AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Fox's M.O. has been mapped out a number of times here on A2K. No matter how many people separately come to the same conclusions, Fox will reject them all.

There must be something wrong with us, her arguments are perfect.

I've asked her to identify what is wrong with MAC and she has yet to accept the challenge. Hell, it's not even a challenge, just a request for some intellectual honesty. She's too afraid to show any weakness; too insecure in her stance.

Maybe if she never answers the question, it will just go away. Maybe I'll just stop wanting the answer.

T
K
O

You're the one who chose to argue via ad hominem and personal insult. You're still doing it. And you're the one who advised us all that discussing this was not worth your time. I dont' think its worth my time arguing with people who seem to take pleasure in insulting and/or trying to hurt other people and participate in discussions for what appears to be no other reason.

The profile on you Fox shows that you are no more likely to give intellectually honest replies based on any degree of politeness. We both insult the other, I'm just being honest about it. You are insulted by the names that are usually associated with the behaviors you exhibit, and you insult me by avoiding direct questions and answering to the contradictions in your argument.

You show zero effort to not offend me with your behavior, don't expect I'm going to address you as if you have earned any respect. I'm not particularly concerned if my words hurt you, much like you've never been concerned with honest participation on these boards.

I take no pleasure in hurting people, but I don't suffer fools gladly either.

Foxfyre wrote:

However. . . .

I don't think ANYTHING specifically is wrong with Modern American Conservatism as the MACs have defined it, at least on those points on which we agree. There is much to accuse when the principles embodied in the philosophy are not followed.

Fox is on the record as saying that MAC is perfect.

Perhaps what is more important here is the mentality that any political viewpoint is going to be perfect. I don't doubt that you have looked hard at what ideas you like and I'm not surprised to find that you think your precious MACean world view is perfect. The idea that any political viewpoint is going to be perfect is utter nonsense. All any of them can be is accommodating and yet imperfect. You saying that nothing is specifically wrong with MAC is the poker lie you can't bluff Fox.

Foxfyre wrote:

Perhaps you could take any one of those definitions, however, and explain what is wrong with it.

The problem, as I have repeated numerous times here on A2K with your worldview is that it relies on a social model of society that has never existed. Things like the "trickle down" system don't work.

The concept makes sense, don't get me wrong. It making sense however, doesn't mean that it works. What DOES happen trumps what SHOULD happen in terms of what our premises are. Your conclusions are based on bad premises. Your stubbornness and fool's loyalty to these kind of ideas are an obstacle not for me, but for you.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

I don't care whether my participation on these boards is t0 your liking. I don't do this for your benefit. I do it for my own enjoyment. I don't care if you feel insulted if you can't argue intelligently on a subject and think that gives you license to say insulting and (presumably hopefully) hurtful things. You are indeed arrogant beyond belief if you think I give you any power to hurt me, however. Only those who merit respect via their courtesy and civility are given such power.

I don't believe that you take no pleasure in hurting people. If you didn't you wouldn't try to do it repeatedly when there is no reason to do it at all.

I did not say however that Modern American Conservatism was perfect. You again presume to put words in my mouth. I don't think there is any political or social ideology/philosophy that is perfect or without potential for problems or unintended consequences. I did say that there is nothing wrong with it at least on those points of view on which the MACs on the thread agree.

I offered you a challenge to select any one of those issues we have identified as Modern American Conservatism and offer a rationale for why you think there is something wrong with it. (I don't believe 'trickle down' has been a phrase used by any one of us however. It is important not to confuse a political party with the ideology.) Or if you prefer, try to make a case that Modern American Conservatism as we have defined it on this thread (i.e. essentially Classical Liberalism) has never existed. I suggest that you start with the Founders and the debates and essays that culminated in the original U.S. Constitution.

Here's the basic definition that I think the MACs are pretty much in agreement on though some principles have been added to this core definition:

Quote:

MAC or Classical liberalism

Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1], laissez-faire liberalism[2], and market liberalism[3] or, outside the United States and Britain, sometimes simply liberalism is a doctrine stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others.

As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries. The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society, though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited. The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism Classical liberals are suspicious of all but the most minimal government and object to the welfare state.

You can focus on this or pick any of the specific issues that we are in agreement that should be included in the concept.

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

Quote:

"Our" guy got a blow job and you ordered up the guillotine. "Your" guy conspired to violate federal and international law prohibiting torture, and you warn that his crimes must be swept under a rug or else payback will be a bitch. So what? Your threat means nothing. The Republicans have never bestowed any special benefit upon any Democrat by looking the other way if they thought they could smear a Democrat with allegations of wrongdoing.

This was posted before, but the hypocrisy of your position which you share with Peggy Noonan deserves a second look. Here's what she said about Republicans when they went after Clinton:

"The Democrats had long labeled the impeachment debate a distraction from the urgent business of a great nation. But the Republicans argued that the pursuit of justice is the business of a great nation. In winning this point, they caught the falling flag, producing a triumph for the rule of law, a reassertion of the belief that no man is above it, and a rebuke for an arrogance that had grown imperial," - Peggy Noonan, December 21. 1998.

Here's what she said about the Obama Administration when it released evidence of Bush's crimes against humanity:

"It’s hard for me to look at a great nation issuing these documents and sending them out to the world and thinking, ‘Oh, much good will come of that.’ Sometimes in life you want to keep walking… Some of life has to be mysterious." - Peggy Noonan, April 19, 2009.

Please explain why the pursuit of justice is NOT the business of a great nation when Republicans are the law breakers? Why can't the rule of law triumph? Why do Republicans think they are above the law? Why do you desire to protect Bush's imperial presidency? Other than your threat that payback will be a bitch, why must we sweep Bush's crimes under a rug?

Main difference? Clinton was in office, and a repub congress went after him for perjury.

But the important thing? It was Clinton's Attorney General who ordered the special prosecutor, was it not?

But a current admin, going after a prior admin... This is banana republic bullshit, what one might see in a third world South American or African country.

And now Obama is introducing it to the US.

Should a repub president have pursured Janet Reno for murder? There are always plenty of scandals and trash a new admin from the opposite party can dig up on the previous admin. In the past, we have 'looked forward' as Obama is fond of reading off the teleprompter. What his admin is doing now is setting the bar at a new low, which will be followed by similar action by a new admin, whenever that may happen.

BTW, I'm not making threats here; don't take things so personal, Deb. I'm just observing human nature...

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't care whether my participation on these boards is t0 your liking. I don't do this for your benefit. I do it for my own enjoyment.

You're right that it matters not if your posting is not to my liking. It does matter however if you fail the function of intelligent discourse. My objection to you has nothing to do with like/dislike, it is that you are worthless in a debate.

It's like setting a board for a chess match and then seeing the other person as arranged checkers on the other side of the board.

Foxfyre wrote:

You are indeed arrogant beyond belief if you think I give you any power to hurt me, however.

I don't believe that you take no pleasure in hurting people. If you didn't you wouldn't try to do it repeatedly when there is no reason to do it at all.

You introduced the word "hurt" into the dialog, not me. It's a part of your posturing as a victim, constantly. I don't believe I have the power to hurt you any more than I find your victim rants genuine.

Foxfyre wrote:

I did not say however that Modern American Conservatism was perfect. You again presume to put words in my mouth. I don't think there is any political or social ideology/philosophy that is perfect or without potential for problems or unintended consequences. I did say that there is nothing wrong with it at least on those points of view on which the MACs on the thread agree.

Be out with it Fox! I can't make this any more clear for you. This is my case and point: You can't openly admit that your world view has flaws. I ask you a question, and you answer a different one?

Fine, you didn't say perfect, you said (in all caps) that you didn't see "ANYTHING" specifically wrong. Further you build a back door by adding "as MACs have defined it..." Guess what? You defined it such that it can't be imperfect!

You wanna try and dodge my example of the trickle down effect saying that you don't use that specific language, but after hearing your rants during the election about how you think the tax code should work, you DO believe in the trickle down effect. You ride a three wheel bike, don't call foul because I call it a tricycle.

This is YOUR problem Fox: Cognitive dissonance. Put away you checkers, this is a chess match.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre, re your definition of MAC: in the UK (or Britain, as you call it), the term 'liberalism' is used as it is elsewhere (besides when referring to the USA and/or when speaking American). (See e.g. the program of the "Liberal Party" [less the "Liberal Democrats"].)

0 Replies

@A Lone Voice,

A Lone Voice wrote:

But a current admin, going after a prior admin... This is banana republic bullshit, what one might see in a third world South American or African country.

You've got to be kidding. An administration running secret prisons and a state sponsored torture program, and then leaving office and not being prosecuted or even just investigated for it - that's banana republic bullshit.

A Lone Voice wrote:

What his admin is doing now is setting the bar at a new low, which will be followed by similar action by a new admin, whenever that may happen.

Yeah, hopefully. I really hope that if the Obama adminstration were to introduce new secret programs in violation of the Constitution and international treaties, that those responsible for that would be prosecuted - even if they had already been voted out of office and succeeded by a Republican administration.

0 Replies

@A Lone Voice,

Quote:

But a current admin, going after a prior admin... This is banana republic bullshit, what one might see in a third world South American or African country.

Ridiculous. In America the Law rules supreme, more so than any current administration. If people broke the law, it doesn't matter if they were in the outgoing government; they deserve to be investigated, charged and tried for doing so. Only in the minds of right-wingers, who are scared of being further discredited, does pursuing the Law become a bad thing.

Defending torture will sink an already depressed Republican party.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Modern American Conservatism is based on certain principles and values that were basically an ideology defined as Classical Liberalism to distinguish it from the Marxism/socialism and/or big government liberalism that developed mostly in the mid or near-mid Twentieth Century. Because so few can separate modern social/political liberalism or other understanding of liberalism from "classical liberalism' in their minds--see Walter's last post as illustration--I chose Modern American Conservatism as an alternate. You provided the acronym MAC.

I have a very large abstract oil painting over my bed. I love it. There is nothing wrong with it. But is it perfect? No. Close scrutiny reveals little flaws and anomalies that were obviously unintentional by the artist, but does that make the painting wrong? No. Imperfect? Yes.

Will everything be perfect if Modern American Conservatism (i.e. Classical Liberalism) is implemented across the board? No it will not because it will be implemented by imperfect people. It cannot be perfect because it cannot address every possible contingency or every mistake that will be made. But that does not change the basic soundness of it or eliminate it as a correct and adequate as a political/social discipline. There is nothing wrong with the principles/values embodied in it.

"Trickle down" is NOT a component of MACean ideology as it presumes that the have nots will automatically benefit from the prosperity of the haves. That is antithesis to MACean idelogy which is rather that the have nots become haves by doing what the haves do. Because of confidence in laissez-faire economics--this was beautifully illutrated in that Williams essay posted some weeks ago--there is far less opportunity for the have nots to do that if you weaken the haves.

So.....your king is in check. Unless you can come up with a MACean principle or value that you can show to be wrong, you will be in checkmate.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

The liberal/democrats are not interested int he "rule of law". If they were, the majority of the US Senate would be under investigation for tax fraud and campaign finance fraud.

This is the democrats playing their little game of GET EVEN WITH BUSH and the right wing for going after Clinton.

The US Congress has never been more dis-functional than it is today under the Democratic leadership of Bella Pelosi and Hairy Reid. They are a disgrace and must be removed.

3 Replies

@Woiyo9,

Woiyo9 wrote:

The liberal/democrats are not interested int he "rule of law". If they were, the majority of the US Senate would be under investigation for tax fraud and campaign finance fraud.

Oh.. but when someone IS investigated for that it is almost impossible to charge them let alone convict them. Tom Delay's saga is still ongoing and there is more evidence there than there is for most of those in Congress.

Quote:

This is the democrats playing their little game of GET EVEN WITH BUSH and the right wing for going after Clinton.

I would call it a case of having a DoJ that is independent of the President. I think there is plenty of evidence out there of how the Bush administration tried to politicize the AG's office. That makes it hard for you to claim the lack of indictment by that politicized AG's office is evidence of no wrong doing.

Quote:

The US Congress has never been more dis-functional than it is today under the Democratic leadership of Bella Pelosi and Hairy Reid. They are a disgrace and must be removed.

Name calling just makes your argument so much stronger. Rolling Eyes

Who needs facts when you can just call them names?

0 Replies

@Woiyo9,

Agree whole heartedly that the Congress, both right and left, is totally screwed up. I wish there was some way to throw out the whole bunch and start over. That's sort of what this thread is about actually.

The Reagan administration did not presume to investigate and look for things to prosecute in the Carter administration despite the terrible disarray left in the wake of the Carter administration. The Clinton administration did not presume to go back and attempt to investigate and/or prosecute the Reagan administration despite the many 'crimes' of which the Reagan administration was accused by the left. The Bush administration let the Sandy Berger fiasco go along with several other 'incidents' that could easily have been held up as worthy of investigation and prosecution, but they also wisely did not do that.

And President Obama is 100% correct in choosing not to go on a witch hunt in the Bush administration. I wish the more looney left who are so enamored with President Obama were able to follow his lead when he gets it right as they are when he gets it wrong.

Now we are in a national debate over whether we will allow the current administration and Congress bury MACean concepts/principles/beliefs forever in favor of an ever increasing, ever more intrusive, ever more coercive, and ever more authoritarian government.

The liberal left seems to think that is just fine.

MACs want to stop that in its tracks and start rolling it back.

2 Replies

@Woiyo9,

Actually, many GOP members of congress have been charged with crimes - even in recent times. It's really funny woiyo doesn't know about them, but they are easy to find on a Google search.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Summary: any violations of the Constitution or international law by an administration should not be prosecuted after an administration which committed those violations is voted out of office. Doing so would constitute a "witch hunt".

1 Reply

@old europe,

Summary: Unless there are CLEARLY prosecutable violations evident, the new administration will not go on witch hunting expeditions in the old.

4 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Summary: Unless there are CLEARLY prosecutable violations evident, the new administration will not go on witch hunting expeditions in the old.

Summary: because we can use the power of obfuscation and secrecy to prevent there ever from being 'clearly' prosecutable violations evident, you wish for there to never be any investigations of past Executive branch officers, ever.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

I've been doing a lot of thinking about how I feel about investigations and prosecutions for former administration officials.

FOR - I believe that the old administration did not respect the rule of law.

AGAINST - We can be and should be focusing more on future goals not old errors. Dem or Rep, I worry that a successful prosecution could further inflate the kinds of expectations the public may have. The idea that gives me the chills is the notion that future campaigns begin to rely more on cynicism and a cheap campaign promise to investigate the previous administration. We already struggle to focus on solutions in our campaigns. We could set a bad future precedent that to gain popularity, you can simply make an easy target out of the previous administration. This in my mind sort of shakes up the tradition of the peaceful transition of power.

FOR - At the same time, the bad precedent could be that future administrations believe they are made of teflon and that they are above the law and beyond accountable. If we are to have justice in our society, be must have ethical leaders.

FOR - I believe the topic like this is bigger than any administration, bigger than political loyalty. I want democrats that break the law to be found just as much as republicans. We trust these people, we should be able to trust people independent of their political leanings.

I guess I'm for the investigations and prosecutions if any, but I think the administration needs to be careful.

Don't get me wrong though. I'd give a horse a carrot to break Cheney's foot.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxie still doesn't believe torture is illegal. It seems Foxie is better qualified to determine what is torture and what is not. Why even have our legal system? LOL

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Summary: Unless there are CLEARLY prosecutable violations evident, the new administration will not go on witch hunting expeditions in the old.

Summary: because we can use the power of obfuscation and secrecy to prevent there ever from being 'clearly' prosecutable violations evident, you wish for there to never be any investigations of past Executive branch officers, ever.

Cycloptichorn

Summary: there are no bounds to the depths of hate and loathing heaped by the looney Left upon the Right, especially the Bush administration though no Republican administration is exempt, and no limits to the damage the looney Left is willing to heap upon their country in the interest of achieving revenge.

I am glad that no matter how much I disagree with his philosophy and policy, that our President at least does not appear to be a member of the looney Left.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Summary: Unless there are CLEARLY prosecutable violations evident, the new administration will not go on witch hunting expeditions in the old.

A state-run secret torture program seems to rather clearly fall into the category of "prosecutable violation".

If you want to argue that it's not "CLEARLY prosecutable" just because people like you or ican or others disagree about the definition of the term torture, then you should be prepared to admit that "clearly prosecutable violations" will never exist, and that what you're advocating amounts to a de-facto complete immunity from prosecution and complete freedom for any administration to violate the law.

2 Replies

@old europe,

There is as much evidence that the enhanced interrogations were properly authorized and pronounced legal as there is evidence of any impropriety. Remember that our Congress knew of the program and repeatedly voted on a fully bipartisan basis to fund it. To do investigations and attempted prosecutions now would have far reaching and irreversible damage to our national security and would so inhibit those in charge of that so that we won't be able to recruit capable people. Those so wrapped up in their hatred of President Bush and the Republicans can't seem to see that so desperate are you to see that somebody is punished so that you can get your pound of flesh and feel righteous.

At least President Obama is big enough and smart enough to know that. He has agreed with the subsequent Congressional policy and has outlawed the objectionable practice. And for that I am grateful and for reasonable people, that should be sufficient.

3 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know