My Beliefs revisited

I distinguish between conservatives and the fundamentalists, exemplified by Teaparty and some Christian groups. I have a few fond memories of some conservatives. These days it is hard to tell which ones I could get along with, however. Maybe you could introduce us to a few.

The word which was long used for the people on the extreme right was reactionary. It seems to have gone out of usage. I was raised by conservative Democrats--people don't even seem to believe these days that there is such a thing as a conservative Democrat. Living in Texas as you do, you probably understand.

With no distinction being made between conservatives and reactionaries, the reasonable conservatives get a bad reputation from the antics of the lunatic fringe.

In the time when liberal was the political reality, many conservatives used liberal words to get votes, but had to be conservative to get elected, in the south, particularly.

I just noticed I didnt post my beliefs,so here they are...

I am politically conservative. I believe this places me in the minority.

I believe the government that governs least governs best, which is the foundation of conservative adherents.

I believe the words in the constitution mean what they say. I can read.

I believe individual liberty must be respected in order for this experiment in self-government to continue.

I believe the toll of freedom is responsibility. Those who fail to act responsibly are not deserving of freedom.

I believe you ought to pay your own way. Charity begins at home, not in Washington DC.

I believe a country without borders will soon cease to be a country.

I believe you have the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - whatever that may be.

I believe you should be able to have all the fun you want, just not at someone else's expense.

I believe in times of peace we should prepare for war.

I believe in equality for all, but not set-asides for some.

I believe we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

I believe in individual privacy.

I believe we should be very cautious when discussing or considering banning things.

I believe it is my job, duty and responsibility to raise my children to be responsible and accountable human beings.

I believe in leaving this country in better condition when I leave it than when I arrived.

I believe it is my civic duty to stand up for what I believe.

I believe that rewarding people for negative or irresponsible behavior only breeds more negative and irresponsible behavior.

I believe you are the Captain of your own vessel. It is no one else's fault if you run aground.

I believe capitalism is a positive force on the planet, not a repressive, ugly one.

I believe in working hard to implement what I believe.

I believe success should be rewarded, not punished.

Does everyone in the liberal gospel deserve to be receiving the social programs that liberals want? Or, are there some have-nots, or marginal haves, that might not deserve the largesse of anyone? Meaning, is there a social contract that says if one doesn't do their proverbial homework, they just have to pay the price of their subscribing to a possible self-defeating mindset?

I believe that liberals, with the help of some media, have claimed the moral high ground, and have brain washed many people into thinking that all deviations from their set of beliefs is reflective of an atavistic mind. However, if one accepts the reality that much of society is a zero sum game, then the canard of evil conservatives can be countered.

And, there's that whole question as to whether everyone deserves society's largesse? Perhaps, society has to change, before conservatives can see that the liberal agenda is ethically equitable. Otherwise, liberalism might just be pandering to many slothful folks?

Yes!!! Instead of giving food to the starving we will just shoot the bastards. Conservative thinking.

Perhaps you can explain how you reconcile this statement:

I believe we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

. . . with these two statements?

I believe individual liberty must be respected in order for this experiment in self-government to continue.

I believe you have the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - whatever that may be.

So if i want to be free of religion, your respect for my individual liberty ends? If i pursue happiness, exercising liberty, you would interfere with that to impose religion on me?

Yes, that jumped out for me too.

You're putting words in my mouth? I never said anything about shooting. And, food is not where I would want to know if the recipients are deserving. I was thinking more in line with college education. Or, a new home.

But, we shouldn't speak, since you and I would not be friends, towards each other, in real life.

The apparent contradiction of "freedom of religion, not freedom from religion" might be resolved in the example, one has the right to choose whatever religion one wants; however, in a society where many practice a religion, an athiest needs to become inured to the occasional Christmas manger scene, since otherwise one's atheism would be limiting another Christian's desire to have a manger scene displayed for the Christmas season.

It might all come down ethically to who was here first. Since Christians were here before other faiths, and in greater numbers, Christians might have first choice as to their manner of celebrating a holiday, with or without a public display of Christmas symbols.

The problem, these days, might be that many previous minorities may feel that they need to be accomodated into the fabric of society, so that they do not feel like a minority, regardless if they are stepping on the toes of another's beliefs. This is why I say that society is a zero sum game, winners and losers, and conservatives understand this when a liberal starts talking about a more equitable distribution of wealth. There is no equity in redistributing wealth. Someone loses, and someone gains. And, there is no such thing as one's "fair share," since I can't believe that everyone equally deserves some "fair share." Some people might deserve a small slice, some a larger slice, just based on who they are. Captialism defines who is the deserving recipient of the larger slice. Just like in the fable of the grasshopper and the ant. The ant deserved more, since he did not fiddle during the summer, like the grasshopper. Winter came and the ant had food, based on his foregoing the joy of fiddling in the summer. Sounds ethical to me; otherwise, the ant was a fool for working all summer, while the grasshopper fiddled.

Maybe, but we 'll wait
until it self-defense makes it necessary.

Conservative thinking is thought which does not deviate
from the principles of the Founders of this Republic.
Thay were not known for shooting folks when thay get hungry.





David

You believe in a list of slogans, many of which are no more profound than saying "I like candy." I believe that you believe that you believe in those slogans, but I doubt that you actually believe in most, or even all, of them.

If my computer was working right I would post the exact thing you said that made me think that was what you were saying. No copy and paste. Waiting for my grandson to show up so he can fix it. And it is possible that we could be friends if we met in person but we would never agree on most things as is so with many of my friends.

Prove to me that conservative thinking of today is in agreement with the writers of the time in which we established our government. As I read history many changes have been made since that time many not for the better.

So clueless, it's funny.

(I have European ancestors who lived in what is now Massachusetts in the 1600s. Ironically, although they were Christians, they considered that celebrating Christmas was a sin against God.)

Fundamentalists, of all stripes, tend to demonize those who disagree with their world view and fundamental beliefs, and therefore it is quite rich to see someone who demonizes tea-baggers tell us that he has a problem with fundamentalists.

I think its helpful to remember, that liberalism is a measure of relative deviation
from some criterion; e.g., if an artist is fanatically loyal to the style of his teacher,
then he is not liberal, not distortive in regard to that style,
but if he spouts his own ideas as improvements upon those of the Originator,
then he is liberal to the extent of that deviation.

A conservative is a follower of a concept, with no deviation.
Conservatism is defined by the success of its fidelity to some principle.
The heart n soul of conservatism are ORTHODOXY and ORTHODOXY.
A conservative is meticulously attentive to detail in his subject matter
and he is scrupulously unwilling to distort his analyses thereof,
all emotional appeals to the contrary notwithstanding.

When Hess flew to Scotland, he was being liberal
relative to Hitler's filosofy. When I spell fonetically,
I am being liberal qua the extant paradime of English orthografy.
Among poker players, if one of them (in desperation) claims to have a flush,
when he has 4 clubs and a heart, he craves a liberal interpretation of the rules
of poker. If he claims to have a flush with 3 clubs a heart and a diamond,
then he is being MORE liberal.

An accurate accountant is a conservative qua the principles of accounting;
no heart-breaking sob story will persuade him to distort his calculations.
Barry Goldwater was a conservative in his support of the US Constituion,
being faithful in factual and historical fidelity to the intent of its Authors.

Being human, anyone can fail; if a conservative deviates
from his doctrine, then he is like a fanatical tea-totaler
who falls off the wagon. For so long as he is binging on alcohol,
he cannot claim to be sober.

Modern Roosevelt-Kennedy authoritarian liberalism
is one of many possible varieties of distortion. Let us remember
that liberal means a ruff or loose, inexact interpretation; that can apply
for deviation in any direction in 360 degrees of arc + up n down.

Modern political liberals wish to get away with using the power of government
to rob some citizens to benefit those whom thay favor, but thay have found
that government is Constitutionally limited in its jurisdiction because
the Founders knew that jurisdiction of government is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL
to personal liberty. The American Revolution was promoted by the Sons of LIBERTY.

Accordingly, those distortionists want government to USURP authority
to execute the desires of those liberals; i.e., to get what thay want by deception.
To those liberals, its acceptable if the foundation of jurisdiction is hoax.
Like our accurate accountant: conservatives object to that.





David

Come on Finn! Cut out the fake equivalency.

The Republicans have been taken over by the Tea Party... and the Tea Party somewhere between extreme and batshit crazy.

Your reasoning is illogical. There is no reason that just because one party has been taken over by crazy extremists, the other party has too. Sure, there are crazy extremists on the left, for example the Code Pink people.

But there is a crucial difference. Code Pink isn't shutting down the government.

The Tea Party is way outside the norm, and they are politically damaging to America and to the Republican party.

You, obviously, subscribe to there being a negative connotation to reactionary, and in fact you are right, progressives have a very negative reaction to the word.

The term doesn't actually describe a point of view that is necessarily conservative. It is epithet used to slur persons perceived to have an "extreme" conservative viewpoint. Of course use of the adjective "extreme" is always determined by progressives.

The most neutral definition I can find is:

A reactionary is a person who holds political viewpoints that favor a return to a previous state (the status quo ante) in a society.

A distant second is:

opposing political or social liberalization or reform

"Reactionary" which is intended to imply a reflexive response to change will, of course, be seen in a negative light by anyone who believes that all change is good as is all "reform."

Ironically, Republicans are constantly calling for "reform" (e.g. tax law, entitlement programs et al) and yet for progressives who, apparently, own the word, believe conservative use the term as a euphemism for "gut," or "revert."

If someone can find me a person who believes that not only is all change bad or that society in all of its ways and means should be returned to a state sometime in the 1800s, I would be interested.

I would be equally interested in finding someone who actually believes that every change is positive and that no tradition has any value at all.

It is foolish therefore to consider anyone (other than possibly the insane) residing on either end of the spectrum, let alone large groups of them.

One of the problems in our current public discourse, however, is not that people on the left or the right are incapable of viewing the world in less than absolute terms, but that they refuse to, or at least they refuse to acknowledge they can.

Of course world views don't have to be extreme to be dangerous, and, unfortunately, a very large swath of the population doesn't like to think for themselves and prefers to take their cue from those who they perceive to be the leaders of their tribe.

A conservative viewpoint applied will never create a utopia because none have ever existed. A progressive viewpoint on the other hand offers the promise of a utopia, despite the fact that none have ever existed.

It's impossible to say that given the "correct" world view a utopia is not possible and this is why romantics continue to follow the scent.

Conservatism offers the possibility of the best we have seen and can expect. There is no promise of a future Golden Age, and therefore while the approach is not without peril in terms of application, we know the realm in which it operates.

Progressivism, on the other hand, holds out Utopia as the endgame and, perforce, disruption in the extreme. Obviously disruption can be a good thing but it's not predictable. Risk is greater.

As usual there seems to be inherent contradictions. Capitalism value risk in terms of return while Socialists prefer a more stable environment where all can benefit, albeit modestly.

I would like to think most people really examine these opposing world views before signing off on one or the other, but they don't, and this is why, to a great extent, I am a conservative. What has worked in the past will work in the future. We don't really need to change the way people think to make this so. To achieve the progressive's goal, however, we do need to fundamentally change the way people think...when they are alone and unwatched.

It is all well and good to assert that wealth needs to be redistributed to affect social equality, and as long as that redistribution operates at an economic level above the typical progressive, no problem.

Rich liberals are utter phonies. None of them are prepared to substantially reduce their style of living to raise up that of their fellow citizens in the lowest economic strata. The NY Times Sunday Magazine section is filled with progressive based articles that use all of the right buzz words focus on all the right buzz concepts, but take up 20% of the magazine's pages. The other 80% is taken up by advertisements for $4,000 watches and opulent residences worth millions.

What will happen when the teacher making $100,000 a year is called upon to reduce his or her style of living to raise up fellow citizens?

Ask him or her and the response is bound to be "I'll be happy to do so!" But that's easy to say when you are convinced that there is an almost inexhaustible buffer of millionaire between you and the poor.

I have never gone wrong in my personal and professional life factoring in an honest understanding of human nature. This understanding has led me to employ corporate policies that a progressive would stand up and applaud, and to cut myself free from personal entanglements that could only lead me down.

In the end, it is all about human nature, as it is; not as we might want it to be.

There is plenty to be proud of in human nature as it is. It doesn't need to be radically transformed to achieve as good a world as we can reasonably expect to live in.

It does, however, need to be radically transformed to achieve Utopia, and any such radical effort carries with it a high risk of not only failure but the potential for making things worse.