negotiator with prominent Democrats, somebody with the ability to persuade the Democrats to authorize and fund a war.

We better amend the Constitution to allow him to run for a third term. We aren't going to find anybody more brilliant or capable than that.

Very simply Tico, the proof is simply that none of it was ever validated. All the claims of connections, and weapons. All bogus. Like I said before, the burden is not on me to prove those claims false, it's on the people who made the claims to PROVE THEM TRUE. They failed.

We searched, no WMDs.
We found out Saddam was an enemy of Osama because Saddam put tanks on holy land, not buddies.

They were lies.
K
O

The last time I posted a George Will essay commenting on a component of Americana, it was as a thread starter and it attracted so many trolls and so much bile that it was locked as often as it was open. So it is with a degree of fear and trembling that I post the following however pertinent it is on a thread discussing basic Conservative values.

It has been my long time opinion that most Conservatives are benevolent and compassionate people who give generously of their time, talent, and personal resources. It has also been my long time opinion that Liberals claim to be benevolent and compassionate people who would save everybody in the world if they could, but they would do it with mostly my money.

At any rate, the following is an eye opener when it comes to differences in practice when viewed through the prism of ideology:

March 27, 2008
Conservatives More Liberal Givers
By George Will

WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.

[email protected]
LINK

As this thread subject infers, the Republican brand is now in some substantial jeopardy. We might argue as to why this is and what ought to be done about it. Or, we could decide instead to just ramp up a PR campaign to get folks thinking better of the party that Christ loves so much.

Who better to turn to in this hour of need than Cristvertizing... http://christvertising.com/who.html

Interview with ex Republican senator Mickey Edwards, a founding member of the Heritage foundation and author of RECLAIMING CONSERVATISM: HOW A GREAT AMERICAN POLITICAL MOVEMENT GOT LOST, AND HOW IT CAN FIND IT'S WAY BACK and with Matt Welch, author of MCCAIN: THE MYTH OF A MAVERICK

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03072008/watch2.html