AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@okie,

Actually there are some who are so disappointed with the Bush administration and the Republican congressional representatives that they think that may be our only hope, as distastefu as it would be. Actually let the people experience again what an ultra liberal President coupled with a leftwing Democratic majority in Congress would do. And we could then expect Conservatism to be the national banner for a long time to come.

Maybe they're right. But I still think about supreme court justices with lifetime appointments and how difficult it is to reverse huge government programs and entitlements once they are put into motion.

So, I'll still vote McCain in November. Not because I think he is the best we could get, but because he is what we have and, from a perspective of conservatism, he is head and shoulders above his opponent. Further I think he is basically a decent and honest man with honest convictions whether or not i agree with them. I prefer that to somebody that the old guard from the Left can manipulate in any way that they choose.

This would probably be a better topic for the Elections thread. But then again, if we value modern Conservatism in its purest forms, we have to defend it. Those of us who call ourselves Conservative know that modern liberalism has failed everywhere it has been tried.

In five weeks the country will decide. I hope enough people know what they are actually voting for.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I agree with you.

Sadly however, I think Blatham has some legitimate points about McCain and Palin. First of all, McCain has been viewed as kind of a traitor to conservatism, although many of his stances are conservative, he has loved to paint himself as a maverick and one that reaches across the aisle. Thats fine, but he has a history of habitually criticizing his own party, sometimes seen as efforts to gain favor in the press.

I believe the reason McCain won the primaries was mainly because there were too many other candidates splitting the vote and those voters did not coalesce behind the ant-McCain candidate soon enough, such as Huckabee or Romney.

So Republicans have lined up behind McCain because they view Obama such a terrible choice, but if McCain loses, he will be blamed for it. Even if another Republican would have lost as well, there will be no way to have known that for sure. And here is another unfortunate thing -- Palin was favored by certain conservatives, such as Gingrich and conservative pundits on the radio like Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. If Palin turns out to drag down the ticket, these people that pushed her will be criticized, and McCain may even be angry for being pushed in that direction.

So all of this makes it very uncertain what will happen with what faction will end up having the greatest influence in the party. It could even plant the seeds for a third party to gain some degree of acceptance.

But this election is still a long way away, and we have all seen how fast the numbers can change, almost overnight. There are many flash point issues in a state of flux right now, so this election is far from over.

One thing I know for sure, it wasn't conservatism that caused the financial mess in this country.

0 Replies

First, it is by no means a forgone conclusion that Obama will win this election. McCain has great appeal to the less radical wing of the GOP, but those folks aren't likely to swing their votes to Obama. Far more likely is that a the more Centerist Democrats, and some of the dissaffected Clinton voters will vote for McCain. I attach little importance to the polls that change from day to day depending on the what are often inconsequentials. The only poll that counts is the one in November. The partisans for each of the Parties are pretty evenly divided in numbers, wealth, power, etc. and so, once again, the middle of the road working people of the nation will be decisive.

Gov. Palin isn't an experienced national leader, and that is part of her appeal to many voters who cling to the American Myth that anyone, any citizen can be plucked from obscurity to manage the levers of government. That was previously a role that Sen. Obama played well; an outsider come to Babylon to sweep the place clean. Palin outdoes Obama in being the "common man" and outsider unsullied by career politics. Of course, the myth has more holes than swiss cheese, but it "plays well" with many still. In the case of Palin, her inexperience is unlikely to matter much since the Vice-Presidency is more often a political graveyard than not. Only about one in five VPs ascend to the Presidency, and those are pretty good odds. Sen. Obama's inexperience, on the other hand, is fought with far greater risks since being President in the early 21st century is not a place for on-the-job training.

Second, the tradition of a Party cannibalizing its failed candidates for office is one more associated with the Democrats than the GOP. Goldwater failed, yet was never subjected to half the abuse the Democrats have heaped on Kerry. Even Gore, who now is a media darling because of his high profile activism over Global Warming, has been for most of the past 8 years been a Democratic pariah. If it should happen that the GOP loses this election, the Party isn't likely to demonize and blame McCain. We will remain convinced that he was the better choice, and that he conducted the campaign as well as it could be managed. He's shown that he can recognize problems, and the flexibility to fix them. His selection of Gov. Palin was a great surprise, but it seems to have been a pretty good choice despite the risk. McCain has the courage to take risks, and has been a done the Party proud so far. If we lose, I expect the Party will regroup, and emerge even stronger in the next election. BTW, my choice for VP would have been Kate Hutchinson of Texas, but Palin now has my full support ... for whatever that's worth.

Third, Election campaigns are mostly froth and a tempest in a teacup. Jess Unruh once said, "in politics forever is about a week". It is an untidy, emotional and divisive roller coaster that goes on, and on, and on. There is no truth in the facts that are shouted by mobs, and the essentials tend to be obscured by inconsequential blather. That's the way the game is played, and if you don't play the game... you lose. Set aside all of the accusations and grand promises, forget the claims that one Party or Candidate represents Virtue while the other is Evil personified. They are all just people with a mixture of good and lousy characteristics. They make mistakes like everyone else, and while their intentions are almost always good, politicians seldom deliver anything even closely resembling what their most fervent supporters hope for. A terrible system that brings out the worst it seems in almost everyone involved. But, the system does work and has retained stability for over two hundred years. It isn't ideal, but it is a practical system that guarantees the liberty of us all.

1 Reply

@Asherman,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHj8-HSi5AA

Asherman, Fox News has certainly blamed the Democrats for this mess, as in the above link. What do yo think of this video and article in terms of accuracy?

There is no doubt in my mind from what I have absorbed that some percentage of the problem is due to really bad loan practices that were driven in part by bad law or congressional actions, coupled with the resistance by Democrats to stem the tide of these bad practices with better oversight 3 or 4 years ago after the practices had been going on for a number of years and we became more aware of the really bad and even fraudulant cooking of the books at Fannie, etc. The only question in my mind is just what percentage of the problem is due to this? I never dreamed this much money could have been involved, but I guess I never paid any attention.

Overall, I think our entire economy has been fueled with way too much credit. Everything and everybody is running on at least some red ink, most notably the Federal Government. Not being an economist, I still think this is merely common sense observation of what is going on. This house of cards has continued to the point that a few weak points in this house, or flash points, are all that is needed for the entire house to begin to crumble. It looks to me like that although the housing sector is just one piece of the puzzle and Fannie and Freddie are also in turn pieces of that piece, I think those pieces are very big ones and therefore served as the primary flash points for this whole mess to begin coming apart. It may have come apart for other reasons down the road a few years, due to other weak points or flash points, but perhaps it would have been a long time?

Now if the government can bolster these weak points with enough cash, perhaps the house can be preserved for a while longer, a few more years, and depending upon what happens, perhaps the process of weakening can be averted, slowed, or even stopped, and the house can become stronger, who really knows?

What do you think?

1 Reply

@okie,

Being deaf, I'm spared much of the political analysis by the partisan commentariat. I don't doubt that both Parties will be accusing the other of both misfeasance and malfeasance. Fixing the blame may be emotionally satisfying, and provide "justification" for political positions, but is otherwise pretty much useless. The crux of the matter isn't how we got into this fine mess, but rather what is the best, most practical and probable way of getting out of it.

The Democrats seem to favor more government regulation and spending paid for by increasing the tax load on businesses, and people who have wealth and property. They desperately want to retake the White House, and expect that extravagant promises to benefit low and middle income citizens at the expense of those bad old rich guys will win the day. The GOP, on the other hand, seems to favor less government regulation and cuts in Federal spending. The GOP is also courting the working and middle classes, who dream of themselves as someday having wealth and property. The Republican approach is to encourage investment and business with the expectation that increased productivity will produce more jobs, tax revenue, and general prosperity. Both Parties must cater to the lukewarm political feelings of most Americans. Congress is continually deadlocked as the two Parties jockey to appear better than the their opponents to the public.

Even though the nations leadership seem to agree that a large bailout is our best bet at the moment for a speedy recovery, the exact nature of that bailout is very much in dispute. The Democrats ideologues have one approach and the GOP ideologues have a different one. Personally I favor the GOP approach, but the approach taken is a matter of personal philosophy. The House leader's remarks before the vote casting blame certainly didn't encourage minority members to cross the aisle on this vote. In the end though, I think the Bill failed because too many members of both Parties were unconvinced of it. Significant numbers of both Parties voted against the Bill. Apparently the representatives were bombarded with objections to the Bill by their constituencies. Congressmen aren't known for either their brilliance, nor their courage, so the safe thing was to vote "nay". Who knows, that might have been the "right" decision not only politically, but for the nation's well-being as well.

Fanny & Freddy are both Federally chartered to handle/bundle home mortgages with the idea of spreading the risk of default. Banks sell their loans to Franny & Freddy (and other investment organizations like Lehman Bro., Bear Stearns, etc., who in turn used those loans as a lure to investors). The lending banks have almost zero risk in this system, so they have no reason to screen out all of the questionable borrowers. The biggies, Freddy & Franny and the host of investors around the world, made big bucks as long as the housing boom lasted, and so they operated from underfunded reserves. When the sub-prime market began to crash, there wasn't enough liquidity to cover all of them and one institution after another has fallen. Panic set in, and no one wants to risk what liquidity and cash they have so interest rates have soared and only the highest rated borrowers can qualify.

Business, like the old farmers of yesteryear, can't hardly operate without a ready line of inexpensive credit. No credit, and they have reduce operations to survive. Survival often means cutting overhead to the bone, and letting workers go. As unemployment roles rise, and so far that hasn't happened, the amount of money available decreases and people buy less. Its a vicious cycle, and almost everyone will suffer to some extent. A major problem is the lack of confidence, fear of a plunging economy that causes everyone to stay awake nights.

Will a large infusion of Federal money easy the credit crunch, and let those major financial institutions recover? No one really knows, but the smart money is that it's the best bet available at this juncture. The administration favors a $700B bailout, and the leadership of both Parties and their Presidential candidates favor some sort of Federal bail out. Apparently, a very large portion of our citizens are against adding approx. one trillion dollars to the national debt. There are worries that the "scoundrels responsible for the mess" will prosper, though exactly who the scoundrels are and what their crimes were is debatable. The live style and choices of Americans for many decades has been reflected in how the Congress and both Political Parties have acted. Very few believed that moving from a saving to a credit society was a bad thing, or even very risky.

"Gold Bugs" have long warned of the dangers of that currency without gold backing, but that isn't a good choice either because our economy, the world's economy, needs more currency than there is gold to back it. In place of gold we have relied upon strict government control over the currency ala Mr. Greenspan & Co. They've done a great job, but didn't foresee how far and how dangerous mortgage lending had drifted toward unrealistic shoals that would eventually tear the bottom out of the wider economy. The system IS sound, but it has taken a hell of a beating over the past year, and confidence here and abroad has fallen to disastrous levels.

1 Reply

As impressed as I am by this sunny optimism that the approaching freight train will simply swerve to avoid your stalled Pontiac...

Here's an interesting line from Kristol's last post at the Weekly Standard:

"But there is someone who might be able to save the economy--and incidentally the Republican party: John McCain."

Save the Republican party? You might suppose, I suppose, that he refers merely to the party's electoral chances. But if you do suppose that, then it's evident that you folks have not been reading much commentary out of the serious parts of your movement (Hannity wouldn't be included under that heading).

0 Replies

@Asherman,

Asherman wrote:

Being deaf, I'm spared much of the political analysis by the partisan commentariat. I don't doubt that both Parties will be accusing the other of both misfeasance and malfeasance. Fixing the blame may be emotionally satisfying, and provide "justification" for political positions, but is otherwise pretty much useless. The crux of the matter isn't how we got into this fine mess, but rather what is the best, most practical and probable way of getting out of it.

Asherman, I didn't realize you were deaf, I am guessing that adds to the reason why you are well read. I respect your opinions, well written. In regard to the above that I quote, however, I must respectfully disagree. I understand why you make the statement, and perhaps it is not possible or even fruitful to fix the blame right now until we form a temporary fix, as politics probably won't allow it right now anyway. But down the road, we most certainly must fix some blame wherever it may be, as accurately as possible.

I took a seminar one time on problem solving and decision making. It seemed juvenile some of the elementary points that we covered in that week, but one that I will always remember is that to solve a problem, you must first accurately identify the underlying problem or cause. Now, that seems logical and one might assume that always happens, but the fact is, it commonly does not happen. The problem in this case is not just the debt problem, but the policies that are causing the debt. That is the problem. And accountability needs to be restored in the financial world. Accountability is one of the cornerstones of free enterprise. Unless we correctly identify the cause and fix it, we are doomed to repeat it, or the problem will not go away, it will continue to rear its ugly head. We can throw money into it now, but more money does not fix it. So fixing the blame accurately is a political problem, but I think it is incumbent upon us to try to do it, because political policies are a part of what caused this. That is what politicians are hired to do, and they should do it, If bad economic policy or bad government regulation or mandates are a big cause of this, we need to face up to it, and we need to fix it.

I happen to think there is a stark difference between Democratic and Republican or between liberal and conservative policies, they do have their results, and we as conservatives need to fight for what we believe. We have no need to be apologetic about it. There is potential for alot of us to lose our savings, our livelihoods, because of irresponsible policies, and I intend on fighting those policies and to speak out about them whenever I can. True, we need some compromise to get things done, but some policies deserve to lose, plain and simple, and some policies deserve to win. Therefore the partisanship and political battle must go on.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

I happen to think there is a stark difference between Democratic and Republican or between liberal and conservative policies

Sure. But the relevant point (in a discussion of what american conservatism ought to 'be' or do going forward) is that both political philosophies demonstrate, within themselves, a significant range of differing ideas. Lieberman and Obama and Clinton and Olbermann see different worlds. Reagan and Bill Kristol and Phyllis Schlafley and David Gergen aren't merely clones of one another. Which version of "conservatism" looks likely to be viable (electorally) in the future is not any sort of given - unless one wishes to hunker down into extremism and say "X and only X represents TRUE conservatism".

Quote:

In the Senate, where Democrats have been on offense all year as they try to attain a filibuster-proof, 60-seat majority, Republican incumbents are suddenly teetering in North Carolina, Kentucky and Georgia because of the economic crisis, according to several GOP strategists closely tracking the contests.

The pessimism in the GOP ranks reflects a striking shift in momentum in the four weeks since the Republican National Convention, when Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin made her national debut and rallied conservatives, helping to fuel the perception that longer-shot Democratic targets were drifting out of reach.

"If you turn the clock back two or two and half weeks, you could make a plausible argument that if a couple of things go our way we will lose three to four Senate races," said one Republican strategist. "Now we will lose six to eight." Polling in most Senate races over the past 14 days has shown a five-point decline for the Republican candidate, the strategist said.

The picture in the House is similar. The generic ballot test -- a traditional measure of broad voter attitudes -- has also moved decisively in Democrats' direction in recent days. The latest NBC-Wall Street Journal and Associated Press polls showed voters favoring a generic Democratic candidate for Congress over a generic Republican by 13 points, while a recent Time magazine poll gave Democrats a 46 percent to 36 percent edge.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/03/AR2008100303699.html?hpid=topnews

The situation you face is a broad shift in the elecorate's conception of, and confidence in, your party and movement. The scenario I outlined above (how the movement/party will behave following these electoral losses) will be pretty close to the reality of what does happen. How long it takes you to recover will depend upon how long it takes most of you to recognize the elements of unreflective extremism in your movement which have brought you to this point.

1 Reply

@blatham,

My opening post when I started this thread suggested that the Republican Party has fallen into disfavor because it abandoned the conservative principles that persuaded the people to put it into power. I still believe that. Nimh and others took exception to my point of view and still others want to make this into just another GOP and/or President Bush bashing thread.

But focusing on the thesis, it seems to me that when the Republicans presented a clear conservative vision and backed it up with leadership on such issues as fiscal responsibility, a balanced budget, accountability, smaller more efficient government, and returning as much power to the people as possible, they were wildly successful and were winning elections by landslides.

Following that same train of thought, it was when conservative Democrats following the Harry Truman and JFK eras began abandoning conservative principles and began morphing into liberal Demorats in favor of bigger, more intrusive government and socialistic principles that they began falling out of favor with the people and gave Republicans a huge leg up.

It was when the Republicans started acting more like liberal Democrats, abandoned fiscal responsibility, stopped leading on conservative principles that they fell out of public favor. And they should have. Republicans make lousy liberal Democrats.

I fear for my country if modern liberalism gains a firm foothold here. I think it would be damning for the human spirit, creativity, initiative, prosperity, and opportunity and the price would be horrendous in lost freedoms and ability to choose the society in which we want to live.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

foxfyre wrote:

I fear for my country if modern liberalism gains a firm foothold here. I think it would be damning for the human spirit, creativity, initiative, prosperity, and opportunity and the price would be horrendous in lost freedoms and ability to choose the society in which we want to live.

You've put it accurately but relatively nicely. However, I think it more appropriate now to make a more blunt characterization of what the Obama Democrats are actually seeking. They are seeking to regiment the thought of Americans to support attainment of this socialist governing principle: "From each according to their ability; To each according to their need." Whether they want it to or not, achieving their goal will ultimately cause our free Constitutional republic to evolve into a socialist tyranny like that characterized by George Orwell in his book, "1984."

Quote:

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/
Part III, Chapter II
Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn, Winston. It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane.

Our current government--Republican and Democrat alike--is violating the "supreme law of the land:" the USA Constitution. This violation by our government is the natural evolution of discriminatory taxation re-instituted in 1913 under the name of "progressive taxation."

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

foxfyre

Yup, I understand your viewpoint. I think it is circular, consequently wrong in all sorts of ways, and finally self-defeating.

Quote:

I fear for my country if modern liberalism gains a firm foothold here. I think it would be damning for the human spirit, creativity, initiative, prosperity, and opportunity and the price would be horrendous in lost freedoms and ability to choose the society in which we want to live.

Your fear is born out of your version of conservative ideology. It's an ideology which holds an extremist idea of american exceptionalism as one core notion. McCain recently said, in explaining why national guard duty or some other service of young americans abroad would be a beneficial policy, "Because when these americans go to other countries then those countries will understand America's goodness" Tell that to anyone from outside the US (as I did to McTag and his wife) and they are absolutely dumbfounded at the nationalist myopia (and arrogance) of the statement.

What follows from your sentence/idea I quoted above is that it must logically be true that all other nations which have elected liberal governments or which continue to support parties with liberal policies (eg all other western nations re 'socialized' medical provision) are unfree, unprosperous, uncreative, and spiritless. Such a conclusion or hypothesis is, frankly, some species of madness. It is certainly blind.

1 Reply

@blatham,

Not at all circular. Attention must be paid to definitions here. In the context of this thread, modern American conservatism more closely approximates classical liberalism while modern liberalism is more and more embracing Marxist socialism. I don't know about Mrs. McTag, but Mr. McTag has consistently held the United States and its leadership in stark contempt and has no use for any form of conservatism as it is defined in this thread or conservatives for that matter; at least those who have dared to challenge his world view. In that regard he mirrors many modern American liberals who view other countries and people as being somehow superior to their own or at least more virtuous and noble.

Within the context in which John McCain made his remark, he was not far off the concept of JFK when he envisioned and implemented the Peace Corps. I suspect he had in mind the thousands of heartwarming photos of our soldiers in Iraq interacting with the Iraqi citizens--you know the thousand of photos liberals hate to see posted because they don't show only the ugly side of military conflict. I suspect he had in mind those Iraqi citizens who had their hands chopped off by Saddam's thugs--without anesthesia I might add--who were fitted with prosthetic hands by US surgeons. I suppose he had in mind Iraqi children playing soccer and basketball with US soldiers, the Iraqi women proudly displaying their purple fingers, and US soldiers giving a basic computer course to children and their parents. Do you think these people see Americans as terrible people?

How about our US aircraft carriers, each with a fully equipped medical and surgical hospital on board, pulling into hurricane or tsunami ravaged ports to provide emergency services to desperate people? Do you think they are seen as hideous monsters to such people?

Yes there are a lot of McTags who view us all as 'ugly Americans and can see nothing but the negatives. And yes, Americans can be ugly, but I think most are not. And pity the person who is unable to see good where it exists.

As for those countries that have gone too far left, few can claim a GDP or standard of living or low unemployment rate as Americans enjoy. And more than a few are pulling in their most liberal tendencies and pulling back to the right. As Thomas Sowell once said: "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it”

“Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”--Alexis de Tocqueville

But too many liberals seem to share this conviction:
“The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.”--Karl Marx

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

The Peace Corps was designed to encourage mutual understanding between Americans and other cultures of the world.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/JFK+in+History/Peace+Corps.htm

McCain made no acknowledgment (nor do you) of the key notion inherent in this initiative..."mutual understanding". This is an entirely predictable omission for members of your movement. How could it be otherwise given the unreflective assumption of exceptionalism?

Quote:

Mr. McTag has consistently held the United States and its leadership in stark contempt and has no use for any form of conservatism as it is defined in this thread or conservatives for that matter...
Yes there are a lot of McTags who view us all as 'ugly Americans and can see nothing but the negatives. And yes, Americans can be ugly, but I think most are not. And pity the person who is unable to see good where it exists.

Your typical resort to absolutes here lands you in a place not merely factually false but deeply ironic given the last sentence quoted.

As I said early, early on in your thread, I doubt that you or your movement will be able to come to grips with its extremity, its failings and its prospects. At the state level, in both houses and now as regards the WH, citizens have and will continue to reject your movement in increasing numbers (and demographics suggest your problems will only increase on top of this).

You won't go quietly into that good night. But that is where you're going regardless.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Not at all circular. Attention must be paid to definitions here. In the context of this thread, modern American conservatism more closely approximates classical liberalism while modern liberalism is more and more embracing Marxist socialism.

As far as I understood, your term 'liberalism' is (nearly) identical to what is called elsewhere Social-Democratic, Labour etc..
Now, American 'liberalism' (like demonstrated by the Democrats) than any party policy you would call 'liberal'.

And our Labour, Social-Democratic etc. politicians and their politics are nearly hardly to differ from .... the conservative parties' (see for instance Labour<>Conservatives in the UK, Social Democratic Party<>Christian Union in Germany).

Marxist ideas are still to be found in a few of those tiny Comunist parties (as well as in Germany in a fraction of members of Die Linker[The Left, a merger of the follow up party of the SED with another leftish party].

Foxfyre wrote:

How about our US aircraft carriers, each with a fully equipped medical and surgical hospital on board, pulling into hurricane or tsunami ravaged ports to provide emergency services to desperate people? Do you think they are seen as hideous monsters to such people?

I don't think that aircraft carriers' main purpose is medical aid. So why not use hospital ships, field hospitals or similar? That would make it much easier "to see good where it exists".

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I don't think that aircraft carriers' main purpose is medical aid. So why not use hospital ships, field hospitals or similar? That would make it much easier "to see good where it exists".

Because aircraft carriers are generally in the area already and can provide airlifting and support. But you are right, that is not their main purpose, just a great side effect. But then again, Foxfyre did not suggest that was their main purpose. That was just you picking nits.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

There have been other discussions at some length describing how Europeans and Americans define 'liberal' and 'conservative' differently and this thread is intended to discuss the terms as they apply to American definitions. Perhaps a separate thread to discuss European definitions would be useful (and constructive) in helping people to understand differences in terminology as the Europeans understand them.

The modern Democrat party now is a much different animal than it was in the days of Truman and JFK when it was far to the right of many modern Republicans. Democrats these days are not pure socialists yet, but they are definitely tacking in that direction. And there is a small but prevalent group in the Republican party that are more allied with them than they are conservative principles.

As for hospital ships, of course these are practical if they happen to be near where they are needed. When they aren't nearby and a well equipped war ship is nearby, it is far more practical for the war ship to go to the immediate rescue don't you think?

Our government operates three hospital ships--I believe we still have three--and these are usually deployed to impoverished areas for humanitarian purposes only. They do great work with a combination of military personnel and a lot of civilian medical personnel who volunteer for specific missions on those ships. But it is a big planet and three ships can only be in so many places at any given time.

Volunteerism is very much a conservative principle. Smile

Those who most despise us usually have little clue how much selfless good the US government in cooperation with thousands of American humanitarian volunteers do all around the world. And they don't want to know. They want to believe that US soldiers deliberately terrorize and massacre women and children. They don't want to believe that US soldiers are almost universally people who love people and take great joy in protecting and saving people. They want to show only the ugly side of a mission such as Iraq and resent the thousands upon thousands of reports/photos demonstrating American soldiers interacting positively with Iraqi citizens and doing yeoman's work in humanitarian efforts. They want to point at the very few dishonorable types who managed to get into the US military and ignore the hundreds of thousands who put their lives on the line to defend and protect the innocent.)

All this factors into some of the differences beween modern conservatism and modern liberalism and how each perceives its world.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Foxfyre wrote:

There have been other discussions at some length describing how Europeans and Americans define 'liberal' and 'conservative' differently and this thread is intended to discuss the terms as they apply to American definitions. Perhaps a separate thread to discuss European definitions would be useful (and constructive) in helping people to understand differences in terminology as the Europeans understand them.

I know. I was just trying to explain that your
"modern liberalism is more and more embracing Marxist socialism"
can't be backed at all.

But obviously I failed.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Because aircraft carriers are generally in the area already and can provide airlifting and support. But you are right, that is not their main purpose, just a great side effect. But then again, Foxfyre did not suggest that was their main purpose. That was just you picking nits.

Well, we send two field hospitals within two day since we don't have aircraft carriers and aren't so clear-sighted as the US to keep them like your aircraft carriers within short distance to regions where disasters might happen.

0 Replies

From economist Brad DeLong... (internal links in original)

This describes, accurately, what you folks are facing.

Quote:

Karma

In 2001 the Republicans in the Senate decided to do everything George W. Bush asked them too--the lesson they drew from the 1994 election, you, see, was that your seat is at risk if a president of your party is perceived to be a failure, and that if you do not enthusiastically support all his initatives he may be so perceived.

The lesson they did not draw was that if your president is a failure and if you do enthusiastically support all his initatives then he will still be perceived as a failure and you will be perceived as a failure too.

Time to shut down the Republican Party:

Dems could hit 60 Senate seats/a>: The possibility that Democrats will build a muscular, 60-seat Senate majority is looking increasing plausible, with new polls showing a powerful surge for the party’s candidates in Minnesota, Kentucky and other states.... Norm Coleman could now easily lose his Minnesota seat to comedian-turned-candidate Al Franken. A Colorado race that initially looked like a nail-biter has now broken decisively for the Democrats. A top official in the McCain camp told us Sen. Elizabeth Dole is virtually certain to lose in conservative North Carolina.... Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has seen his race tighten dangerously close over the past week " and Democrats are considering moving more money into the state.... [T]here is even talk that Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss is beatable in conservative Georgia after backing the economic bailout package opposed by many voters.

“Before the economic crisis, we had a number of races moving our way,” said Matthew Miller, communications director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “But now we’re seeing Republican numbers plummet.” GOP officials largely agree.... “These are the Bush policies coming home to roost.” Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, told Politico....

Democrats need to pick up nine seats to hit 60 votes. Republicans have been bracing for big losses, but it wasn’t until the past few days that they have started to privately sound the alarms that the bottom could fall out on Election Day.... Republicans fully expect to lose Virginia and New Mexico. They think there is a pretty strong chance that they also lose Colorado, Alaska, New Hampshire, Oregon and North Carolina. This means everyone should keep their eyes on Minnesota, Kentucky, Mississippi and Georgia over the final month of this campaign.... Several Republican strategists close to the White House said there is increasing fear among party leaders about a bloodbath. But they added that they hope to keep losses to as few as five or six seats, rather than the nine....

[T]iming is very dangerous for Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), because his state has mail voting with a heavy early vote.... Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.), who had been considered one of the party's most endangered incumbents. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) will certainly lose if he is convicted in a corruption trial now under way.... Top Republicans say they have no hope for Dole in North Carolina...

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/

1 Reply

@blatham,

While that would be an excellent post on the Final Countdown to the General Election thread, Blatham, please explain how you think it relates to American Conservatism?

Most conservatives posting on this thread are in agreement that George W. Bush and many Republicans in Congress have not embodied a lot of the principles of American Conservatism which is why they found themselves so out of favor with the American people. Had they implemented Conservative principles instead of trying so hard to be 'fair' and/or to appease the Left, things might have gone very differently.

We sure as hell wouldn't have caved in to the liberal Democrats and failed to head off the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac mess. In fact conservatives would never have implemented the liberal policies that created the mess in the first place.

But that is neither here or now. I am not surprised that you like Professor Delong who was an integral advisor to the Clinton administration and is at home at Berkeley, and I am not surprised that he would write such a column which is quite blatant gloating. I am quite certain he would not have written such a column if the situation was reversed and political fortunes favored the Republicans.

And I am pretty sure that you and many others are gloating right along with him. Beware, however, that if the liberals overplay their hand and expose the emptiness and/or dangerous ideas promoted by your fearless leader for what they very well may be, it could bode poorly for the Democrats as quickly as the next election or two.

Oh heck, you like my cliches so well, let me use one: pride goeth before a fall.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know