AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

I do not agree with much of the Wikipedia definition of American Conservatism and that definition clearly illustrates why I often have a problem with Wikipedia. I do think they did a pretty good job defining classical liberalism, however, and that's why I used it.

Well, it's perhaps the classical form of American liberalism, as described by David Convay in "Classical Liberalism: The Unvanquished Ideal".

However, if the American conservatism really is a form of classical liberalism - I wonder, if it will follow the same way the Whigs have chosen when these noted that times had changed ...

(And perhaps I even could persuade you, Foxfyre, to become a member of the Fabian Society?)

No, I don't think so. I'm not at all interested in moving toward more socialism either through revolution or slowly and incrementally. That is one thing I think modern American Conservatives do agree on. They are not socialists.

I never believed such.

It's just because you referred to a political theory of the 18th century that I noted the development this idea made half a century later :wink:

Foxfyre - I believe in your original post you articulated a certain feeling that what is a republican has changed, as opposed to who they they are.

A kind of way of expressing that the republicans of th past are not those of today.

I identify as a moderate. I bend to the left or right depending on the topic, but I feel their is merit to both sides. I feel I made this position when "republican" and "conservative" meant something else.

Since then, I feel that I have felt more in line with the democratic agenda, not because it's become more appealing, but because the republican agenda has moved/changed.

I put the blame on how the right has been hijacked by religious zealots on several levels of government. I believe that the attempt to leverage religion (specifically Christianity) they have put individuals into power that have used their influence in a self serving way. I believe the said hijacking has in effect cheapened both the party and the religion which it is abuses.

I think that the republicans should stop trying to govern bedfellows and birthrights if they profess a need for small government. I think they should stop advocating for big bussiness if they truly believe in free market.

A "conservative" approach by definition should be more centered. It seems like these days the focus is on how to appeal to the extreme.

T
K
O

The following is a sound recording of a talk given by Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern. Representative Kern is a Republican who sits on the Education Committee in the OK legislature. She's also a member of Mother Schlafly's Eagle Forum. The question that follows after listening to the recording below...is she a 'conservative'?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFxk7glmMbo&eurl=http://www.crooksandliars.com/

On Saturday, a little-known Democratic physicist won the special election for a congressional seat long held by former GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

Oberweis (the GOP cnadidate) campaigned on familiar themes, promising to combat illegal immigration and fight for lower taxes and less government. Foster (the winning Denocrat) campaigned on this year's election refrain of change, promising to vote to remove U.S. troops from Iraq, support universal health care and target tax breaks to the middle class. Foster painted Oberweis as a supporter of President Bush.

It seems that the GOP really has some difficulties with its own basis? (At least there, in Illinois.)

[Infos via agencies/Chicago Tribune]

I'm not at all sure that foxfire really wishes a realistic or non-dogmatic discussion related to the decline of the Republican party's standing and electoral chances, but that's what ought to filling these pages. Do you folks on the right here desire an open and honest appraisal or merely to fold yourselves into the comfort of self-certainty, avoiding reflection where it discomfits? I would advise you to begin from an hypothesis that some of your fundamental and cherished ideas are wrong or are unbalanced or are not so broadly shared as you have assumed or been told.

There's an obvious precedent here to help you pause and take a careful survey... if you hold that during the sixties the left in america (and elsewhere, for that matter) became too extreme in certain ideological positions and, in their arrogant self-certainty, didn't even realize they had moved seriously beyond the citizens' consensus , then you have a good working model for what your present situation might well be. There are indications that such an awareness is dawning. Fox herself includes significant modern conservative voices within what she calls 'the radical right' and Asherman suggests that the party's problem (and the movement's problem) is that it has moved too far right.

I actually hope you guys take a while to figure this all out because the US needs time now to undo a lot that's been done and which has been seriously detrimental. I want you to continue to be too extreme (outside popular consensus) in your thinking and speech and acts for a while longer. And I'm confident you will be.

But sooner or later, it would be better if you got a hell of a lot smarter about all this because one-party-rule, by either side, isn't going to work if america wants to function as a real democracy. And that's the first thing you have to fully and honestly face, because you haven't been facing it at all, quite aside from predictable lip service to the theory of it.

Modern american movement conservatism holds, as a fundamental premise (let's call it Premise One), that proper american values, traditions and political philosophy are understood and maintained ONLY within and by their own movement. If someone is outside the movement, he has it wrong as a simple matter of axiomatic truth. Conservatism = true Americanism whereas Non-Conservatism = the other, the wrong, the deluded, the unpatriotic, the traitorous, the perverse, the bad, the improper.

If you do not recognize that what I've just written is both highly accurate and seriously dangerous to democracy not to mention your own personal rationality, then you are a modern movement conservative and you are a species on the brink and deserving to be there.

Let's look at foxfires first post starting off this discussion.



As I pointed out earlier that "widely speculated" is either misworded or it is guilty of precisely the sort of dogmatic myopia I've just been talking about. There is no speculation or argument of this sort arising anywhere at all outside of movement conservatism. Within the movement, it is widespread. And it is entirely predictable that it would be because of Premise One. The movement won't be in error or won't have it wrong. Because it is True and Right. The only possible failures must arise from having fallen away from movement values, traditions and philosophy.



It took until the second paragraph for "liberal" to arrive. And arrive it must because it is the umbrella term used within the new conservative movement to scarlet letter "the other". Everything that is 'wrong' with america, everything which is non-american reflects some aspect of liberalism. But what's interesting in this paragraph is something else...the formulation that GOP losses in power have occured as a consequence of the GOP not being sufficiently aligned with conservative movement values, traditions and philosophies. There's no allowance possible that GOP losses might be a consequence of the movement itself. Further, there's the obviously foolish notion that the movement conservatives, by themselves, determine electoral results. Party strategists such as Rove do not suffer this delusion because they can't afford to.



I've just told you where you got and still get it wrong. You don't "need to regain the confidence of the Conservative base". You need to regain the confidence of everyone else and that can never happen while everyone else is guilty of improper or profane americanism.

Bernie wrote-



That is a technique I have often observed some noted lefties to employ. It would be impolite to offer any specific examples by name.

Bernie wrote-



"Detrimental" in this context is a relative term. It is relative in relation to whatever hypothetical circumstance with which a comparison is being fantasised: what would have been had Mr Gore won, say, to keep it simple, and in relation to the viewpoint of the author.

In relation to the former it is pie-in-the-sky and in relation to the latter it is patently untrue in a great number of cases: Wall St bonus recipients for example, and true in others, such as those whose mousetraps are past their sell-by date.

Bill Foster just won just won a Congressional race in Illinois (14th district). This has always been a heavily conservative district... this special election was for Dennis Hastert's seat.

Bill Foster was the Democrat running against Oberweis... a conservative by any measure.

The two main issues in the campaign were immigration enforcement, and wiretapping as part of the "War on Terror (tm)". Of course the conservative used pulled out all the standard conservative arguments about the need to protect Americans from scary brown skinned people.

Somehow conservative arguments aren't playing so well any more... even in traditionally conservative districts.

Bernie-

Why are you trying to teach conservatives how to win votes?

ebrown_p wrote-



Would you be kind enough eb to explain what that means. Number of votes. Population of eligible voters in the 14th district. What job Mr Foster does. That sort of thing.

It is difficult to judge the value on a national perspective without such things.

Were there any local "issues"?

Read paragraph four, spendi.

I tried to post that earlier here (see previus site).

Here's a link to the local press, spendi: Hastert seat loss, Foster win, big blow to GOP

Bernie-

I'm sorry to have to say this but I think the above post is a load of confused teleological twaddle. It is quite as impossible to get to grips with it as it is a greasy octopus unless it's meaning resides solely within the writing of it.

In view of -



any other interpretation logically has me doubting my personal rationality and plonking me on to the brink. As I don't feel either state to be present where I sit I cannot understand what you are talking about.

Thanks Walt.

In comments on the link a Dave B, an obvious Republican, had written about Mr Oberweis this-



That sort of thing often has much more influence than more important issues such as wiretapping and immigration.

What is Dave B hinting at with "We all know who he is"?

Bernie wrote-



which reads-



One-party-rule obviously won't work in a democracy. "Party" itself is anti-democratic.

But you imply that the supporters of the right are not smart, are dishonest, and can't face up to the fact that one-party-rule won't work in a democracy which is a poxy-moron I think.

Do you really expect to be allowed to imply those things without any countervailing voice being raised?

If so then the left's one way megaphone is in operation--again-- and that smacks of one-party-rule if anything does.

And ebrown_p implied that Mr Foster's win was due to conservative policies not being acceptable and a little digging got us to Dave B, an on the spot witness, telling us that "We all know who he is" about his Republican opponent as if there was a big local issue having nothing to do with policies at all.

So we have the left's one way megaphone and the left's spin to contend with and if somebody has some facing up to the facts vis-a-vis democracy before they start finger pointing to do it is the left.

...hope for the conservative movement springs from an anonymous web poster speaking after the fact.

That's deliciously depressing....