AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Here is one version of 'conservatism' as voiced by a pastor chosen to give the invocation at a McCain rally...

Quote:

"I would also pray, Lord, that your reputation is involved in all that happens between now and November, because there are millions of people around this world praying to their god " whether it's Hindu, Buddha, Allah " that his opponent wins, for a variety of reasons," [Pastor] Conrad said.

"And Lord, I pray that you would guard your own reputation, because they're going to think that their god is bigger than you, if that happens. So I pray that you will step forward and honor your own name with all that happens between now and Election Day,"

Quote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_el_pr/mccain

In this version of 'conservatism', the Holy Crusades are still ongoing and The Infidels (people of any other faith, as all those other faiths are illegitimate forms of worship and they are certainly unamerican) are about to put Jesus' reputation at grave risk because Jesus wants McCain to win the election and if he doesn't then those infidels will think Jesus is a wuss.

1 Reply

@blatham,

Blatham, I wish u a happy Canada,
but HISTORICALLY, that is not n cannot be part of
American conservatism, because American conservatism consists
of ORTHODOX non-deviation from the Original Principles embodied
in the US Constitution, and the subject matter of your posted
reference is nowhere to be found therein.

Hence, for it to be found at all,
it must be falsely engrafted thereupon,
by counterfeit, by fakery. American conservatism has nothing
to do with "infidels" nor with practiced religions.

It is limited to non-interference in the practice thereof.

Historically, use of that word ("infidels")
has been confined to the Moslems.

Theocracy was nowhere to be found in the thinking of the Founders.

0 Replies

OSD - Without practicality, your time is wasted. Conservatism has failed that test... over and over. I'm not saying that liberalism/progressivism is perfect, but it's far less rigid and IMO a superior philosophy when addressing an ever changing world.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Not to restate the obvious here, but the only solutions to solving this country's problems, not the least of which are moral and financial, are conservative. Liberal policies are to blame for the declines we see today. Conservatism made the country great, so we need to return to basics again, back to what worked before.

Conservative solutions start with moral principles, honesty, hard work, individual responsibility, and freedom to fail as well as succeed. Conservatism applied to finances would include pay as you go, use it up, make do, and do without. That applies to individuals, and it applies to government.

1 Reply

@okie,

You're restating the oblivious, not the obvious.

Make do and do without? Does that apply to a dependance on oil too?

Conservatism version of morals is orthodoxy and majority rules. No moral high ground to be found there unless you take what conservative is and then try to redefine "moral."

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Your meaning is unclear.
Failed WHAT test ? Practicality ?
About what ?

I don 't get your point or points

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

To all the claims of what conservatism brings, it has yet to deliver.

One example: When has the trickle down philosophy ever played out like it's supposed to?

Conservatism fails for the same reason Communism fails: A out of touch over idealistic viewpoint of humans instead of observations about the actual nature/patterns/needs of people. It's a weak way to govern.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

The concept is simply this:
government stays the hell away from everyone n leaves them alone,
unless someone violates the rights of another by robbing, murder,
fraud, etc. and leaves the citizens to live their lives in freedom
as the natural laws of economics, supply n demand, manifest themselves.

Government was not supposed to take an interest
in ascertaining the "needs" of the citizens.
It was only authorized to COUNT them, once in ten years.

This is the sparrowfart concept of government:
that government is only supposed to be a stinky little sparrowfart
in the background of life, that the average citizen
woud have no reason to encounter thru out his life.

I think there shoud be a bashfully flatulent sparrow (representing government)
coyly hiding his face in a corner of the American Flag

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

This is the sparrowfart concept of government: that government is only supposed to be a stinky little sparrowfart in the background of life, that the average citizen would have no reason to encounter thru out his life.

This would be a tough sell for people who live in cities and rely heavily on public transportation and infrastructure in their daily lives.

Even here in the woods I've become quite fond of the roads I use every day, the local law enforcement, fire, ambulance, telephone, power, heat etc.

I think government should be the minimal size possible, while still providing those services which we define to be "basic" services best provided by the government (Roads and Highways are a good example). Government should not be used to equalize the standard of living across the board. But government should provide a safety net of sorts for people who try their best, but cannot make it for some reason. Too much or too little (government), isn't good.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

This would be a tough sell for people who live in cities
and rely heavily on public transportation and infrastructure in their daily lives.

If I had a referendum
qua the SPARROWFART concept of government,
I don 't hold out much hope of doing very well.

Quote:

Even here in the woods I've become quite fond of the roads
I use every day, the local law enforcement, fire, ambulance,
telephone, power, heat[??] etc.

GOVERNMENT does that ?

Quote:

government should provide a safety net of sorts for people
who try their best, but cannot make it for some reason

OK, call me a hypocrit,
but I will not attack the basic concept
that people shoud not be left to starve, like India.
I will not attack the safety net.

U can be so convincing.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

To all the claims of what conservatism brings, it has yet to deliver.

According to you, not according to reality.

Quote:

One example: When has the trickle down philosophy ever played out like it's supposed to?

How about a guy that owns a business hiring somebody that doesn't? Thats trickle down, undeniable, and it happens all over this country every day, on a small scale and on a big scale. To pay somebody to work, you have to have money to do it, no other way.

Quote:

Conservatism fails for the same reason Communism fails: A out of touch over idealistic viewpoint of humans instead of observations about the actual nature/patterns/needs of people. It's a weak way to govern.

Communism is liberalism at the extreme, Diest, so you have just illustrated why what I said should be so obvious.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

You're restating the oblivious, not the obvious.

It is obvious due to simple principles, as applied to human nature.

Quote:

Make do and do without? Does that apply to a dependance on oil too?

Yes, if we can't pay for it as we go, we shouldn't buy it, and that is why conservatism tells us to be self sufficient, to drill for our own oil as much as is possible. Then, whatever we buy, we should not go into debt to do it.

Quote:

Conservatism version of morals is orthodoxy and majority rules. No moral high ground to be found there unless you take what conservative is and then try to redefine "moral."

T
K
O

Majority does not rule according to conservatism. Conservatism says that individuals have rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES. Have you read the constitution. This is not a pure democracy, as we elect representatives that help make decisions, and those representatives swear to uphold the constitution which enumerates the rights and responsibilities of individuals. Its called freedom. Freedom to succeed, and to fail. Unfortunately, we now have enough people expecting the government to take care of them, contrary to the constitution, and those people are electing people that do not understand or uphold the constitution anymore. Thus, we have the mess that we are in now.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Communism is liberalism at the extreme,...

That ridicules any known scientific opinion. Marx, for instance, wrote his thesis as opposed tot the "Bourgeois Freedom" especially in his host countries France and Britain.

The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844 by Engels, son of a textile manufacturer, a libertarian with a strong evangelical-Christian background, sang from the same hymn sheet.

If, however, you are referring to 'liberalism' as social-democratic policies - the German Social Democratic Party (SPD, the first worldwide) wasn't founded but founded but 20 years after communism was "invented".

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Perhaps I should have made the statement to read - communism is modern American liberalism at the extreme.

Extreme liberals in America are pulling hard in the direction of "to each according to his need," not individual responsibility and freedom, freedom to fail as well as succeed. This is obvious here, Walter.

1 Reply

@okie,

Wow! You should write a book about your theory! Especially those who suffered under communism would like that.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I am not defending communism, Walter, have you lost your mind? What is your problem this morning? Are you defending communism?

I am simply pointing out the obvious landscape of politics in America, as liberalism defines it. All you have to do is go to the Communist Party USA site, and you will find most of Obama's talking points, and favorable recommendations and talk about Obama. That doesn't happen without reasons. Communist Party USA viciously opposes the Republican Party, because the Republicans usually stand for principles that are opposed to the incremental direction toward communism that American liberalism tends to take us.

Fact is, from my observation, I have come to the conclusion that Obama is very possibly a closet Marxist. Of course his vision probably incorporates what he would see as modifications or refinements to the failed brands of Marxism in the past, and of course he cannot be totally honest about his beliefs. I form my opinion based upon his mentors, associations, and very liberal record, and I also base it upon listening to the man talk, not only in his book, but during this campaign. Obama is not an open book, he remains a mystery as to who he really is, but I only voice my personal suspicions.

0 Replies

I think there is still a disconnect here between how American conservatives define American conservatism and American liberalism and the definition that Walter and some/most other Europeans wish to attach to that. According to past discussions I've had with members such as Nimh, Europeans see the definitions much differently than Europeans do.

When we use the American definitions, and this is a thread about American conservatism, Okie's observation becomes much more on target.

5 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I think there is still a disconnect here between how American conservatives define American conservatism and American liberalism and the definition that Walter and some/most other Europeans wish to attach to that. According to past discussions I've had with members such as Nimh, Europeans see the definitions much differently than Europeans do.

When we use the American definitions, and this is a thread about American conservatism, Okie's observation becomes much more on target.

Well, that's totally okay with me. (Though I doubt that we see it differently: we just follow generally accepted definitions.)

But is YOUR communism different to the worldwide know as well? Is YOUR "Socialism" different to the commonly Socialism? (NB: no U.S. American party or organisation is a member of the Socialist International)

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Right on, Foxfyre. And I would highly recommend everyone take a look at the website, Communist Party USA, and it is quite revealing, at least to anyone with any intellectual honesty.

http://www.cpusa.org/

Another site of interest, just one of numerous, that gives the obvious and expected. There is a vast well of information out there for anyone that has any interest.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/communist-party-backs-obama/

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Yes.
Another way to put it is:
Modern American liberalism, chooses to veer away
from the conservative Original Principles of Individualism
and libertarianism, in favor of creating greater equality,
(for what liberals deem to be better collective well being),
even tho at the expense of personal freedom.

The extreme of this point of vu
is expressed in both German National Socialism and in communism.
Both of those collectivist movements share
anti-Individualism and anti-Liberty, anti-personal freedom.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know