AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Sir
i had quoted an article which partially reflect my views.
These are the words which arrest my attention
"conservatives have defined themselves as resistant to change, standing "athwart history, yelling Stop," as the late William F. Buckley Jr. famously put it. But right now, conservatives -- including McCain -- are damned if they do change and damned if they don't. "

0 Replies

Also the European definition of 'conservaitve' does not work for American Conservatism which is why I titled this thread American Conservatism 2008 and beyond.

0 Replies

Ramafuchs wrote:

Sir
i had quoted an article which partially reflect my views.
These are the words which arrest my attention
"conservatives have defined themselves as resistant to change,

Very correct especially when it comes to communists who cling to their old ideas even after they have seen one contry after the other under communistic regimes collaps.

0 Replies

But American conservatism is different from that. American conservatism is closer to classical liberalism. It does push for enlightenment, a better mousetrap, striving for excellence, appreciation for competence and honesty about what works and what doesn't. What works is conserved. What doesn't is changed.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But American conservatism is different from that. American conservatism is closer to classical liberalism. It does push for enlightenment, a better mousetrap, striving for excellence, appreciation for competence and honesty about what works and what doesn't. What works is conserved. What doesn't is changed.

That is the way good conservatism is and should be every where whatever it is about politics or other areas of life. That is how I see conservatism in Scandinavia too.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

...
You [did] vote for him 2 times though...

T
K
O

In 2000, my options were Gore or Bush.

In 2004, my options were Kerry or Bush.

I have posted on A2K many times that I decided Bush was least worse; that is, least worse than a genuine conservative. Unfortunately, at the times of those votes there was no conservative candidate capable of winning.

There are more than two parties, and you're making excuses.
K
O

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But American conservatism is different from that. American conservatism is closer to classical liberalism. It does push for enlightenment, a better mousetrap, striving for excellence, appreciation for competence and honesty about what works and what doesn't. What works is conserved. What doesn't is changed.

red added.

If what you are saying here was true, conservatism by the nature of trail and error would have abandoned several ideas you hold dear.

There are plenty of things that aren't working, and a vote for McCain is a vote to keep things that aren't working. Again, I'm glad I don't have to reconcile the conflicts of being a conservative...

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
But American conservatism is different from that. American conservatism is closer to classical liberalism. It does push for enlightenment, a better mousetrap, striving for excellence, appreciation for competence and honesty about what works and what doesn't. What works is conserved. What doesn't is changed.

red added.

If what you are saying here was true, conservatism by the nature of trail and error would have abandoned several ideas you hold dear.

There are plenty of things that aren't working, and a vote for McCain is a vote to keep things that aren't working. Again, I'm glad I don't have to reconcile the conflicts of being a conservative...

T
K
O

Perhaps you would like to elaborate on a conservative principle that isn't working that McCain would keep? That would be useful to the discussion. Bashing conservatism and/or other members or a political candidate on a vague, unspecified concept is not.

You also have not addressed my question to you as to how your 'progressive' agenda would improve education versus how American Conservatism would more likely address it.

(I also agree with Ican that McCain is not a conservative on many issues. All he has going for him is that he is conservative on more issues than is Obama which was the case with Bush vs Gore and Bush vs Kerry. It is easy to say that there were other people to vote for, but there was nobody else to vote for who had any chance to be elected president. One principle of conservatism is to do what accomplishes the best possible outcome rather than stand on fuzzy ideological notions.)

0 Replies

Conservatism incorporates realism.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Conservatism incorporates realism.

Yes it does. In fact that may be the most important and defining trait of conservatism. Otherwise you can't retain what works and change what doesn't or make decisions that will most likely produce the best possible outcome.

0 Replies

Conservatives recognize the realism of human nature and government, that government cannot solve every problem, that utopia on earth cannot be achieved, because of human nature. Liberals look to government to achieve utopia, which simply isn't possible, so whenever a politician promises to solve peoples personal problems, libs will vote for them, while conservatives do not. Conservatives believe in the freedom to pursue happiness, but not the guarantee of it.

Liberals want to believe war is not necessary, while conservatives believe it is sometimes. Liberals want to believe leaders will not be evil. Liberals want to believe government is always good. The list goes on.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Conservatives rec ...

Liberals want to believe war is not necessary, while conservatives believe it is sometimes. Liberals want to believe leaders will not be evil. Liberals want to believe government is always good. The list goes on.

You mean the bullsh*t goes on. You're just an empty meme memorizer, Okie.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

okie wrote:
Conservatism incorporates realism.

Yes it does. In fact that may be the most important and defining trait of conservatism. Otherwise you can't retain what works and change what doesn't or make decisions that will most likely produce the best possible outcome.

Interesting, the following thread was started by Diest. I think he found the subject of realism vs idealism interesting, but apparently the thread has pretty much died, I think due to the fact that it doesn't go where libs want the conclusion to go. My last post there pointed out that carbon credits make libs feel good, but accomplish essentially nothing. Another example of idealism, but not a realistic solution for a realistic situation. To solve a problem, you must first accurately and realistically identify the problem, and thats where libs fall short on virtually any issue.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=119440&start=80

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
okie wrote:
Conservatism incorporates realism.

Yes it does. In fact that may be the most important and defining trait of conservatism. Otherwise you can't retain what works and change what doesn't or make decisions that will most likely produce the best possible outcome.

Interesting, the following thread was started by Diest. I think he found the subject of realism vs idealism interesting, but apparently the thread has pretty much died, I think due to the fact that it doesn't go where libs want the conclusion to go. My last post there pointed out that carbon credits make libs feel good, but accomplish essentially nothing. Another example of idealism, but not a realistic solution for a realistic situation. To solve a problem, you must first accurately and realistically identify the problem, and thats where libs fall short on virtually any issue.

The defining traits of conservatism have produced the mess that is the last eight years. Another defining trait of conservatism is the willingness to lie to provide cover for a morally bankrupt government, to provide cover for felons, for war criminals, for a group that has not lived up to one promise.

That is you and the other cons who posture here in a nutshell.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
okie wrote:
Conservatism incorporates realism.

Yes it does. In fact that may be the most important and defining trait of conservatism. Otherwise you can't retain what works and change what doesn't or make decisions that will most likely produce the best possible outcome.

Interesting, the following thread was started by Diest. I think he found the subject of realism vs idealism interesting, but apparently the thread has pretty much died, I think due to the fact that it doesn't go where libs want the conclusion to go. My last post there pointed out that carbon credits make libs feel good, but accomplish essentially nothing. Another example of idealism, but not a realistic solution for a realistic situation. To solve a problem, you must first accurately and realistically identify the problem, and thats where libs fall short on virtually any issue.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=119440&start=80

Part of the problem I think is that you're comparing apples and oranges. Idealism in itself is not irrational, evil, or nonconstructive, but it can be if it defends wrong headed or bad policy or objectives. Certainly the young idealists who heaped a religious passion/adoration upon Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, and/or Castro, each who promised to solve the people's most serious problems and deliver utopia, were operating from an idealism of hope and trust that was seriously misplaced. The realists who saw beyond the idealistic fervor and who resisted it were shouted down at first. Later they would be jailed or killed.

Idealism coupled with realism can be a positive force. To believe that the people, given freedom and incentive to do so, will effectively govern themselves and achieve their most coveted goals is idealistic. The realism is demonstrated in the results.

The war on poverty initiated in the 60's was to lift the nation's poor out of poverty. That was idealistic. The reality, however, is that six trillion dollars later, millions have been trapped into dependence on government subsidies, families, most especially black families, have been destroyed, vital thriving neighborhoods have been replaced with rat infested, crime ridden projects, and we've doomed generations of children to sex, drugs, crime, anger, and a spirit of hopelessness.

Progressive (i.e. liberals) might think that more money and more government programs will turn all that around. Conservative realists think that it was government money and programs that created most of the problems we now have and it is time to rethink our imperatives and do things differently.

Both points of view are idealistic.

0 Replies

Good points, Foxfyre, I should probably more accurately criticize "idealism" as "mis-placed idealism." I think though that there are ideals that conservatives hold, but conservatives do not believe that ideal living conditions or utopia will ever occur on this earth. There are ideal principles, but an ideal world is not possible, whereas I think liberals think an ideal world might be possible. Actually, I think this is a spiritual thing, one set of people believing in "saving the earth," while the other set believes in a perfect world in the life hereafter. At least this is where I think my conservatism springs from.

Misplaced idealists that dwell upon injustice end up being angry people. Of course there is always enough perceived injustice to fuel such people's imaginations and ambitions. And if they set out to right all the wrongs of the past, they tend to produce bad results, and if an angry idealist with a dysfunctional background ends up in a position of power, they can be very very destructive. Examples are evident. I started a thread about that subject a long time ago, in which I started with 6 examples, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Castro, and Hussein.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=66117

0 Replies

It would be an exaggeration of course, but sometimes it seems that modern American liberalism thinks that the most perfect world is accomplished through government activity and government control of all human activity.

I think within American Conservatism exists the belief that people have the right to screw up their own lives if they choose to do so and some will choose to do just that. Conversely, people have the right to resist not having their lives screwed up by other people and/or the government.

0 Replies

Upon thinking about this a bit more, perhaps two types of ideals, one being principles, such as the right to pursue happiness, the other ideal (liberal) being "outcome," such as the purported right to happiness for all people. So we have the conservative ideals being that of principles, the liberal side being that of outcomes, and contrary to the ideal of everyone being happy, they all end up equally miserable. Ironically, some of them may be happy with being miserable, until they taste freedom. And also ironically, it is possible for the free to become lazy, and desire bondage again so that the government can give them everything, at least that is their idealistic but unrealistic desire. Thus the pendulum swings.

Take China, look at all the sameness, equality of outcome. Taken to the liberal extreme in America, that is what we would look like.

1 Reply

@okie,

I agree!

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

In the Declaration they wrote:

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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

In the Constitution they wrote:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In the Constitution they wrote:

]Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

definition of imposts
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=imposts&x=28&y=10
definition of uniform
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=uniform&x=29&y=8

In the Constitution they wrote:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know