Conservative Positions

Don't search for a label for yourself. It's one of the worst things to ever happen to this nation (assuming you're american).

Decide for yourself what you believe, regardless of whether or not it falls neatly into one of the messy categories we already have going.

Indeed. Communism and fascism are typically placed at opposite ends of the political spectrum. As a practical matter, both are extreme statist philosophies.

Re: Conservative Positions


But GERROM isn't looking for a label for himself, he is attempting, rather feebly, to articulate an argument against what he believes to be conservative thought.

Re: Conservative Positions


And how do we decide if we are a "conservative"? I feel like I'm a me, I have my own opinions that don't come in a box sent out monthly by a political party. Tell you what, I'll tell you my opinions and you can decide if I'm a conservative or not. How's that work for you?

Do we as a nation have a responsibility for social programs? Yes, use the obvious ones such as social security, medicare, etc. Short yes or no answer would be sufficient.

Yes. Carefully constructed social programs act as a safety net that keep people from falling through the cracks in the system. Ideally speaking these social programs should be geared towards getting people back on their feet and back into the system.

Do we believe in a smaller government across the board? This is more than just states rights, do conservatives want less government even at the local level?

Local governments should decide local issues, federal governments should decide federal issues. Federal should trump local. They should be the size required to do their job well.

Do we believe that if we placed God/god in the government we would be different than other theocracy? Taliban comes to mind.

Placed God in the government? What do you mean... set aside a seat in congress in case he just happens to drop by one day and feels like issuing a new chapter?

Do we believe, as Terri Schaivo showed us, should our courts, like the muslim courts, decide such moral issues of faithfulness to ones spouse, failure to pay our debts and any conduct of character? Am I being a good conservative christian when I turn in my neighbor for swearing at his children or cheating on his spouse?

Our courts should determine where the law has been broken and where it has organise the appropriate measures and punishments. They don't make the law, they simply enforce it.

Swearing at children is not so far as I am aware a criminal offence. However should the children be indicated to be in danger then yes, you are being a good citizen by reporting your worries to the Child Protective Services.

Failure to pay debts is in a way a criminal offense, so yes, it is determined by the courts. Morality is not an issue.

As for faithfulness to your spouse that is not legally restricted so far as I'm aware. Nor should it be, that's would be meddling in your private affairs (forgive the pun).

I'm looking for the conservative mission statement, the vision, the leadership rather than simply carping about the money, the ethics, the lying, cheating, stealing, demagoguery and such because all politicians have done so and will continue to do so.

Write a letter to the local branch of your conservative party. I'm sure they'll be happy to send you as much material as you wish.

Re: Conservative Positions


Perhaps I didn't give him enough credit. I viewed it as someone not knowing what he believed himself.

GERROM might want to drop by Free Republic. Those are laregly Republican positions, but it does pass for conservative in the US.

Conservative Positions Part II
I appreciative all the responses. One example shows what I'm not saying or talking about. One "explained" to me that I ought to "think" for myself and shared what his thoughts were on the subject. In and of itself that's okay for I know now how he thinks, for which I am greatful. However that is not what I am after. I can think and do, but I'm after understanding.

The other took a rather acerbic view of my posting thinking that I come as a liberal sheep in conservative clothing. However that is not entirely true. I do admit that I'm a sheep, but neither liberal or conservative.

What I'm trying to determine is the truth, and I can only do so if I know what both sides of the issues and in this case particularly the conservative.

Take a single premise, but complex problem: Social Security. What is the truth about it. All of the questions, not just some of them. Each liberal/conservative position should be known before any decision on the voter level is made.

I posed one generalized questions about SSN: As a society are we responsible for each other, a federal "safety net"? The liberal side would say yes. What would the conservative side say? No. It seems that way to me, but I hesitate because I do not know. Is SSN broken? Is the new trend an "ownership" society, and if so, how is the first question answered?

Finally, I did get some answers, links that may lead to understanding the conservative side, and a new forum of people who exchange ideas and answers.

If there are those who wish to tell me the conservative position I would listen(read).

Thanks.

No



Yes



No



Yes



This makes no sencse to me, please explain.



Not true, you can lead any time you wish.



To to the GOP website.

a couple of interesting reads.

2004 Republican national platform

2000 Texas Republican platform

Re: Conservative Positions Part II


I never used the word Think in my entire post, so I'm not too sure why you're using quotation marks around the word think.

If you need to know the name of someone who wrote something you can scroll down the reply page and at the bottom it has a topic review. It avoids unsightly indefinite articles.



... whatever.



Okay. That word I did use.

GERROM:
Quote:
Do we believe, as Terri Schaivo showed us, should our courts, like the muslim courts, decide such moral issues of faithfulness to ones spouse, failure to pay our debts and any conduct of character? Am I being a good conservative christian when I turn in my neighbor for swearing at his children or cheating on his spouse?

Baldimo:
Quote:
This makes no sencse to me, please explain.

Sorry for the delay in response.

In the general discussion I was trying to understand the general move to more religion into government. For purposes of discussion lets say that we have a Fundamentalist Christian Government. How is this different than say the Fundamentalist Taliban or less so perhaps Fundamentalist in Egypt. The point is to mix moral and secular justice seems a mistake no matter what government does it.

I don't speak for anyone but myself.

Q. Do we as a nation have a responsibility for social programs? Yes, use the obvious ones such as Social Security, Medicare, etc. Short yes or no answer would be sufficient.
A. No, the Federal government has no responsibility for social programs. The responsibilities of the Federal government are contained in the Constitution, and nowhere in that document is it charged with anything remotely resembling social programs.

However, beginning with the New Deal programs designed to restore American faith in the government and the economy started us down that road. I doubt that many conservatives would seriously propose total elimination of Social Security, or Medicare, an artifact of the LBJ years. Federal legislation designed to constrain "bad" and encourage "good" behavior from individuals and groups, or to insure that Constitutional provisions are being met, are not in my view "social programs", though the intent and effect may have been to insure social justice as public policy.

Q. Do you believe in a smaller government across the board? This is more than just states rights, do conservatives want less government even at the local level?
A. That depends upon exactly what you mean by smaller government. The Constitution was designed to institute an effective and strong central government capable of managing the nation's currency/economy, foreign affairs, military preparedness and deployment, to legislate certain standards to promote interstate commerce, and to provide unity amongst the diverse States. Those Constitutional functions of the Federal government requires a certain level of ability to exert sovereignty over the States, and a robust payroll to administer Federal programs.

Some conservatives believe that the Federal government has gone way too far in it's interference in the lives of private citizens and businesses. It has assumed authority that rightfully, and for 200 years, was vested in State and local governments. The Federal bureaucracy has in many cases imposed rules and regulations that do more to complicate and limit our freedoms than resolve real problems. Individual initiative has been stifled by the notion that the Federal government is somehow guaranteeing that no one will ever fail, be hurt, or held responsible for their own failures and foolish choices.

Q. Do you believe that if we placed God/god in the government we would be different than other theocracy? Taliban comes to mind.
A. No, a theocracy is a theocracy. However, there is no reason to suppose the anyone, least of all conservatives, want to abandon the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Historically, the dominant religion within the United States has been the Protestant forms of Christianity. Catholicism and Judaism were always there, but as a minor theme in the national religious fabric and were frequently the targets of prejudice. Muslims and followers of other faiths (Buddhism, Confucism, Taoism, Hinduism, and the aboriginal religions) were even more foreign to American sensibilities and in many cases were actively suppressed. As a result, artifacts of the Protestant faiths are still ubiquitous and in many ways still define who we are as a culture. Americans are still overwhelmingly "Christian" and many Americans are deeply suspicious of what they see as a threat to traditional American values by the introduction of religions that just a short while ago were not even on their radar. Actually, things have changed tremendously for the better in the last 30-50 years. As a Buddhist, I no longer have to put up with the sort of prejudice that was common earlier. The number of followers of other religions has dramatically increased, and yet we have very few examples of the sort of problems experienced between diverse religions in other parts of the world.

Q. Do you believe, as Terri Schaivo showed us, should our courts, like the Muslim courts, decide such moral issues of faithfulness to ones spouse, failure to pay our debts and any conduct of character? Am I being a good conservative Christian when I turn in my neighbor for swearing at his children or cheating on his spouse?
A. There seem to be several ideas/questions wrapped up in this query. The court system in the Schaivo case properly reviewed and decided that the Federal efforts to intrude upon into the private affairs of the Schaivo family was not warranted under the Constitution. That is their function under the Constitution. The Congress and Executive Branch exceeded their Constitutional authority, and the system shut them down. The system worked as it was designed to. Any legislation passed by the Congress, or attempt to impose a "moral" code by the Executive, needs to be stifled and it is the Courts that provide that balance. On the other hand to refuse to pay one's debts, or conform to contracts freely entered into, is the business of State and Federal governments.

Q. What I am trying to find out is what exactly the conservatives believe in, what path are they leading us down. Since I don't lead I must follow regardless of who has the power.
A. Good luck. Different conservatives have as broad a range of beliefs as any liberal. Some are more extreme than others, and some are just as wacky as those who believe that George Bush is the devil incarnate, but a puppet leader in a grand conspiracy to install a theocracy dominated by a few wealthy friends. Both are of course nonsense. Conservatives represent one side of the political spectrum. They tend to believe in fiscal responsibility, that the Federal government should not un-necessarily intrude into the personal lives and business of private citizens. They tend to believe that free trade and open markets are better regulators than the decisions of politicians. They are suspicious of attempts to radically change the Constitution, or the traditions that have sustained the nation for 200 years. They believe that personal initiative and responsibility are fundamental to the success of private citizens and the nation as a whole.

Q. I'm looking for the conservative mission statement, the vision, the leadership rather than simply carping about the money, the ethics, the lying, cheating, stealing, demagoguery and such because all politicians have done so and will continue to do so.
A. That's nice, but there isn't such a thing so far as I know. Oh yes, there are statements out there, but they don't represent any real consensus among conservatives. Is there a liberal mission statement, a vision that makes all their lying, cheating, stealing, demagoguery and such justified?

I am a conservative,I have never hidden that fact,and I have caught hell here on A2K because of it.
If you want to know what MY positions as a conservative are,I would reccommend you read this...
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=47086&highlight=

Of course,you will also see the attacks on me because of my position,but you might find them interesting also.
I dont speak for all conservatives,nor do I want to.
BUT,you might find my beliefs enlightening.

Wrong. We have what is known as a Constitution. Read it!

You better read it again.

Well, Chirssee ... be so kind as to point out the Article, Section and sub-section that you think makes social programs a responsibility of any of the three branches of Federal government. I suppose you might suggest that the XVIIIth Amendment was a social program, but it was such a monstrous failure it had to be repealed by the XXIst Amendment.

Perhaps I and the professors in my Constitutional Law classes missed something in there. That, or my mind is fading faster than I thought. I'd appreciate finding out where the Foundering Fathers expressed their conviction that the Federal government should be responsible for social programs.

If there was a Pulitzer Prize for exposition on Able2Know, Asherman should get it. Every point he made was logically sound.


The left which continues to find new "rights" under every rock appears to be totally unaware that whenever new "rights" are codified( sometimes under the mystical aegis of a "penumbra") there must be a creation of matching responisbilites to see to it that those new "rights" are indeed available. Inasmuch as the "responsibilities" may overwhelm our capacities or fail to be cost=effective, the establishment of new "rights" is to be done very very infrequently and then only if there is a overriding societal need.

Did you read the Constution like I asked? Obviously not. All you have to do is read it. in the body, not the amendments.

Chrisee,

My copy of the Constitution has never left my desk since I bought it for my Constitutional Law class over 25 years ago. From my use, the book is so badly worn that my wife has repeatedly tried to replace it. I doubt that a month has ever gone by that I didn't read the Constitution ... not just the Amendments. Social programs are not mentioned anywhere in the basic document, and only the XXVIII Amendment comes close.

I'll give you this, in the Preamble:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

If memory serves, that phrase is only repeated once in Article I, Section 8, (1) on taxation. Neither of these mentions of "general welfare" have ever, ever been constructed to mean that Congress is authorized to legislate social programs of the sort we first encounter during the New Deal, and later in LBJ's Great Society. The sub-sections of Section 8 individually spell out the powers granted to Congress, and except for that echo from the Preamble, there the powers are as I summarized in an earlier post above. To get a more rounded understanding of what was meant by the "general welfare" you will need to read the Federalist Papers, and several judicial decisions (sorry, I've forgotten the citations over the years, and no longer have a law library at hand). Edit: I seem to remember that FDR may have made the "general welfare" arguement before the Supreme Court as justification of some of his social programs, but the Court soundly rejected the arguement. If you are looking for the judicial decisions dealing with "general welfare" arguments, that's where I'd begin my search.

I suggest that you read the Constitution. Please cite the Article, Section and subsection that in your mind authorizes the Federal government to assume responsibility for social programs such as those adopted during the New Deal (most of which were condemned by the Supreme Court as un-Constitutional), and the Great Society.