Old School Conservatives v. Bush Conservatives

amen.

0 Replies

I completely agree that "Republican" and "Democrat" are meaningless terms at worst or umbrella terms at best.

The same can be said for the word "conservative" and that is exactly why I started this thread. To try to understand how the factions of thought came about and came to power.

I'm sure the same can be said of "liberal" but that's another thread.

(Note to self: check out Conservative Union and read up on Goldwater....)

So these "Bob Tafts", have they not been incorporated into the Liberatarian party?

I see how that home might now be a promised land but they do seem to be gaining in number and power.

This conversation about status quo tickles my brain but I'm going to have to think on it a bit. Does anything ever become status quo..... hmmmm....?

One bit from the article I mentioned earlier that kind of hits on the status quo/reactionary thing is this:

"When information surfaces that contradicts your firmly held views, you dismantle the institution that brought you the information."

0 Replies

Of course there will be people with the polar opposite view, slkshock, that's what keeps the world interesting and the conversation going! Thank you for joining the thread.

Maybe you can answer my earlier question: What are the hallmarks of a social conservative, politically speaking?

0 Replies

0 Replies

boomerang- This is my own personal opinion. I am not that strong in terms of the knowledge of history, but here is my personal "take" on things, based on what I have gleaned from personal observation.

If you look through history, societies are constantly swinging back and forth between liberalism and conservatism, in not only politics, but in society in general. (Think "The roaring 20's", the simple and staid era of "Ozzie and Harriet", the civil right and feminist movement of the sixties, and the turn towards the so-called "family values" of today.

The problem is that wheras liberalism offers people a choice, to today's radical conservatives, it's "my way or the highway". Conservatives are attempting to create laws that restrict the way a person can function in society, based on what is after all, merely their own personal preferences.

The insidious thing is, that many of the reactionary conservatives are appealing to the emotions of people, and believe that they have "God" on their side. What is really dangerous is that these people are in the position of setting the course of our nation for decades to come. The Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, and what they rule can affect the country, through many administrations.

0 Replies

That's a good link to the blog. Sometimes it can be hard to follow the thread of a discussion, but IMO it's well worth the trouble.

I've maintained for a while now that "right" and "left" are not enough to describe the political ideologies. Particularly since if you go far enough "right" you can start to look like you're on the "left."

Personally, I'm socially liberal. I could care less what people do in their private lives, as long as they're not causing harm to others.

Fiscally, though, I think that if you want something then you should be willing to pay for it. Either tax people or cut spending; for God's sake, stop mortgaging the country.

0 Replies

slkshock7 wrote:

I don't see why a conservative can't be both socially conservative and economically conservative. I consider myself a social conservative Republican (and a Christian), but I also am disturbed by Bush's occasional lurches into fiscal irresponsibility and Government expansion.

I would also submit that the only perfect president (from my point of view) would be myself...all others will surely fail me in some area or other. Thus it becomes a matter of priorities. Based on my perspective of where society stands today, I can tolerate some (temporary) fiscal irresponsibility for advances in those areas important to social conservatives. At some point, I would hope that I would be sufficiently comfortable with the direction I see society going, that I could redirect my priority to fiscal issues and rolling back government expanse.

Of course, there will be others that have the direct polar opposite view.

That would be me. Smile

0 Replies

IMO, trying to control "society" through the Democratic process is like trying to hold the tide back with a spoon.

0 Replies

IMO, trying to control "society" through the Democratic process is like trying to hold the tide back with a spoon.

0 Replies

IMO, trying to control "society" through the Democratic process is like trying to hold the tide back with a spoon.

0 Replies

Yes! Phoenix, I agree and to me that is where all my trouble thinking about this starts.

Okay. If a social agenda is more important than fiscal responsiblity how is that any kind of a "family value"? Aren't we just leaving a huge mess for someone else to pay off and clean up?

I do believe in self sufficiency. It would help me be more self sufficient to help pay for the poor's preventative, basic health care than it does for me to pay for emergency room visits which is what -- 10 times more expensive? 20 times? 1000 times?

And I do pay for those visits and so do you and so does every other American on this thread -- through increased health costs, increased insurance premiums and increased taxes.

This is one of those issues where people scream and point fingers and yell "socialist" where to me the correct term is "responsible".

Okay. Rant over. (Maybe.)

0 Replies

Phoenix wrote:

The problem is that wheras liberalism offers people a choice, to today's radical conservatives, it's "my way or the highway". Conservatives are attempting to create laws that restrict the way a person can function in society, based on what is after all, merely their own personal preferences.

I disagree...

I think it really comes down to morals and where in the spectrum you fall on absolute right and wrong. I think most everyone has some concept of moral absolutes, but they place that non-negotiable line at different places in the spectrum. A conservative might draw a line at gay marriage...for others gay marriage is OK, but marrying minors is taboo. In both cases, however, they are restricting "the way a person can function in society, based on what is after all, merely their own personal preferences."

Laws, by their nature, are designed to restrict the way a person functions in society. Liberalism just offers a different choice (and different restrictions) than conservativism. Luckily, in a democratic society, I, as a conservative, have just as much right to fight and defend my position on moral absolutes, as do liberals. Let the majority opinion rule...whether that falls to the left or right of your own personal view.

0 Replies

Let me ask you this slkshock - do you believe it is socially or morally right to bar legal rights to one group of individual?

Do we all deserve equal protection under the law, or not?

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

Okay. If a social agenda is more important than fiscal responsiblity how is that any kind of a "family value"? Aren't we just leaving a huge mess for someone else to pay off and clean up?

I do believe in self sufficiency. It would help me be more self sufficient to help pay for the poor's preventative, basic health care than it does for me to pay for emergency room visits which is what -- 10 times more expensive? 20 times? 1000 times?

And I do pay for those visits and so do you and so does every other American on this thread -- through increased health costs, increased insurance premiums and increased taxes.

This is a an example where one can step into any of several specifics and one way or another we're leaving a mess for someone else to clean up.

The far left screams that there are some 40 million people in the U.S. that don't have heath insurance and that is supposed to be proof of the need for universal health care. The far right screams that universal health care is costly and excessive.

We already have health care programs available to the poor. In MA some 70% of the uninsured are eligible for either Federal or State programs (I beleive it's about 40% nationally) but NO ONE seems to be interested in actually getting them enrolled in them. On top of that, today there is a report out that the state is losing some $100 million/year to medicare/medicaid fraud and abuse.

It seems to me that a better solution than what the extreme ends are proposing would be to get these people enrolled and clamp down on the fraud and abuse (which would then free up more money to get more poor enrolled). There wouldn't be any additional cost and we'd be a whole lot closer to covering all of teh poor.

0 Replies

I know what you're saying, fishin''.

But wouldn't it be easier to manage and wouldn't be there less fraud and abuse within a system that provided a basic level of care for everyone?

Then the people who wanted to and who could afford to could up their level of care to whatever place they desire.

People who are not on medicade/medicare can still walk into an emergency room and they will be treated. We all end up paying for that AND all the fraud/abuse and use of government programs.

Or am I missing something essential here?

0 Replies

I am a Taft Republican in spirit and vote Libertarian when I feel I can do so without helping to elect a different candidate to whom I am strongly opposed (not a tight election). Unfortunately the Libertarian Party is so weak and poorly organized that it will be easier to turn around the Republican Party from within after they have been voted out of power than to move the Libertarian Party into prominence. I am not inferring that it will be easy.

0 Replies

I don't know boomer. I haven't looked very deeply into the proposals for universial health care because the few that I have seen were very short on details.

I am generally opposed to having the government provide things to people out of tax dollars when they don't need it. I have no problem with programs to take care of the poor and/or low income. I do have a problem with paying for Bill Gates though. (Bill should be able to collect SS either, IMO.)

0 Replies

Fishin
Fishin, this is the info you need about single payer health plans:
http://www.pnhp.org/

BBB

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

Let me ask you this slkshock - do you believe it is socially or morally right to bar legal rights to one group of individual?

Do we all deserve equal protection under the law, or not?

Good question....Depends on what you mean by "rights"...If you mean constitutional rights, I'd generally say no, its not socially or morally right to bar legal (constitutional) rights to one group of individuals.

The reason I quibble a little is that many states already deny some rights to certain folks i.e., the right to vote is denied felons. I haven't really given it much thought, so I can't say if this is good or bad. My first instinct is that it is OK to withhold rights from felons in prison, but ex-felons should regain their rights after they've paid their debt.

Having said that, I'm not sure how we got on this track...Are you suggesting that social conservatives are bent on denying others their constitutional rights?

0 Replies

Okay, let me pick something....

What about the right to make medical decisions for your spouse and children?

And it does seem off the track so let me explain why I asked and where I'm headed. (And you're new here and I want you to stick around and not think I'm a tricky jerk!)

You mentioned gay marriage as a social issue and I am really in favor of gay marriage -- but not for reasons that you might think.

I'll try to be brief in my explaination of why but it is kind of a long and complicated story so I'm going to simplify.

I'm a woman and I've been married to the same man for fourteen years. Almost three years ago people who were no realtion to us abandoned their child in our home, we have been raising him ever since. It took over a year and countless dollars for us to find an attorney who would even go to court with us for guardianship.

During that year we were unable to add the child to our insurance and luckily he never needed medical care because we would not have been allowed to make any decisions for him. In fact, he probably would have been taken from us and put into foster care.

These are the kinds of things that affect gay couples and gay couples, whether anyone likes it or not, are raising children. Should something happen to those childrens biological or adoptive parent, that child could easily be left without anyone to advocate for them.

So, I'm not gay but gay marriage could change laws that would be applicable to people in my situation. (Hopefully, we'll adopt him soon and my situation will be a breathe easier place.)

Do you see what I'm getting at?

0 Replies

Old School Conservatives v. Bush Conservatives

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know