Just Curious. What Are You?

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Clearly, for some, there is a feeling that in my arrogance I have decided to pass judgment on whether or not someone's self-identification is valid, to some extent they may be right. I am judging whether or not their professed conservative positions are, by my standards, actually conservative. I don't see this as arrogant, simply part of the process I put in place to satisfy my curiosity.

I don't either, Finn.

You are handling this thread and your responses responsibly as far as I am concerned.

And on a question such as "What is a conservative political stance"...there can be considerable differences of opinion.

I am much further left than I am right...but I consider the extreme left to be annoying...although I acknowledge that I am much more annoyed by the extreme right.

In any case, I do not identify myself as liberal or conservative. I mostly aver that I support a progressive agenda...but that for the most part, I am outside the liberal/conservative continuum.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

And yet you have embraced a label you find appropriate, so the idea of labeling your philosophy or world view should not seem foolish to you.

It doesn't, and I did not say it does.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Whether everyone in the world agrees with your definition of Utilitarian is something I doubt causes you sleepless nights.

"Seek the greatest happiness of the greatest number" is not my definition of Utilitarianism --- it's my dictionary's definition of Utilitarianism. To be sure, some people speak their own supposedly-native language so poorly as to 'disagree' with the most straightforward dictionary definitions. But you're quite right, they don't cause me sleepless nights. I've given up arguing with those.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

FreeDuck did and you agreed with her.

0 Replies

I have espoused plenty of conservative positions. For instance, my opposition to the Iraq War was highly conservative, hearkening, as it did, to George Washington's admonition to avoid foreign entanglements. I'm sure Bob Taft and Barry Goldwater would have agreed with me that the US had no business getting involved in that war. It's not my fault that some self-proclaimed "conservatives" departed from the foreign policy objectives of their conservative forbears. Likewise, my support of gay marriage is perfectly in line with conservative positions regarding the sanctity of marriage, the importance of two-parent households, and limits on the state's intrusion into personal affairs. And my support of socialized medicine puts me in the same camp as Otto von Bismarck, and it would be difficult to find someone more conservative than him.

In short, I take the conservative line on a variety of issues. I can't be blamed if many so-called "conservatives" have abandoned the positions that they once espoused.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

I won't disagree that it could have been a conservative position to object to the Iraqi War, however you seem to be totally ignoring the conservative's reluctance to mess with well tested tradition when it comes to the issue of gay marriage.
As for identifying a leftist notion like socialized medicine as conservative simply because someone who is identifiable as a "conservative" supported it is just silly.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I won't disagree that it could have been a conservative position to object to the Iraqi War, however you seem to be totally ignoring the conservative's reluctance to mess with well tested tradition when it comes to the issue of gay marriage.

"Tradition" has been a rather flexible concept for conservatives. The tradition of "small government conservatism" hasn't stopped conservatives from advocating a much more intrusive surveillance state in recent years. The one thing that conservatives and Obama seem to agree upon is that the NSA and other intelligence agencies can have free rein to observe the actions of American citizens who have not been charged with any crimes. That strikes me as a decided departure from conservative tradition, but so it goes.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

As for identifying a leftist notion like socialized medicine as conservative simply because someone who is identifiable as a "conservative" supported it is just silly.

And calling it "liberal" policy just because someone who is identifiable as a liberal supports it is equally silly. It was no accident that a conservative came up with the idea of socialized medicine. Bismarck not only supported socialized medicine, but did so from impeccably conservative motives. Just because liberals later championed socialized medicine doesn't mean it didn't start out as a conservative idea, it just means that liberals were smart enough to see that it was a good idea despite its conservative origins. Sorta' like Obamacare.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Bismarck not only supported socialized medicine, but did so from impeccably conservative motives. Just because liberals later championed socialized medicine doesn't mean it didn't start out as a conservative idea, it just means that liberals were smart enough to see that it was a good idea despite its conservative origins. Sorta' like Obamacare.

... and Bismarck only adopted and extended the "health insurance" of the guilds ("Zünfte" and "Gilden").

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Trade unions. Now there is a force for conservatism.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Well we can agree that what is touted as based on conservative principles is not always so, but that says something about the people who declare themselves to be conservatives rather than conservatism.

It is a leftist/liberal/progressive (take your pick) because it is based on the collective being responsible for the individual, and demands an expansion of the State to carry it out. It doesn't matter whether it was first coined or promoted by someone identified as a liberal or as a conservative. As Walter pointed out it wasn't an original idea of Bismarck's but even if it was it wouldn't necessarily qualify as a conservative idea.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

As Walter pointed out it wasn't an original idea of Bismarck's but even if it was it wouldn't necessarily qualify as a conservative idea.

Actually, I wanted to point out that it REALLY and ORIGINALLY was a conservative idea - guilds were (and still are) a paradigmfor conservatism.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

How so?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

By their statutes in the old times, by their members today.

1 Reply

Guilds traditionally act as restraints on trade and innovation. In the US, we don't have guilds. We have licensing requirements instead.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

It is a leftist/liberal/progressive (take your pick) because it is based on the collective being responsible for the individual, and demands an expansion of the State to carry it out. It doesn't matter whether it was first coined or promoted by someone identified as a liberal or as a conservative. As Walter pointed out it wasn't an original idea of Bismarck's but even if it was it wouldn't necessarily qualify as a conservative idea.

Conservatives are just fine with the expansion of the state and the collective being responsible for the individual when it suits their purposes. Conservatives, after all, think the state can take better care of fetuses than women can.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Aw, we know that, Joe. Libs want the government to be in charge of everything, so long as it suits them. So do conservatives.

For myself, I lean towards the conservative viewpoint on more issues than not.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

And yet again you want to make this a discussion about "conservatives" who may or may not violate their principles. It's a very common argument from you across all sorts of topics. Unless you believe that "liberals" don't frequently abandon or twist their principles for political expediency, it's a meaningless argument.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

And yet again you want to make this a discussion about "conservatives" who may or may not violate their principles. It's a very common argument from you across all sorts of topics. Unless you believe that "liberals" don't frequently abandon or twist their principles for political expediency, it's a meaningless argument.

If it's a common argument to show how far conservatives have fallen away from their core principles, that may have something to do with the frequency at which they do it. I don't deny that there are liberal apostates as well. I've pointed out before that Obama is more-or-less a Rockefeller Republican, but no one seems to believe me.

In any event, I identified the conservative positions that I've taken because I don't think you'd be terribly surprised if I identified the liberal positions I've taken. If you want, though, I can run through that list as well.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

It's an argument that says nothing meaningful about conservatism.

I appreciate your response to myoriginating question, but as I have explained, ad nauseum, I've reserved the right to challenge the validity of claimed conservative" positions.

But, again, thanks.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I appreciate your response to myoriginating question, but as I have explained, ad nauseum, I've reserved the right to challenge the validity of claimed conservative" positions.

Do what you will. It's your thread.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

DAVID wrote;

Quote:

To begin with: your source trying to slip by that "researchers"
without specific id. thereof, raises doubts qua dispassionate
objectivity n sincerity of exploration in good faith.

The article refers to the source, which you've clearly not bothered to peruse.

Pages 34 through 37 list all the source material used for this research project.

And if you're trying to say that "researchers" lack "dispassionate objectivity", you are joining with Finn in claiming that the peer-review process that follows the research and theory process in the American University system, is worthless. Is that what you're trying to say, David?

DAVID wrote;

Quote:

Of course, I expect the lobbying efforts of business and of labor unions
to have effect, as thay shud. That is the democratic process.

For reasons that should be clear to everyone that has a rational thought process, the impact of lobbying on the political process needs to have specific limits and boundaries. Those are basic tenets, put in place, to protect the sanctity and credibilty of any democratic system.

The study proves beyond doubt, that corporate influence is responsible for the majority of decisions made by the government, and the majority of the people are not influencing those decisions at all.

The Citizens United ruling (which has nothing to do with uniting citizens) by the SCOTUS, coupled with the very recent McCutcheon v FEC ruling have put paid to any limits on any individual, when it comes to influencing or bribing, (call it lobbying, means the same thing, David) any politician or representative.

End game for democracy.

DAVID wrote;

Quote:

I am very pleased with the success of my own lobbying efforts.

You've been bribing someone lately? Do tell.

DAVID wrote;

Quote:

I do not accept the tone of paranoia inherent in your quoted material.

You clearly didn't read it, nor did you read the actual source document that the link points to. If you're asking for information, David, the polite thing to do, would be to peruse it, and make an informed comment.

1 Reply

Just Curious. What Are You?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know