AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Have you actually read a lot of Hofstadter? If you had, you would know he was as critical of so-called progressives as he was of conservatives.

But considering his time and the period in which he wrote which bears little in common with the current political dynamics, and his view of the world at that time, I am guessing that if he lived and was writing now, he would align himself with the MACs as the objective and rational force, and not so much with the modern American liberal along with its fuzzy notions, anti-freedom, and presumed illusions of superiority.

He certainly would have seen any paranoia in a discussion of Gore and his view of the world as coming from your side, and not ours.

I suppose, you read more by him then just two high-selling books.
And certainly you know more about his various approaches to history than I do.

But do you really can one hint from his various positions duriing his life which gives you the idea why he would be a MAC today?
I think that you could say as well, he would be a socialist today. Or a communist again. Or a follower of the Lutheran tradition. Or ...

But might be that my glass bowl isn't good as yours.

My personal reason for following this thread has been to explore what distinguishes modern liberals from modern conservatives. Is it their views on the scope of government? (The Franklin Roosevelt vision versus the Ronald Reagan vision?)

Nice try, but I don't think so. If things are so different today, if the thoughts of folks like you are so different, how is it that 100,000 or so people can be murdered for no other reason than an upwelling of paranoia.

Al Gore is trying to lead us all to world governance, ... .

Again, nice try, Foxfyre.

And then we have Sarah Palin. McCain just said on tv that Palin will make a fine president.

From my perspective, there are the old style conservatives--you know, the ones who evolved into today's modern liberals--who aggressively defend their point of view to the point of being punative and/or disallowing nobody else any different point of view; who condemn and/or despise those who hold different points of view.

And there are the neocons who share some solid socioeconomic convictions with most conservatives, but who would presume to legislate morality on a national or global level that which is more appropriately decided at the local level and who would use economic or political pressures to spread economic and other freedoms in the world.

And there are the modern liberals, many of whom evolved from those old style conservatives and emulate their worst traits, who agree with policing, punishing, and/or denouncing those who speak wrongly, who judge people by the clubs, political party, or social groups they belong to, and, in the extreme, by their race and/or religion, but who passionately defend their own.

And there are the MACs who embrace most of the values of the Classical Liberals of old and/or the modern libertarians (little "L") of today and who we have posted a definition for many times now. You know that definition that none of the non-MACs accept as the definition but they cannot articulate why the definition isn't okay.

As all or most of those willing to be identified as MACs have accepted the definition, however, let's compare the two most prevalent groups: Focusing only the specific concepts listed in that definition, here are the differences I see between Modern American Conservatives (MACs) and Modern American Liberals (MALs):

1. Human Rationality

MACs believe human are more capable of deciding what is in their own best interest and spending their own money to their own best benefit than government is capable of deciding or doing tthat for them.

MALS believe government should have the power to save the weak and irresponsible from themselves or to spare the less fortunate of many of the consequences of the choices they make.

2. Individual Property Rights

MACs believe in the Lockean principle that property precedes government, and if the people cannot be secure in the property that they acquired legally and ethically, they have no rights at all. MACs look at taxes as the their money which they allow the government to spend on their behalf.

MALS believe in the Marxist principle that all belongs to all the people and the government should dictate what the people should be able to keep for their own use. MALs look at taxes as the people's (the government's) money that the government can choose to distribute as it sees fit.

3. Natural rights

MACs believe in natural, god-given rights that are inviolate.

MALs, if they believe in God at all, think He has no place in government and natural rights are either arbitrary or vague terms for which little consideration is appropriate.

4. Individual freedom from restraint

MACs interpret this to mean that so long as s/he does not violate or endanger the Constitutional, legal, civil, or unalienable rights of others, the federal government may not restrict any person's activities.

MALS believe the federal government has license to protect the people from themselves.

5. Equality of the law

MACs believe that in order for the law to be just, enforcement and consequences for breaking it must apply evenly and equally and without bias or prejudice across the board to all persons regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, age, country of origin, religion, ideology, or sexual orientation.

MALs believe there should be room to ignore or adjust the application of the law for certain groups who are inconvenienced by it.

6. Constitutional limits of government

MACs distrust an unrestrained government and believe that the federal government should be restricted as much as possible to doing only that which is authorized by the Constitution and cannot be done more efficiently and effectively by the private sector.

MALs distrust the private sector and approve of more and more functions and control assumed by the federal government.

7. Free Markets

MACs believe markets are free only when laizzez faire principle of economics are allowed to work. Sufficient regulation should be in place to prevent people from doing violence to each other and as necessary so that everybody has a chance and knows the risks, and then it should get out of the way and let the market work.

MALs believe the sellers of goods are too often corrupt or unprincipled to be allowed to operate laizzez-faire and government control and/or even ownership is the best protection for the people and Kenysian economics are more effective than laizzez-faire.

8. The Gold Standard

MACS believe that the gold standard is the best means to ensure fiscal responsibility by government, and the smallest government possible that can also be effective would allow us to return to the gold standard and stop saddling subsequent generations with the economic sins of the present one.

MALS do not agree with much limitation of government power and control and feel more secure with a government that holds as much power and control as possible without seriously jeopardizing what the MAL wishes to do or accomplish.
***************

There are other comparisons or more specific comparisons we could make, but I think this is a pretty good start.

Foxie wrote:

How can you believe in property rights, and at the same time be a Israel supporter? Just another one of your contradictions.

Did you write this yourself, or did you borrow words and thoughts from another source? Please provide the source.

Thank you, Foxfyre. There is some good information in your post.

My only complaint is that you may have overstated the traits of liberals and conservatives. What about those who are more moderate in their liberal or conservative views?

Also, to bring in cicerone imposter's comment, what about Sarah Palin? Do you think Palin will start a new political party to attract conservatives who are unhappy with both the Republicans and Democrats?

I don't believe I have overstated them. Any one of us might be more moderate or even the opposite ideology on any given point. That just makes most individuals at least something of a mixed bag. It doesn't change the definitions.

A few days ago on this thread, some of us MACs were discussing the feasibility of a new political party if the GOP isn't able to develop a backbone and get its act together. The Tea Parties, however, are a far more likely emphasis for that than I think Sarah Palin will be. It will take raising up a charismatic figure that will attract national interest though, something similar to the Ross Perot phenomenon in the early 1990's.

I think the polls, however, are showing that more and more people are leaning in the MAC direction instead of the MAL direction, and the MACs hold the majority if a political campaign could actually be put together based on principles rather than personalities.

And I don't have a clue what is going to happen to Palin politically. The MALs have so savaged her with the deliberate intent of rendering her politically impotent, that we are going to have to wait until they turn on somebody else before we can know what the political winds might hold for her and/or the GOP and/or a new movement of which she could be a part. I am unaware that she is leaning toward a new party.

Most of us hover moderately in the middle of ideological extremes and prefer to approach issues with a high degree of practicality. On the other hand, Foxfyre pays homage to her personal ideals of conservatism, as if it is a flawless ideology, while the rest of us are appalled by the hypocrisy of those who label themselves as "conservatives". For instance, Foxfyre has borrowed libertarian principles to define conservativism, yet abundant evidence exists to prove that "conservatives" do not practice what they preach. Thus, Foxfyre insists on defining the boundaries of the discussion by declaring that all evidence that contradicts her ideology must be set aside and ignored.




Self-delusion. Foxfyre refuses to face reality. Conservatism is universally viewed as a small tent, exclusionary club of old rich white men who use divisive tactics designed to allow old rich white men to retain power and wealth.

More and more people are rejecting the divisive political policies of conservatism and are seeking government leaders who will serve the interests of ALL Americans instead of a favored few. Their divisive ideological dichotomy that "conservatism is good; liberalism is bad" doesn't resonate with rational people who are seeking practical solutions to very real problems. This divisive dichotomy might inspire and fire up those brainwashed few who still reside on the extreme fringes of the conservative movement, but the rest of America isn't listening.

If the Republicans desire to regain political power, they must distance themselves from conservatism (as an extreme ideology) and develop moderate policies and build a bigger tent that includes people of all colors and from every socio-economic class.



The "conservatives" savaged and continue to savage Obama with "deliberate intent of rendering him politically impotent." Yet, there in no indication that he will throw in the towel and proclaim that he has to quit being president in order to fight for his beliefs. Liberalism cannot be blamed for Palin's personal inability to cope with scrutiny or criticism. That she would rather waste time and effort fighting with comedians and tabloids rather than do the job she was elected to do says way more about her as a politician than it says about any particular political ideology.

WandelJW, you're a much more polite man than I am. Or much easier to please. Can't decide.

I am probably easier to please than most people, Thomas.

wandel is a mild-mannered gentleman whom I greatly admire for his gentleness.

And yet MACs are right there in line when they feel they have been wronged by others. They demand government hand outs and help. They use the courts to sue others when they feel they were wronged.

How many corporations really passed on the TARP money? Or are corporations not the bastion of conservatism they claim to be?

Sarah Palin is her own worst enemy; she's way above her capacity/capability to become the US president. You don't "get up to speed" by studying for two years before an election to prepare for the presidency. Even professionals are required many years of study and passing of exams to qualify. A president must have the intellectual capacity to handle many diverse and important issues at the same time; I doubt Palin can chew gum and read at the same time.

So, 'easy-to-please' Wandel, if we are agreed that few if any people will be all one ideology without any exceptions, would you have a quarrel with any of the defining criteria I assigned to MACs and MALs so far? If so, which ones and why?

Do you agree with recent polls in which the majority of Americans do identify with conservative values rather than liberal ones? Please explain why you answer as you do.

Why do you think Thomas is so offended that I would respond to you as I did? Were you offended? Why or why not?

Why do you think so many people are unwilling to actually discuss the concepts? Or incapable? Do you agree with me that they are not that difficult to understand?

Addendum to previous posts. I did leave out one group in the definitions though, and that would be the intellectually honest liberals who can see and understand all sides of each issue, and who can accept and even appreciate people who see things differently. They can competently articulate a rationale for why the whole is more important than the individual, and why government is the answer to the world's problems rather than laizzez-faire initiatives by the individual. I can name several in this group and read a lot of them and appreciate them even if I disagree with them. They are probably the rarest among ideological groups, however, and seem to be a vanishing breed.

FALSE! Your conclusion is derived from a logical falacy!

The ruling doesn't state any such thing. The ruling merely states that taxes on the particular things specified in the case decided ARE DIRECT TAXES. The ruling does not say that taxes on all other particular things not specified in the case decided ARE INDIRECT TAXES.

It would be illogical to conclude from this case that taxes on some forms of individual income were designated DIRECT TAXES, while taxes on other forms of individual income were designated INDIRECT TAXES.

LOGIC
Let the set of all forms of personal income be designated F. Let a court decide that taxes on S, a subset of F, are direct taxes.
It is a fallacy to deduce from that that all taxes on the set of all forms of personal income [F minus S] are indirect taxes. A court deciding something is true for what is contended for S, is not implying that same something is not true for [F minus S].



Yes, as I said, such a tax is not the only tax on incomes that is a direct tax.

You, parados, quoted:
The uniformity thus required is the uniformity throughout the United States of the duty, impost, and excise levied; that is, the tax levied cannot be one sum upon an article at one [157 U.S. 429, 593] place, and a different sum upon the same article at another place.

Like I said, the tax levied cannot be one sum upon an article (e.g., a dollar of income) at one place, and a different sum upon the same article (e.g., a dollar of income) at another place.

Sarah Palin despite her weaknesses would have been a better President than Barack Obama with all his weaknesses. Obama lives in the intellectual, emotional, and political corral once described by Einstein: "People who keep repeating the same action and each time expecting a different result are insane."