AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

As an observer (and extreme liberal to boot) I see your first problem as (not unlike liberals) coming up with a realistic definition of conservativism that is for the most part consistent with historical accuracy going back to, say Harry S Truman. Civil is as civil does, they say and what I read especially on a2k is "conservatives are the good guys, the moral people, the politics with ethics crowd, the smaller govt ilk. whereas liberals are the godless, hedonistic, socialist/communists who are devoted to taking away us good guys constitutional rights."
Personally I would delight in a thoughtful discourse of modern conservatism in the US of A and would be glad to participate.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

How about American conservatism being applied to conserving constitutional principles?

That 's what it IS.
That 's what Barry Goldwater was talking about.
Those principles were hamstringing and crippling government
( like Dr. F. chaining down the monster to the slab in the lab ),
in contemplation of the fact that personal freedom is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL
to the jurisdiction of government.

Quote:

That seems simple enough.
I agree with OmSigDAVID in the definition of the word without restricting
the word to political interpretations, but as I said, I think the best political
interpretation of American conservatism can be applied to the
conservation of constitutional principles, the Bill of Rights,
rights and responsibilities of the individual vs the state, free enterprise,
private property rights, etc.

YES.
So stipulated. We need only examine the history of the times
to understand what the deal was when it was made.
Then we know what rights and immunities we inherited.

Quote:

There are always going to be disagreements among conservatives
on the details of such policies, but at least I would think there should be
agreement on the broad interpretations of it.

Agreed

Quote:

In contrast, liberals seek to propagate the constitution as being a living breathing document,
subject to change, and there is a broad and constant push toward more and more socialism.

That device is a vehicle for liberals beating a square peg into a round hole.
The liberals seek to accomplish their goals of collectivism and authoritarianism
by deception, mendacity, mendicancy and fraud.

Quote:

We as conservatives have a tough time knowing just where liberals want to stop this change,
but I suspect some of them have a hidden agenda, they want to go all the way to communism.

I doubt that there is any consensus among them on that point;
not likely that thay even tried to decide that among themselves.
There IS a consensus of establishing a society based upon collectivism
and authoritarianism to accomplish their goals.

Freedom is insignificant to them and thay do not care
what deal was made in the 1700s.
The legitimacy of government jurisdiction to accomplish their goals is of no concern to them.
( " Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain ! " )

Thay just ASSUME the existence of jurisdiction
to do what liberals want government to do.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

As an observer (and extreme liberal to boot) I see your first problem as (not unlike liberals) coming up with a realistic definition of conservativism that is for the most part consistent with historical accuracy going back to, say Harry S Truman. Civil is as civil does, they say and what I read especially on a2k is "conservatives are the good guys, the moral people, the politics with ethics crowd, the smaller govt ilk. whereas liberals are the godless, hedonistic, socialist/communists who are devoted to taking away us good guys constitutional rights."
Personally I would delight in a thoughtful discourse of modern conservatism in the US of A and would be glad to participate.

HAY !
Where u going with that hedonism ! ??????????
I want in on that !!!!!!!!!

David

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
As an observer (and extreme liberal to boot) I see your first problem as (not unlike liberals) coming up with a realistic definition of conservativism that is for the most part consistent with historical accuracy going back to, say Harry S Truman. Civil is as civil does, they say and what I read especially on a2k is "conservatives are the good guys, the moral people, the politics with ethics crowd, the smaller govt ilk. whereas liberals are the godless, hedonistic, socialist/communists who are devoted to taking away us good guys constitutional rights."
Personally I would delight in a thoughtful discourse of modern conservatism in the US of A and would be glad to participate.

HAY !
Where u going with that hedonism ! ??????????
I want in on that !!!!!!!!!

David

Start taking your medications as prescribed and I'm sure you will begin to experience greater hedonism.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

H. Ross Perot wrote:
Go to Rome, go to Paris, go to London. Those cities are centuries old. They're thriving. They're clean. They work. Our oldest cities are brand new compared to them and yet go to New York, drive through downtown Washington, go to Detroit, go to Philadelphia. What's wrong with us?

Many of our ancestors lived in Paris and Rome and London............

.................and chose to come to America instead.

What's wrong with Perot?

0 Replies

MOTIVATIONS of liberals:
From my decades of observation,
it seems to me that silently, in the back of liberals' minds
thay don 't give a dam as to the legitimacy of their goals.
Thay r motivated by COMPASSION.
Using government to coerce and EXTORT compassion from unwilling victims is OK with them.
Liberals r obsessively committed to helping the poor,
and robbing the middle class and the rich
is OK with them and with Karl Marx to get that job done.

COMPASSION for the poor is their big thing, freedom be damned, in their minds.
( Gun control is GOOD, in their minds, because poverty stricken dope fiends
might get hurt while robbing and murdering the rich n middle class, if thay FIGHT BACK ! )

MOTIVATIONS of conservative libertarians ( like me ):
The social and political contract, the US Constitution,
does NOT require anyone to be compassionate; that was not part of the deal.

Personal liberty IS part of the deal that resulted in the creation of government in America,
after the Hanoverian Dynasty was thrown out.
I am rigidly unwilling to compromise my freedom from interference.
If I feel like giving to a beggar,
I can DO it, ( I have done it ) voluntarily, if I 'm in the mood to do so.

I care about my OWN delights; not about the poor.

I act out of SELFISHNESS.
That means that I wanna spend my cash on MY OWN happiness, not on the poor.
I fully intend to continue that way; everyone shud.

I am motivated by my personal freedom, very seldom by compassion
for the poor: none of my business ( Charles Dickens to the contrary notwithstanding ).
It can be FUN to slip a good looking chic a $100 bill that she does not expect,
but sacrifice for the poor shud not be forced upon the citizens by their hireling government.
Thay did not create government for that purpose.
Thay did not grant it authority to force that on them.
Government has NO AUTHORITY that was not granted to it by the citizens who created it.

In the words of OmSigDAVID:"
The difference between charity and robbery is FREEDOM of CHOICE. "

0 Replies

real life wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
H. Ross Perot wrote:
Go to Rome, go to Paris, go to London. Those cities are centuries old. They're thriving. They're clean. They work. Our oldest cities are brand new compared to them and yet go to New York, drive through downtown Washington, go to Detroit, go to Philadelphia. What's wrong with us?

Many of our ancestors lived in Paris and Rome and London............

.................and chose to come to America instead.

What's wrong with Perot?

The legacy of Perot was BILL CLINTON !

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote that there were

Quote:

very loud radioactive noises
manifesting in American port cities. . .

and that thereby

Quote:

overthrowing Saddam
was necessary to American security

um, what?

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote that there were

Quote:
very loud radioactive noises
manifesting in American port cities. . .

and that thereby
Quote:
overthrowing Saddam
was necessary to American security

um, what?

Bush senior was an idiot for leaving Saddam in power after the first Gulf War.
It shud have been enuf to defeat Saddam ONCE.

We knew from his biografy
that Saddam was a homicidal maniac,
a VINDICTIVE one, with a grudge against us
for kicking him out of Kuwait, and denying him access to its oil.

There was too much risk that he 'd acquire a nuke
( several ways to do that ) and put it on a boat
to detonate as it approached an American port city, like the one I live in.
It made me nervous for several years, during the Clinton Administration.

I 'm glad we got rid of Saddam n his sons,
but enuf is enuf; we have no reason to remain there.

David

0 Replies

Ok, but what were these "very loud radioactive noises
manifesting in American port cities" that you talk about?

0 Replies

OmSigDavid - If you don't believe the forefathers intended a living breathing document, then why do you champion the 2nd amendment?

Emphasis on "amendment."

T
K
O

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

I hope this thread can remain somewhat civil.

Foxfyre wrote:

That is my hope too, Maporsche. Thank you.

I totally agree here, too.

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

MOTIVATIONS of conservative libertarians ( like me ):[/b]

Well, that's okay, if you see those ideas as opposed to ideas of conservatism and/or similar to them. [My grandfather -mother's side- was a member of such a party here in Germany until they were forbidden under the Nazis. He co-founded the German liberal party after the war.]

I'm not going to state the motivations of conservative social democrats here now in response - I think they are antiquated; besides, I don't follow them.

And that's really no reason to start shouting.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
MOTIVATIONS of conservative libertarians ( like me ):[/b]

Quote:
Well, that's okay, if you see those ideas as opposed to ideas of conservatism and/or similar to them.
[My grandfather -mother's side- was a member of such a party here in
Germany until they were forbidden under the Nazis.
He co-founded the German liberal party after the war.]

I 'm sorry, Walter; I did not understand that;
( about ideas opposed or similar ? )
Will u rephrase that ?

Quote:

I'm not going to state the motivations of conservative social democrats here now in response -
I think they are antiquated; besides, I don't follow them.

I am very fond of the thoughts of Ludwig von Mises.

Quote:
And that's really no reason to start shouting.

I hope u don 't think that I was shouting ??

I only meant to lay greater emphasis on some of my ideas,
as distinct from others.

David

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

OmSigDavid - If you don't believe the forefathers intended a living breathing document,
then why do you champion the 2nd amendment?

Emphasis on "amendment."

T
K
O

The Constitution is the social contract.
Contracts can be amended; ( as per the means designated in Aritcle 5 thereof ).
Until thay r amended, thay remain intact and undisturbed.

The concept attempted to be foisted upon us
in this " living, breathing " nonsense is that it can be changed
WITHOUT the proper amendment process,
merely by changes in ambient circumstances; that is a fraud.

No one has ever disputed that the Bill of Rights
was legitimately enacted.

David

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I 'm sorry, Walter; I did not understand that;
( about ideas opposed or similar ? )
Will u rephrase that ?

Well, I'd thought that this thread was about conservatism, not conservative ideas in e.g. libertarianism [aka "liberalism" elsewhere outside the USA] or social democracy.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
I 'm sorry, Walter; I did not understand that;
( about ideas opposed or similar ? )
Will u rephrase that ?

Well, I'd thought that this thread was about conservatism,
not conservative ideas in e.g. libertarianism [aka "liberalism" elsewhere outside the USA] or social democracy.

I 'm having some trouble in understanding the distinction
between conservatism and conservative ideas.

Insofar as the US Constitution is concerned,
libertarianism IS conservatism; it IS the subject matter of the conservation,
because LIBERTY is what is sought to be conserved,
inasmuch as the Constitution is permeated with libertarianism.
As Kellogg 's used to say: " Its shot with sugar thru and thru. "
David

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Insofar as the US Constitution is concerned,
libertarianism IS conservatism; it IS the subject matter of the conservation,
because LIBERTY is what is sought to be conserved,
inasmuch as the Constitution is permeated with libertarianism.
David

No doubt that the US constitution sources in liberal ideas (of that time).

But that's not a reason to equal liberalism/libertariasnism to conservatism, IMHO.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

As an observer (and extreme liberal to boot) I see your first problem as (not unlike liberals) coming up with a realistic definition of conservativism that is for the most part consistent with historical accuracy going back to, say Harry S Truman. Civil is as civil does, they say and what I read especially on a2k is "conservatives are the good guys, the moral people, the politics with ethics crowd, the smaller govt ilk. whereas liberals are the godless, hedonistic, socialist/communists who are devoted to taking away us good guys constitutional rights."
Personally I would delight in a thoughtful discourse of modern conservatism in the US of A and would be glad to participate.

Well, that's the problem, isn't it?

These labels are rather fluid and generalizations are a recipe for error.

Liberals of yesteryear were for the most part supportive of American foreign policy, even when they disagreed with it.

Some of today's liberals don't hesitate to fly to another country to trash the President and ingratiate themselves with foreign audiences.

Conservatives of yesteryear were budget hawks, even though they lacked the numbers to rein in spending.

Many of today's conservatives cannot wait to spend other people's money.

I still think there are differences between the two. Big differences.

I don't agree that liberals are ALWAYS trying to take away constitutional rights. They often do, but sometimes they actually try to invent new ones. And sometimes liberals are more careful of individual rights than many conservatives.

I don't agree that conservatives are always moral, and practice ethics in politics. It's just not always the case.

As an independent, I find myself more often in agreement with the conservative/Republicans.

But sometimes they are way off base.

I could name a couple dozen things I don't like about GWB, but he is still superior to what we would have gotten if we had elected the creator of the internet.

Have you read David Mamet's piece in VV?

Quote:

full article at http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0811,374064,374064,1.html

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I 'm sorry, Walter; I did not understand that;
( about ideas opposed or similar ? )
Will u rephrase that ?

Well, I'd thought that this thread was about conservatism,
not conservative ideas in e.g. libertarianism [aka "liberalism" elsewhere outside the USA] or social democracy.

I 'm having some trouble in understanding the distinction
between conservatism and conservative ideas.

Insofar as the US Constitution is concerned,
libertarianism IS conservatism; it IS the subject matter of the conservation,
because LIBERTY is what is sought to be conserved,
inasmuch as the Constitution is permeated with libertarianism.
As Kellogg 's used to say: " Its shot with sugar thru and thru. "
David

Your posts are much easier to read in this format David. And quite thoughtful too I might add.

I too think the libertarian (small 'L") model is exemplified in the Constitution and that most closely exemplifies my personal ideology though I land right of center within that. That is probably why I so appreciate the writings of Sowell, Williams, Steele, Friedman, etc. as did the writer in that Village Voice piece I posted. (Reallife also posted an exerpt from it.)

Though he didn't spell it out, that writer was once a 'radical liberal' but now considers himself no longer "brain dead". I didn't get the sense that he had morphed into a modern American conservative, but he had come to embrace the best of both worlds and chose to stop demonizing those with a different point of view than himself.

If all of us, the radical right winger and the radical left winger, could also come to appreciate the best that both ideologies have to offer, we could begin to have productive debate on what we want as Americans. What is 'radical' after all but extreme intolerance for any but one's own ideology/point of view?

I think issue by issue, most Americans are probably more conservative than liberal whether or not individuals identify themselves that way. I think polls bear that out on most 'value' issues. It is in fiscal policy, trade, military intervention, and the role of government where ideology comes more into play; i.e. government mandated universal healthcare vs private sector; accommodating long term illegals vs rule of law; tax the rich vs lower taxes for everybody, etc.

As one example for instance, You and I disagree on pulling out of Iraq. I would imagine a productive debate could be had on that when both are trying to appreciate the point of view on the other instead of insulting the other's point of view.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know