AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

The former Reagan economic adviser Bruce Bartlett predicts, indeed, that the Republican primaries will turn into a Palin/Gingrich steel-cage death match.

Article 20
[Constitutional principles " Right of resistance]
(1) The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal
state.
(2) All state authority ... ... ...

No, the state is not outside society, but the role of the state is what separates the liberal/socialist from the conservative. It could be practical for the people to decide that certain social services should be administered by the State and the people might even vote a tax on themselves to support that.

It certainly might be once again a cultural difference.

From our constitution:

Quote:

Article 20
[Constitutional principles " Right of resistance]
(1) The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal
state.
(2) All state authority ... ... ...

The (German) conservatives who introduced the idea of "social state" in the 19th century used 'social action' as part of their regulatory policy.
This changed with the Weimar constitution and then again with our.

After/since WWII all (West-)European countries have adopted this system, too.

Foxfyre wrote:

No, the state is not outside society, but the role of the state is what separates the liberal/socialist from the conservative. It could be practical for the people to decide that certain social services should be administered by the State and the people might even vote a tax on themselves to support that.

What is it that you think is happening? People are voting to put in place these vary agencies by electing our Executive and our legislators. you seem to understand that we have the right to do it, but just don't like it.

The role of the state is as seen by the conservative versus the liberal/progressive is certainly different. I might be able to concede that some powers should be on the state level on not the federal level though. I don't mind a large government, but I don't like the idea of too much power in one area.

Judicial Legislation is an not a failure of the Supreme court, it's a failure of Congress to cultivate our governing documents to be relevant for modern times/issues. If one is really upset about the separation of powers then what should be alarming is executive legislation such as signing orders.

T
K
O

No, the state is not outside society, but the role of the state is what separates the liberal/socialist from the conservative.

It could be practical for the people to decide that certain social services should be administered by the State and the people might even vote a tax on themselves to support that.

Conservatives are no less compassionate or concerned for the poor than are liberals. They just have a different point of view re what true compassion is and how to demonstrate it.

What is happening is that unacceptably huge amounts of the people's money is being swallowed up by the bureaucracy where it provides no infrastructure, services, or anything of use for anybody.

The liberal way is to throw even more money into an ever increasing black hole expecting different results. The conservative way is to rethink the end results of what we are doing and having courage to do it differently.

Yes, that is part of what separates the liberals and conservatives. But it also undercuts some of your arguments about what a conservative is. You can't claim a conservative is for government that promotes the general welfare when you turn around and say the government shouldn't do that in some instances. Conservatives are for limiting what the state does in promoting welfare.

Yes, and didn't you say a government can do anything the majority decides as long as it doesn't violate civil rights?

I don't think they are any less compassionate however you are making claims that appear to be outside your view expressed earlier.

I am not trying to be mean to you Fox. I am trying to make you refine your statements to be accurate. Your initial feel good claims are vague and you contradict them in what you actually support.

Quote:

The liberal way is to throw even more money into an ever increasing black hole expecting different results. The conservative way is to rethink the end results of what we are doing and having courage to do it differently.

This is typical of what you do Fox. There are no facts there. Provide some evidence to back it up. Please give us a concrete example of conservatives fixing a problem without any money. I'll bet you can't provide any. You are espousing a fantasy that you want to be true and blaming liberals for every problem that exists while giving conservatives a pass by not providing evidence.

Parados writes

Quote:

Yes, that is part of what separates the liberals and conservatives. But it also undercuts some of your arguments about what a conservative is. You can't claim a conservative is for government that promotes the general welfare when you turn around and say the government shouldn't do that in some instances. Conservatives are for limiting what the state does in promoting welfare.

Depends on how 'promoting the general welfare' is designed. Conservatives think that means that the government should encourage and promote it, not provide it.

Liberals seem to think it is the role of government to provide it. Conservatives are all for government promoting the people to aspire to health, happiness, excellence, prosperity, a better world for all. Conservatives do not believe government is the way that any of that is accomplished, however.

No, I said government should limit itself to regulation of an orderly society that protects the unalienable, civil, legal, and Constitutional rights of the people and the majority should decide everything else.

Let me give you one example out of dozens that we could use.

Liberals thought it was compassionate to tear down declining areas in favor of urban renewal that included moving the people to nice shiny new government subsidized apartment buildings that we now affectionately refer to as the 'projects'. But in the process of such government compassion, vital old neighborhoods where neighbors looked out for neighbors were destroyed and the new neighborhoods were strange and alien. The people didn't have a stake in them and they quickly deteriorated with sub cultures of drugs, crime, violence developing.

Is that un-vague enough for you?

What facts do you want? Are you incapable of discussing any concept with somebody having to draw you a picture? I am not blaming anybody. I am comparing concepts and what works and what doesn't.

But okay, if you can't function without a picture to look at, for starters how about the trillion dollars of new money that Barack Obama is proposing for grandiose government initiatives in which the billions already spent have produced less than stellar results?

Federal government and education is just one of several that comes to mind. The liberal way is to increase big government influence.
Conservatism sees that something isn't working and is willing stop feeding the beast that isn't getting the job done.

HOST: You do feel his [Obama’s] views are anti-American?

BACHMANN: I feel his views are concerning. I’m calling on the media to investigate them. I’m not saying that his views are anti-American. That was a misreading of what I said. And so I don’t believe that’s my position. I’m calling on the media to take a look at what his views are.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: So you believe that Barack Obama may have anti-American views?

BACHMANN: Absolutely. I’m very concerned he may have anti-American views.

I've decided.

My conclusion comes after reading the candidates' memoirs and campaign platforms, attending both party conventions, interviewing both men multiple times, and watching all primary and general-election debates.

John McCain is an honorable man who has served his country well. But he will not get my vote. For the first time since registering as a Republican 28 years ago, I'm voting for a Democrat for president. I may have been an appointee in the George H.W. Bush administration, and master of ceremonies for George W. Bush in 2004, but last Saturday I stood amid the crowd at an Obama event in North Philadelphia.

Five considerations have moved me...

First Colin Powell, Now…
Ken Adelman is a lifelong conservative Republican. Campaigned for Goldwater, was hired by Rumsfeld at the Office of Economic Opportunity under Nixon, was assistant to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld under Ford, served as Reagan’s director of arms control, and joined the Defense Policy Board for Rumsfeld’s second go-round at the Pentagon, in 2001. Adelman’s friendship with Rumsfeld, Cheney, and their wives goes back to the sixties, and he introduced Cheney to Paul Wolfowitz at a Washington brunch the day Reagan was sworn in.

In recent years, Adelman and his friends Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz fell out over his criticisms of the botching of the Iraq War. Still, he remains a bona-fide hawk (“not really a neo-con but a con-con”) who has never supported a Democrat for President in his life. Two weeks from now that’s going to change: Ken Adelman intends to vote for Barack Obama. He can hardly believe it himself...

The ultimate price to be paid for a dedicated socialist government is a government that dictates that no one shall lawfully possess more than anyone else.

The ultimate price to be paid for a dedicated conservative government is that everyone roots for all to lawfully possess more of whatever they want to possess.

ican711nm wrote:

The ultimate price to be paid for a dedicated socialist government is a government that dictates that no one shall lawfully possess more than anyone else.

The ultimate price to be paid for a dedicated conservative government is that everyone roots for all to lawfully possess more of whatever they want to possess.

Bumping this up Ican because I can't convince Blatham to go over to the Election 2008 thread with his Bush-bashing posts where they would almost certainly be well received, and you are at least sticking to the topic here.

On another thread your concept is being discussed with little better results than we are getting here.

Would you believe I cannot persuade a single liberal to answer the following question? (They all want to change the question or deflect to somebody else.)

Citizen A stayed in school and educated himself, stayed away from illegal activities, waiting until marriage and ability to support a family until he had kids, paid his due in Mcjobs learning a work ethic, acquiring skill sets, and earning references for a better job, then got up every morning, went to work, and did his job to the best of his ability and, as a result of all that, he has prospered.

Citizen B didn't do any of that and now he is poor and disadvantaged and miserable.

The Question is: How is it moral for the government to take confiscate the wealth from Citizen A and give it to Citizen B?