AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

And I got so carried away defending America, I failed to address this:
Okie said:

Quote:

Dictatorial personalities tend to gravitate toward these leftist idealogies, because it satisfies their natural desire for power.

OE said

Quote:

That doesn't seem to make much sense. On the last couple of pages, you've just again repeated your ideas about how Hitler really was far-left rather than ultra-right, and I don't want to repeat all of what Walter posted in reply.

Hitler was 'far left' in America's definition of left in that he believed in powerful government--total power of government actually--and he believed in government's ownership of the means of production and he believed in government eliminating or punishing those who were considered inferior or immoral or politically incorrect or ideologically unsuitable.

Walter, I think, was looking at it from the European definition of 'liberal' and 'conservative', left and right, and, as Walter and I discussed earlier today, American definitions are different.

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
Dictatorial personalities tend to gravitate toward these leftist idealogies, because it satisfies their natural desire for power.

That doesn't seem to make much sense. On the last couple of pages, you've just again repeated your ideas about how Hitler really was far-left rather than ultra-right, and I don't want to repeat all of what Walter posted in reply.

That makes total sense and it agrees with what I said, that dictatorial mindsets can find more opportunity with leftist idealogies. Hitler was a socialist.

Quote:

However, this doesn't seem to make sense on the face of it. Consider, for example, ultra-nationalist ideas - the concept that your own country is superior to any other country in the world, that foreigners are inferior human beings, that your ethnicity is superior, that inferior elements should be permanently removed from your society, etc. etc.

How would this not be an ideology that would be attractive for a 'dictatorial personality'? Or do you consider excessive patriotism and ultra-nationalism to be concepts that can only be found on the left of the political spectrum?

There is nothing contradictory between ultra-nationalism and collectivism with central planning. In fact, I don't know if you have read the observation of mine that I think this new "worldism" is sort of a nationalism taken to the next level. I still remember the eerie feeling I got watching the thousands sing, "We are the World" or some such thing in Denver at the DNC. I was uncomfortable with that, very uncomfortable.

Now, in regard to the United States, I am very proud to live here, there is no doubt, but I do not believe the people here are superior to anyone, no better no worse. We are all human beings, and I believe what MLK said, it is the content of our character, not the color of our skin. But, oe, you imply Americans think they are superior. I don't think its much different with Europeans, you think you are the center of the universe there. Pride in ones country is not the same as feeling superior. I am very proud of my family, but we are not better than anyone, probably worse than many. Reality demands a dose of humility, for everybody.

True conservative leadership believes in individual freedom and responsibility, so that type of government tends to attract those people that do not believe in excessive central power. I realize you wish to use the U.S. as an example, and I won't claim all of our military adventures have been proper, however, I think we are very unique in not capturing countries, we do the police action and then leave. I think that is rather unique, compared to other historical examples.

1 Reply

@okie,

I'm sorry, I can't quite follow. To me, it would seem that the only "job or mission" of the President, as outlined in the Constitution, is the protection of the Constitution. Apparently (and I have to admit that I don't have all that much knowledge concerning this topic), the Founders seemed to be convinced that by protecting rather than by violating the Constitution, the country itself would be protected best.

Your point seems to be that in the nuclear age, there are new threats to the nations security which are so grave that the President should have either much more power and authority than outlined in the Constitution (which, in my opinion, would essentially mean the limitations in the Constitution should be scrapped), or that the President simply should be allowed to violate the Constitution without penalty.

Now, following the democratic process (unless you want to change the method of electing the President as well, which might not be such a bad idea), you'll have to accept that a person might get elected which you, personally, won't see as trustworthy. However, that does not mean that all those grave threats to the nations security which, as you just explained, unfortunately exist in a nuclear world simply go away.

I guess the question therefore would be: should a President that you don't think is trustworthy enough still have all those powers and all that authority which goes beyond the limitations of the Constitution?

And, if not: how would you justify your decision to grant one democratically elected President all that authority, Constitution be damned, but withhold it from another democratically elected President?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Walter, I think, was looking at it from the European definition of 'liberal' and 'conservative', left and right, and, as Walter and I discussed earlier today, American definitions are different.

I don't really think that's true. I think it's fairly easy to establish a political spectrum from left to right which most people in Europe and the United States would agree upon.

I think confusion arises from (a) the fact that often, people tend to throw authoritarian/anti-authoritarian concepts in with liberal and conservative ideologies, and then assign them to one or the other end of a one-dimensional spectrum and (b) disagreement over where on that spectrum a specific person would stand.

Personally, I think a two-dimensional spectrum with one authoritarian/anti-authoritarian axis and one liberal and conservative axis makes much more sense and helps avoid all the confusion.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

There is nothing contradictory between ultra-nationalism and collectivism with central planning.

That's my point exactly. You can be on the very far right on the political spectrum, but, at the same time still have a totalitarian dictatorship. That doesn't make the totalitarian dictatorship left-wing. It just makes it totalitarian:

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Do you consider all of us to be engaging in name calling and invective, George? Your post would almost suggest that.

Of course he could not have meant to include YOU as a participant in any incivility whatsoever. Not YOU. The pedestal that you place yourself on is extremely high. In other words, you place yourself above all the rest of us. Therefore, he must be directing his criticism at everyone else. Not YOU.

Foxfyre wrote:

I have earnestly hoped for some to join us on the thread who could put two thoughts together and actually discuss some concepts beyond grade school level.

Not YOU. You're not a condescending person. You would never stoop to calling people stupid or childish.

No Foxfyre. He didn't mean YOU.

0 Replies

@okie,

Foxfyre wrote:

I trusted (and still trust) President Bush to do what he believed was the right thing for the country too, whether or not he competently pulled it off and, frankly, sometimes he didn't. But I never questioned his motives.

okie wrote:

I agree with you, and that is why I tried to point out the importance of character. I also want to point out that leftist idealogies involving more collectivism and central planning, rather than leaving those issues with free market solutions as individuals, this naturally leads to more abuse of power, not only in instituting their policies but in preserving their control over society. Dictatorial personalities tend to gravitate toward these leftist idealogies, because it satisfies their natural desire for power.

Character also enters into the electorate. Without the proper character, society will tend to elect people like them, that have less character. Playing into this picture is the fact that more and more people will vote for their own gain, personally, rather than for a person that they believe will uphold the constitutional principles. It takes principles to stand for principles, uphold them, and vote for them. And now with Obama promising everything personally from health care to more rebates, to punish the rich, and all of that, lots of people are saying, yea yea yea, thats good for me.

Perhaps you should NOT have trusted Bush.

Bush's Secret Dictatorship

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I must have missed this post.

I wasn't talking about all Americans, or even about all conservative Americans, but it's really funny that you feel addressed by what I would see as descriptive of, say, ultra-nationalists, white supremacists or neo-Nazis.

It's also really, really weird that you seem to think that a generic listing of those bullet points that might just as well describe Zimbabwean ZANU-PF as any other ultra-nationalist group somehow reveals a low opinion of Americans on my side. I'm not entirely sure where that knee-jerk need to defend America and ascribe anti-American motives to anyone who as much as questions the ideological purity of right-wing ideologies (notwithstanding the fact that we're talking about the radical fringes here rather than centrist left- or right-leaning policies) comes from. However, I'm happy to assure you that my opinion of Americans doesn't really differ from my opinion of Europeans or other people anywhere on the globe. And yes, I have been in America and spent time with Americans. Occasionally, I've even been talking to Americans. Also, I'm currently living here.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Okie wrote

Quote:
Foxfyre comes across as a very decent, thoughtful, and honest person.

I didn't want this to pass without thanking you Okie, knowing that defending me would put you in line for criticism.

I do not know what I possibly could have done to Debra or Kicky or C.I. or Cyclop or any of those who follow me around to say something unkind or hateful as often as they think they can work it in. I do not recall ever being intentionally dishonest or unkind or unpleasant to them or anybody. What I have done to make them despise me so, I don't have a clue. I don't believe I am more hard nosed or more partisan or more intractable than others on the right side, but I do seem to be their target so it must be some kind of flaw in my personality or the way I present my arguments.

They no longer can hurt me because I don't give petty people power to hurt me any more. But it does make it so unpleasant that I have withdrawn and spent time elsewhere and I am very close to doing that again.

But anyway thanks. It does help to have a friend. And I appreciate it.

I'm not following you around. You invited me to participate on this thread.

I will attempt to explain my displeasure with your form of "discussion." Your approach to a discussion becomes extremely frustrating because you do not tolerate any scrutiny of the statements you make. Rather than address the merits of any response, you follow a predictable course.

First, you engage a logical fallacy called trivial objections or hair splitting. In general, you allege that you didn't say what you actually said. It's your modus operandi.

For instance, you will state "A." Someone will respond, "I don't think your reliance on 'A' is well placed because of B."

Rather than address the merits of the response, 99 percent of the time you will say, "I didn't say 'A,' I said 'A.' Until you can prove to me that you have any intelligence whatsoever instead of putting words in my mouth, I refuse to address your post."

You repeatedly use the above strategy to avoid addressing the merits of the responsive post. Your strategy derails the discussion because the responder must go to the arduous work to first nail down what you said which you continue to deny through perverse hair-splitting. (E.g., I didn't say the CRA "caused" the economic crisis, I said it was the "fuse" or the "catalyst" that led to the economic crisis.) Then you resort to insulting people alleging that they're too stupid to understand what you wrote. You are extremely condescending in your approach. You place yourself on a very high pedestal. You are always right and everyone else is wrong, stupid, or a left-wing liberal wacko.

People are willing to discuss the topic of this thread, but most are unwilling to tolerate your "duplicitous sanctimony."

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Fine Debra. I honestly do the best that I can. I accept that many of you dislike the way I debate, dislike my opinions, dislike my ideology, dislike my politics, dislike me. But I can't be anybody other than me however disgusting and unacceptable that is..

When I first joined A2K I was a mess. This was my first serious experience with a message board and I took everything way too personally and used way too much conversational style which, without body language, tone of voice, facial expression, etc., was often misunderstood or misinterpreted. And I was way too defensive. I know I made enemies back then. Many, perhaps most, have never forgiven me for my indiscretions those years ago. I'm sure I have appeared to contradict myself at times because I see different circumstances as different criteria applying in different circumstances. And sometimes my opinion will change over time.

I have tried to correct some of my personal flaws, but I'm sure I have been less than unsuccessful. At my age, I am pretty much who I am. One thing I am not is intentionally unkind to people and, while I don't easily accept being anybody's punching bag and can be provoked to anger, I try not to be judgmental of others. I do resent when others put words in my mouth or intent into my mind or heart that I never said or never intended and I've no doubt defended myself to extremes on that. For that I apologize.

All this is to say that I am sincerely sorry if I have inadvertently or overtly offended anybody. I have never intended to be dishonest. I do see things more abstractly that perhaps some others do and therefore I admit that I might appear to be splitting hairs, but that is because everything isn't simply in stark black or white for me.

I still don't understand those who seem to get their rocks off being hateful, unkind, or rude, especially to somebody who has never attacked or hurt them.

And my suggestion to you is If you don't like my posts don't read them. If you don't like my point of view, that's okay. You're probably in good company. If you find me so offensive or unacceptable or dishonest or however you perceive me, please just put me on ignore. Perhaps you can afford me that one small kindness?

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Fox, I think you try hard, but fall into some of those old patterns when you are challenged by your ideological opposites.

Confrontation is an inevitable part of political discussion online, for we do not have the restraints or social niceties that exist when discussing things in person.

I think you're also in a very difficult position, and you have been put there by your own party; b/c you know what they are supposed to stand for, and all we can focus on is what they actually have been doing, which has little to do with their supposed values. This makes discussion in this topic difficult, as both sides have a hard time agreeing upon the theme... is it 'actual conservatism in the US' or is it 'what Conservatism should be?'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

I must have missed this post.

I wasn't talking about all Americans, or even about all conservative Americans, but it's really funny that you feel addressed by what I would see as descriptive of, say, ultra-nationalists, white supremacists or neo-Nazis.

It's also really, really weird that you seem to think that a generic listing of those bullet points that might just as well describe Zimbabwean ZANU-PF as any other ultra-nationalist group somehow reveals a low opinion of Americans on my side. I'm not entirely sure where that knee-jerk need to defend America and ascribe anti-American motives to anyone who as much as questions the ideological purity of right-wing ideologies (notwithstanding the fact that we're talking about the radical fringes here rather than centrist left- or right-leaning policies) comes from. However, I'm happy to assure you that my opinion of Americans doesn't really differ from my opinion of Europeans or other people anywhere on the globe. And yes, I have been in America and spent time with Americans. Occasionally, I've even been talking to Americans. Also, I'm currently living here.

I apologize OE. I did misinterpret your post when you said this:

old europe wrote:

However, this doesn't seem to make sense on the face of it. Consider, for example, ultra-nationalist ideas - the concept that your own country is superior to any other country in the world, that foreigners are inferior human beings, that your ethnicity is superior, that inferior elements should be permanently removed from your society, etc. etc.

Given our discussions in the past, my perceptions was that you were expressing your opinion of we Americans. And my response was a knee jerk reaction. I'm sorry.

So, I would like to make another stab at addressing your question here:

Quote:

How would this not be an ideology that would be attractive for a 'dictatorial personality'? Or do you consider excessive patriotism and ultra-nationalism to be concepts that can only be found on the left of the political spectrum?

This is difficult because our respective definitions of left/right are again, I think, perceived differently.

Here on the right you have MACean values i.e.classical liberalism along with neocon-ism and those old hard line intractable conservatives who don't want to change anything from what their grandparents did, etc. What those on the right share is patriotism and nationalism--that does not mean that those on the left cannot be patriots and nationalists too, but they will likely define those terms differently--desire for smaller, more efficient, less intrusive government, and fierce defense of unalienable (natural) rights, property rights, ability to be in control of one's own destiny.

A dictatorship or totalitarianism, however benevolent, would not be acceptable to the American right as a form of government because it would have the power to take away property rights, unalienable (natural) rights, and ability to be in control of one's own destiny.

The less appealing or undesirable factions within the right would be organizations like the Ku Klux Klan, fiercely patriotic, fiercely independent, and at times, murderous and hateful. At the same time, a Klansman may choose that organization not because he wishes any harm to minorities, etc., but because for whatever reason he wants the right of association in ALL aspects of life and purity of race, etc. etc. etc. and wants the right to be discriminatory or prejudiced in practice. Not a cup of tea or acceptable for the vast majority of us for sure even as we defend the right of people to be prejudiced but do not defend the right of those people to use it to interfere with the unalienable, civil, legal, or Constitutional rights of others. Those on the right believe in a government of the people, for the people, and by the people and don't want government having any more power than it has to have in order to satisfy its Constitutional mandates and prevent the people from doing political, social, or economic violence to each other.

While pro-lifers can exist on both sides of the ideological spectrum, that issue is often assigned to the right here. Pro-life advocates are condemned by the left as 'wanting to control a woman's body' etc. while the right is more likely to see it as defending the right of a human being to live. Pro-choicers very often try to assign sub-human status to the fetus to make it acceptable to kill it. Pro-lifers see it as a human being at whatever stage of development it is. That debate rages on. Ditto for the so-called 'gay marriage' issue that is also both a left and right issue here but opposition is more often thought of as being on the right. Advocates can be extremely hostile to those who oppose it while those who oppose it may not be the least bit homophobic but rather simply think it important to preserve and protect the traditional definition of marriage.

Other more extreme right wingers would be the anarchists who take independence to the extreme by refusing to pay taxes etc., who want no government controls on any kind of private ownership of weaponry, and who want no restrictions or regulation of any kind on the so-called 'victimless' issues such as drugs, prostitution, pornography, etc. and there are legitimate debates always underway on all those things too.

As stated, those on the left here are much more likely to see merit in more collective forms of government, government as caretaker, and government imposing and enforcing attitudes and behavior of which they approve or eliminating that of which they disapprove. Those on the left seem to be far less tolerant of differing points of view, tend to put a great deal of importance on political correctness, and are far more likely to direct or demand punative action to be taken against offenders. So long as the government is on the left side of the spectrum, those on the left look more to government as the authority and will frequently be contemptuous of allowing the people to decide an issue important to the leftist.

Is there personal bias built into my descriptions here? Almost certainly there is and others will almost certainly have different perspectives. Both sides passionately believe that the greatest virtue and correctness is on their side if they can muster sufficient charity to think that the opposing side has any virtue at all Smile

Also, it is important that few of us are all rightwingers or leftwingers but most of us share a few common views along the way.

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

I'm sorry, I can't quite follow.

No, you aren't getting it.

Quote:

To me, it would seem that the only "job or mission" of the President, as outlined in the Constitution, is the protection of the Constitution. Apparently (and I have to admit that I don't have all that much knowledge concerning this topic), the Founders seemed to be convinced that by protecting rather than by violating the Constitution, the country itself would be protected best.[Here again, I hear liberal arguments. Sure, you abide by the constitution, but the constitution tells the president to protect the people. Defense is one big responsibility of the president, so protecting the constitution is to protect the people, within constitutional limits. Which does give the president extraordinary powers. That has been reinforced as a constitutional principle for a long time. I already cited examples of wide latitude exercised by previous presidents, which Bush did not even get close to.

Quote:
Your point seems to be that in the nuclear age, there are new threats to the nations security which are so grave that the President should have either much more power and authority than outlined in the Constitution (which, in my opinion, would essentially mean the limitations in the Constitution should be scrapped), or that the President simply should be allowed to violate the Constitution without penalty.
The nuclear age does not give license to go overboard, but it does give an exclamation point to the powers and duties of a president. Bush did that, without abusing his power.

Quote:
Now, following the democratic process (unless you want to change the method of electing the President as well, which might not be such a bad idea), you'll have to accept that a person might get elected which you, personally, won't see as trustworthy. However, that does not mean that all those grave threats to the nations security which, as you just explained, unfortunately exist in a nuclear world simply go away.

I guess the question therefore would be: should a President that you don't think is trustworthy enough still have all those powers and all that authority which goes beyond the limitations of the Constitution?

And, if not: how would you justify your decision to grant one democratically elected President all that authority, Constitution be damned, but withhold it from another democratically elected President?

I can't change bad decisions by voters, nor am I going to try, except by democratic means. I am not an agitator, street organizer, nor do I belong to ACORN. I believe in good old fashioned fair and honest politics. I believe in fair voting. I do not believe in card check, which is an example of corrupting the voting process for unions. The same kinds of things are now being injected into our voting process now, I believe, intimidation tactics, and all the rest, in inner cities. If the country becomes more corrupt and leaders become more corrupt, I can't help it, oe. I have never believed politics was the path to utopia, the emphasis here is rather on my own life and family.

1 Reply

If my previous post did not address this one OE:
http://able2know.org/topic/113196-246#post-3592173

I honestly do believe that most Europeans think of left and right in different terms than most in the USA do.

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
There is nothing contradictory between ultra-nationalism and collectivism with central planning.

That's my point exactly. You can be on the very far right on the political spectrum, but, at the same time still have a totalitarian dictatorship. That doesn't make the totalitarian dictatorship left-wing. It just makes it totalitarian:

You have used this graph before. I do not agree with it for one simple fact, capitalism and the free market, as exercised here, does not require force to conduct, it only requires a fair and efficient playing field of regulation and the rule of law, such as stealing is illegal, etc., which by definition places more power into the hands of citizens, not government. Collectivism, by definition, demands more power be placed into the central government to run and to make all the decisions. So your graph is just wrong. Totalitarianism, by definition therefore, lies at or in the same sphere as socialism, and individualism definitely lies in the same sphere as capitalism. Not a 1 to 1 relationship perhaps, because this is not an exact science in practice, but the axis should not be perpendicular, no way.

1 Reply

@okie,

Not wrong for a European I think though Okie. I am prepared to be corrected if I'm wrong, but I'm more and more convinced that we Americans define left and right differently than most Europeans do.

1 Reply

@okie,

I am reposting the above, using correct quote boxes. They got disorganized.

old europe wrote:

I'm sorry, I can't quite follow.

No, you aren't getting it.

Quote:

To me, it would seem that the only "job or mission" of the President, as outlined in the Constitution, is the protection of the Constitution. Apparently (and I have to admit that I don't have all that much knowledge concerning this topic), the Founders seemed to be convinced that by protecting rather than by violating the Constitution, the country itself would be protected best.

Here again, I hear liberal arguments. Sure, you abide by the constitution, but the constitution tells the president to protect the people. Defense is one big responsibility of the president, so protecting the constitution is to protect the people, within constitutional limits. Which does give the president extraordinary powers. That has been reinforced as a constitutional principle for a long time. I already cited examples of wide latitude exercised by previous presidents, which Bush did not even get close to.

Quote:

Your point seems to be that in the nuclear age, there are new threats to the nations security which are so grave that the President should have either much more power and authority than outlined in the Constitution (which, in my opinion, would essentially mean the limitations in the Constitution should be scrapped), or that the President simply should be allowed to violate the Constitution without penalty.

The nuclear age does not give license to go overboard, but it does give an exclamation point to the powers and duties of a president. Bush did that, without abusing his power.

Quote:

Now, following the democratic process (unless you want to change the method of electing the President as well, which might not be such a bad idea), you'll have to accept that a person might get elected which you, personally, won't see as trustworthy. However, that does not mean that all those grave threats to the nations security which, as you just explained, unfortunately exist in a nuclear world simply go away.

I guess the question therefore would be: should a President that you don't think is trustworthy enough still have all those powers and all that authority which goes beyond the limitations of the Constitution?

And, if not: how would you justify your decision to grant one democratically elected President all that authority, Constitution be damned, but withhold it from another democratically elected President?

I can't change bad decisions by voters, nor am I going to try, except by democratic means. I am not an agitator, street organizer, nor do I belong to ACORN. I believe in good old fashioned fair and honest politics. I believe in fair voting. I do not believe in card check, which is an example of corrupting the voting process for unions. The same kinds of things are now being injected into our voting process now, I believe, intimidation tactics, and all the rest, in inner cities. If the country becomes more corrupt and leaders become more corrupt, I can't help it, oe. I have never believed politics was the path to utopia, the emphasis here is rather on my own life and family.

To add something, I am not in favor of giving one president more authority than another, they all have it, the question is whether they abuse it. Bush did not. I don't have the same trust of all presidents, okay, does that make it more clear. Abuse depends upon exactly what the president does, his motives and his purposes.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

Defense is one big responsibility of the president, so protecting the constitution is to protect the people, within constitutional limits. Which does give the president extraordinary powers.

It does not give the prez. the power to violate the constitution in the name of defense of the people. In fact, it specifically bars him from doing so.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Okay, we will keep track of Obama's violations, and I think he has a good start.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Okay, we will keep track of Obama's violations, and I think he has a good start.

Can you be specific about that? That is, in what ways has he violated the Constitution, or started to?

This is a repeat of an earlier question in which you alleged he was doing way with our various freedoms, but refused to provide evidence showing what brings you to that belief.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know