AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

BUMP

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Did I leave anything out?
Just one...

Diest TKO wrote:
Question below...

QUESTION: What is conservative about what the republican party promotes?

Question above...

T
K
O

However, I think you have begun to answer it partially.

I'd like to hear how you think a pure conservative would address the following, and if it differs from the republican ideas.

-Job outsourcing
-Abortion
-Capitol Punishment
-Social Security
-Corporate crime
-Fixing Public Education
-Torture

Thank you.
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

BUMP
Diest TKO wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Did I leave anything out?
Just one...

Diest TKO wrote:
Question below...

QUESTION: What is conservative about what the republican party promotes?

Question above...

T
K
O

However, I think you have begun to answer it partially.

I'd like to hear how you think a pure conservative would address the following, and if it differs from the republican ideas.

-Job outsourcing
-Abortion
-Capitol Punishment
-Social Security
-Corporate crime
-Fixing Public Education
-Torture

Thank you.
K
O

This one cannot be answered in a nice neat post because there are probably as many Republican ideas as there are Republicans on every subject. Also it would depend on what specific question somebody would have re any of these issues as to how modern conservatism, as I define it anyway, might apply. I think probably some questions about any of them might not even be addressable within a particular ideology.

I am seriously not sidestepping your question, but there really is no answer for it in the broad all emcompassing way you framed it.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Being a conservative, I do not believe modern conservative principles are flawed in any significant sense. I have considered that the GOP may have abandoned enough of those principles in recent years to sufficiently antagonize its conservative base so it lost Congress in 2006 and several other non-congressional contests as well. So far, none of the other conservatives on this thread have presumed to agree with me on that, however, and different factors have been pointed out, so I think there is plenty of room to continue the discussion.

I think if the GOP had consistently acted in line with modern conservative principles it would not have been losing elections.

Did I leave anything out?

I agree and I have said many times on various threads that George Bush is not a true conservative in all points, and neither was his father. I think conservatives vote for the best candidate they can that captures the most points of conservatism, and when the oppostition has no conservative points at all, then our vote may be based on the candidate only having half of the characteristics we are looking for, or even less. Liberals then proceed to define conservatism by the Republican that is in office, which is in error, and leads to many false impressions and conclusions. To some liberals, any candidate that is a Republican is an ulta right wing conservative, which is of course wrong. And to be honest, conservatism is defined somewhat differently in at least minute ways by people that believe in conservatism, but I think there are a few key things that all can generally agree upon.

In regard to McCain, he is not a true conservative either, maybe closer than Bush in some areas, but further away in others. Although he is somewhat or very conservative in some areas, he is way out in left field in others. I think this stems from his philosophy as being a maverick that acts out of his own personal instincts on various issues without enough regard to underlying principles or unintended consequences. He is just John McCain, but he does love the country at least.

0 Replies

Fox,

You ask for my opinion as to why the Democrats were able to gain control of the House and Senate last time out.

1. It is not uncommon for the majority Party to lose seats during mid-term elections, this is especially the case when the President is a lame duck. This is not enough to wholly explain the Democrats success, but it is one factor.

2. The conflict in Southern Asia is too complex and has lasted too long in the estimation of many Americans. We want simple, straight forward reasons that any high school drop out can understand, and American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't a simple thing. Bush & Co. hasn't done a great job of explaining why and how our efforts are connected to the larger war against the Radical Islamic Movement. The enemy has been pretty effective in playing on American aversion to violence of any sort. Democratic partisans have spent many years opposing the Administration, and anti-war rhetoric has become their stock in trade. Media reports and pictures of the realities of arm conflict don't sit well with Americans who have come to expect fast antiseptic military actions with a lot of pyrotechnics and little blood. The reality of conflict persuades many that ANY solution resulting in an end to violence is acceptable. Americans want an end to all war, but are impatient with the means that will result in victory over our enemies. Defeat as an option is sugar-coated, and sold by the Left, pacifists, the supporters of Radical Islam, and dewy-eyed idealists. Tje war is not popular, and the Democrats efforts to place all of the blame on the President and the GOP found willing ears.

3. The notion that the GOP was handily defeated in the polls is not true. There was no shift from Repubiican to Democrat representation in Congress. They manage to take control of the Senate by a very narrow margin. In the House, where the winds of change and responsiveness to public clamor is more common, the Democrats did better. Even so, the most of the seats they won weren't slam dunks, but won by narrow margins. The cumulative effect of many narrow victories combined to give the Democrats a clear majority in the House.

4. Who were the Democrats who were elected? They weren't from the extreme Left of the Democratic Party. They were moderates, not far removed from the people that our own Party relies upon for elections. Whether a representative is a moderate Republican or a moderate Democrat is less important than if there was a sudden shift to the extreme of either Party. It is entirely possible that the extremists on our right were themselves an element that drove voters to elect Democrats in place of Republicans. Party discipline that prevents Representatives and Senators from exercising more independence on legislation shifts power to the leadership, and currently the Democratic leadership typified by Polosi, and Teddy Kennedy keep the Party oriented toward the Left.

Our base isn't the ultra-conservatives or Evangelical Christians, though both are important voting blocks needed to offset the Anarchists, Marxists, Socialists, etc. from the far Left-wing of the Democratic Party. In the upcoming general election our standard bearer is a moderate whose record has shown his courage, and willingness to throw over Party discipline on those occasions when he personally disagreed with the Party Line. That should make John McCain a very easy choice when it comes time for the voter to pull the lever. Afterall, what will the alternative be? An inexperienced young Democrat who has spent 20 years at the feet of a racist.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Fox,

You ask for my opinion as to why the Democrats were able to gain control of the House and Senate last time out.

1. It is not uncommon for the majority Party to lose seats during mid-term elections, this is especially the case when the President is a lame duck. This is not enough to wholly explain the Democrats success, but it is one factor.

2. The conflict in Southern Asia is too complex and has lasted too long in the estimation of many Americans. We want simple, straight forward reasons that any high school drop out can understand, and American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't a simple thing. Bush & Co. hasn't done a great job of explaining why and how our efforts are connected to the larger war against the Radical Islamic Movement. The enemy has been pretty effective in playing on American aversion to violence of any sort. Democratic partisans have spent many years opposing the Administration, and anti-war rhetoric has become their stock in trade. Media reports and pictures of the realities of arm conflict don't sit well with Americans who have come to expect fast antiseptic military actions with a lot of pyrotechnics and little blood. The reality of conflict persuades many that ANY solution resulting in an end to violence is acceptable. Americans want an end to all war, but are impatient with the means that will result in victory over our enemies. Defeat as an option is sugar-coated, and sold by the Left, pacifists, the supporters of Radical Islam, and dewy-eyed idealists. Tje war is not popular, and the Democrats efforts to place all of the blame on the President and the GOP found willing ears.

3. The notion that the GOP was handily defeated in the polls is not true. There was no shift from Repubiican to Democrat representation in Congress. They manage to take control of the Senate by a very narrow margin. In the House, where the winds of change and responsiveness to public clamor is more common, the Democrats did better. Even so, the most of the seats they won weren't slam dunks, but won by narrow margins. The cumulative effect of many narrow victories combined to give the Democrats a clear majority in the House.

4. Who were the Democrats who were elected? They weren't from the extreme Left of the Democratic Party. They were moderates, not far removed from the people that our own Party relies upon for elections. Whether a representative is a moderate Republican or a moderate Democrat is less important than if there was a sudden shift to the extreme of either Party. It is entirely possible that the extremists on our right were themselves an element that drove voters to elect Democrats in place of Republicans. Party discipline that prevents Representatives and Senators from exercising more independence on legislation shifts power to the leadership, and currently the Democratic leadership typified by Polosi, and Teddy Kennedy keep the Party oriented toward the Left.

Our base isn't the ultra-conservatives or Evangelical Christians, though both are important voting blocks needed to offset the Anarchists, Marxists, Socialists, etc. from the far Left-wing of the Democratic Party. In the upcoming general election our standard bearer is a moderate whose record has shown his courage, and willingness to throw over Party discipline on those occasions when he personally disagreed with the Party Line. That should make John McCain a very easy choice when it comes time for the voter to pull the lever. Afterall, what will the alternative be? An inexperienced young Democrat who has spent 20 years at the feet of a racist.

Thanks Ash. I agree that the more radical elements of the GOP have far less clout that the opposition credits them with, but they are part of the constituency just the same so they won't be completely ignored either any more than the Democrats will fail to acknowledge their more radical elements.

I hadn't looked up those margins to see if the 2006 election was in fact as mile a scolding of the GOP as you suggest, but I'm betting your scholarship is pretty good on that. Smile

And I hadn't remembered the war being a critical factor in 2006, but now I remember all those Democrats promising to end it if they were elected. They haven't of course, nor will Obama or Clinton if either beocme our next President, but I wonder if those who elected all those Democrats are mad at them for failing to keep their campaign promise?

Also, thinking out loud, if McCain is elected President in November, would he be better off with a Democrat majority in Congress? Or would a GOP majority serve him better than a GOP majority served George W. Bush? Bill Clinton didn't get diddly squat accomplished his first two years when he had a Democrat controlled Congress. Sometimes I think our elected representatives remember who they are and what they are there for better when they're in the minority.

0 Replies

Okie writes

Quote:

In regard to McCain, he is not a true conservative either, maybe closer than Bush in some areas, but further away in others. Although he is somewhat or very conservative in some areas, he is way out in left field in others. I think this stems from his philosophy as being a maverick that acts out of his own personal instincts on various issues without enough regard to underlying principles or unintended consequences. He is just John McCain, but he does love the country at least.

George W. Bush's approval ratings have hovered in the 30 percentiles, an unhealthy range, for many many months now. When I think of those areas I would mark him down on, I can attach my concept of conservatism that I think he has 'violated' to most of them.

Assuming that McCain won't govern all that much differently, do you think his image will be better? Or is that a bad assumption to make?

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Question below...

QUESTION: What is conservative about what the republican party promotes?

Question above...

T
K
O

I'm on my way to bed but I just read over the last few pages on this thread, and, while I did address this question earlier, I will refer you again to those four principles of 'classical liberalism', now defined as Modern Conservatism, that I posted earlier today. I think most Republicans, at least the conservative ones, do promote those principles at least in theory.

Here they are again:

1) an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,

2) the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,

3) the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and

4) the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.

Have the Republicans stayed true to all of these in practice during the current administration? No I don't believe they have. Is that part of their problem? I don't know. That's what we are discussing.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Being a conservative, I do not believe modern conservative principles are flawed in any significant sense. I have considered that the GOP may have abandoned enough of those principles in recent years to sufficiently antagonize its conservative base so it lost Congress in 2006 and several other non-congressional contests as well. So far, none of the other conservatives on this thread have presumed to agree with me on that, however, and different factors have been pointed out, so I think there is plenty of room to continue the discussion.

I think if the GOP had consistently acted in line with modern conservative principles it would not have been losing elections.

Did I leave anything out?

I agree and I have said many times on various threads that George Bush is not a true conservative in all points, and neither was his father. I think conservatives vote for the best candidate they can that captures the most points of conservatism, and when the oppostition has no conservative points at all, then our vote may be based on the candidate only having half of the characteristics we are looking for, or even less. Liberals then proceed to define conservatism by the Republican that is in office, which is in error, and leads to many false impressions and conclusions. To some liberals, any candidate that is a Republican is an ulta right wing conservative, which is of course wrong. And to be honest, conservatism is defined somewhat differently in at least minute ways by people that believe in conservatism, but I think there are a few key things that all can generally agree upon.

In regard to McCain, he is not a true conservative either, maybe closer than Bush in some areas, but further away in others. Although he is somewhat or very conservative in some areas, he is way out in left field in others. I think this stems from his philosophy as being a maverick that acts out of his own personal instincts on various issues without enough regard to underlying principles or unintended consequences. He is just John McCain, but he does love the country at least.

McCain panders to Democrats and particularly to the press out of desire to be popular and well liked.

He was burned badly by the press in the Keating Five affair and he has never forgotten how they nearly destroyed him.

I think a lot of his positions can be attributed to this desire for approval from the press.

It's a deadly flaw, and will lead to some horrible decisions if he's elected President, just as it has led him to support some awful ideas as a Senator.

McCain-Feingold, the amnesty bill of a few months ago, the Gang of 14 are a few instances that come to mind.

Unfortunately, it is a choice between mediocre (McCain) and liberal (HillyBilly, Obama or any compromise candidate) this fall.

What Ds need to do is put better candidates forward and force Rs to become more competitive.

Rs have become complacent because of the low level of competition offered by the Ds in the past few election cycles.

If it had not been for Ross Perot, Rs would've won every Presidential contest since 1980.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

4) the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.

Don't you think that such not only limits individual rights but the right of self-determination for each and every country as well?

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
4) the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.

Don't you think that such not only limits individual rights but the right of self-determination for each and every country as well?

No, I think you're reading something into the statement that I don't see, Walter. The way I take it is:

1) an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society. This is the concept contained in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I think the conservative point of view is that such unalienable rights are universal. They apply everywhere and anywhere that they are denied, they are denied wrongly and to the detriment of the people.

2) the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system.
Here you have the Lockean principle that property precedes government and, when unalienable rights of others are not violated, people should be able to use their own property and resources however they choose to maximize benefits to themselves. This is another principle which conservatives see as universally applicable and beneficial.

3) the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion
I believe conservatives agree on a principle of a federal government just large enough to be effective in its responsibilities as defined by our Constititution but otherwise limited in size, scope, and power.

So when we get to #4 on the list:
4) the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.

The way I see this is that these principles apply anywhere and everywhere and they work everywhere they are tried. In other words, these are not uniquely American concepts but are conservative concepts.

I think most conservatives would agree that all people everywhere should be encouraged to adopt these principles, but would stop far short of any concept that people should be required or forced to adopt these principles.

0 Replies

Okay, thanks for clarifying (again).

(Quite interestingly: our post-war "social market economy", crated by the conservatives, was (nearly) "destroyed" by the last Social-Democratic government.)

0 Replies

Going back to Okie and Real Life's points, I think John McCain gets into trouble with conservatives when he seems to contradict his own principles.

Conservatives didn't buy, for instance, that his declaration of fines and adding requirements to obtain citizenship for illegal immigrants did not constitute amnesty.

Conservatives had a problem with McCain/Feingold because of the perceived conflict between that and the unalienable right to free speech and ability to support a candidate of one's choice.

Conservatives had a problem with McCain refusing to support tax cuts, a serious component within #3 on the list, and then refusing to support initiatives to make them permanent. This gave a huge impression of 'going over to the dark' side of liberalism, bigger government, less ability for people to pursue their own destiny.

In other areas McCain is rock solid on other conservative principles with a voting record to prove it.

A mixed bag, yes. But for those with conviction that conservative principles best serve the country, McCain is the only viable choice we have and will support those better than Obama or Clinton can be expected to do.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Okay, thanks for clarifying (again).

(Quite interestingly: our post-war "social market economy", crated by the conservatives, was (nearly) "destroyed" by the last Social-Democratic government.)

Here you have me at a disadvantage because I still don't have the political and social philosophies of the various sociopolitical groups in German clearly defined in my mind. I think we may have agreed that 'conservative' there means something different than 'conservative' here though.

0 Replies

Okay - my point just was showing the difference, since conservatives here are for instance more focused to our Christian heritage as opposed to the libertarians (and Social Democrats).

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Okay - my point just was showing the difference, since conservatives here are for instance more focused to our Christian heritage as opposed to the libertarians (and Social Democrats).

Well then probably German conservatives and American conservatives do share that trait. According to the last Pew poll analyzing such trends, the findings were that people defining themselves as conservative were more likely to describe themselves as religious or with a religious faith than do those who define themselves as liberals.

Not sure how it would divide up when it comes to political and social activism though.

0 Replies

Here is some interesting polling data related to the conservative/liberal dynamics in America:

Pew: Liberals/Conservatives and the pragmatic view on several issues
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=283

Pew: Liberals/Conservatives and the media
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040524.asp#1

Pew Forum on Religion and the 2008 election
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=259

For those who have time to look over these a bit I wonder if it changes any opinions about either Conservatives or Liberals being universally wild-eyed irrational fanatics?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Here is some interesting polling data related to the conservative/liberal dynamics in America:

Pew: Liberals/Conservatives and the pragmatic view on several issues
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=283

Pew: Liberals/Conservatives and the media
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040524.asp#1

Pew Forum on Religion and the 2008 election
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=259

For those who have time to look over these a bit I wonder if it changes any opinions about either Conservatives or Liberals being universally wild-eyed irrational fanatics?

Nice finds. Lots to read.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Okie writes

Quote:
In regard to McCain, he is not a true conservative either, maybe closer than Bush in some areas, but further away in others. Although he is somewhat or very conservative in some areas, he is way out in left field in others. I think this stems from his philosophy as being a maverick that acts out of his own personal instincts on various issues without enough regard to underlying principles or unintended consequences. He is just John McCain, but he does love the country at least.

George W. Bush's approval ratings have hovered in the 30 percentiles, an unhealthy range, for many many months now. When I think of those areas I would mark him down on, I can attach my concept of conservatism that I think he has 'violated' to most of them.

Assuming that McCain won't govern all that much differently, do you think his image will be better? Or is that a bad assumption to make?

No, I honestly do not. If elected, liberals won't like him and neither will conservatives. His problems come from playing both sides of the aisle, his maverickisms that seem to defy a a consistent philosophy. He seems to be sort of a shotgun approach. To be honest, if one issue soured me, it was McCain Feingold, as it defies common sense in my opinion, so it causes me to question McCain's ability to make judgements on virtually everything. And I have seen the same inconsistency and poor reasoning at other times that simply trump any attempt for me to gain any confidence in him. I don't think he will be a good president, but still infinitely better than a Clinton or Obama. The best that we can hope for is for him to pick a decent vp, as I honestly fear that his age is going to take a toll on him by the time he reaches the office. I should be more optimistic, and I want to be more optimistic, but somehow I'm not. Perhaps my disappointment in not having my choice of candidate is still dogging me?

Two areas that he offers some hope for me is defense and budget, and to be honest these are big ones, so maybe I should be more optimistic. In defense, he also offers some trepidations, as I am not totally comfortable with what he might or could do. And as far as the budget, I really don't think he understands economics very well, and he has admitted it.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Here is some interesting polling data related to the conservative/liberal dynamics in America:

Pew: Liberals/Conservatives and the pragmatic view on several issues
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=283

Pew: Liberals/Conservatives and the media
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040524.asp#1

Pew Forum on Religion and the 2008 election
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=259

For those who have time to look over these a bit I wonder if it changes any opinions about either Conservatives or Liberals being universally wild-eyed irrational fanatics?

Nice finds. Lots to read.

T
K
O

I was glancing over the polling data re the religious groups--November 2007--and would really like to see an updated poll since the tides of fortunes for candidates have changed so dramatically both on the Democratic and Republican sides.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Two areas that he offers some hope for me is defense and budget, and to be honest these are big ones, so maybe I should be more optimistic. In defense, he also offers some trepidations, as I am not totally comfortable with what he might or could do. And as far as the budget, I really don't think he understands economics very well, and he has admitted it.

Yes, as the economy and national defense/national security are at or near the top of the list of my personal priorities when deciding on a candidate, I agree that McCain certainly has a leg up on either Obama or Clinton on those two issues. I don't have any concerns about McCain's ability to competently serve as Commander in Chief or that he won't serve as a conservative in that role.

So far as the economy is concerned, McCain has acknowledged that this is not an area of expertise for him, yet he has already demonstrated to me that he knows more about it than Clinton or Obama do and he does take the conservative point of view there.

So, since nobody is going to be an expert in all the areas in which a President is involved, we can only hope that McCain will exercise superb judgment in the people he surrounds himself with. That is truly the blueprint for outstanding Presidential leadership.

By contrast, what sort of people do you think Obama and Clinton would surround themselves with in order to govern? Bill Clinton made some qustionable choices there, but all Presidents have. Overall, he didn't do that badly. Bush too made some really good picks and some that I bet he would like to have a do-over now.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know