Re: What is a conservative?
mysteryman wrote:I have seen many attacks on the conservatives on here,with some viscious namecalling.
It seems that many people on here consider conservatives "extreme right wing",so tell me,what does that mean?
What exactly defines "extreme right wing"?
Are all conservatives that way?
Give me some examples of why you think conservatives and conservatism are so evil.
Of course there is a broad range and variety in those Americans who term themselves 'conservative' (the range and variety is still broader if you add in perspective and terminology from other nations, eg England, or if you add the perspective of time...what Eisenhower meant by conservative is not what Bush means in using the same word). The modifier 'extreme' isn't likely to be very helpful unless you settle on some historical norm - it will usually be used as shorthand for 'dangerously nutty' (as we commonly see here or in the equally common partisan smear techniques). To make matters worse, you toss in the term 'evil' in your last question. I defy you or anyone else to write a coherent statement or argument which demonstrates that word to refer to anything except personal preference.
Not all conservatives believe the same things. Not all conservatives are extreme (that's a simple logical point...if
all are extreme then none are). And if 'evil' doesn't refer to anything real in the world, then your questions ought to ask about modern american conservatism, about changes in republican party platform statements over time, about changes in actual power held among the 'conservative' elements (eg, in the dem party, there's been a large change over the last thirty years in the power of unions within the party).
One place (among quite a few) to start might be with that portion of the present administration/conservative movement who term themselves 'neoconservatives'. Rejection of internationalism (eg UN, Kyoto, ICBM treaty, Bolton assigned there, etc) is, in light of the history of the republican party, an extremist position. Eisenhower would have rejected it immediately and in fact this ideology was rejected even by Bush Sr. Equally extremist are the neoconservative notions of suppressing any upcoming economic/military power which might rise to context American hegemony. Another is the theory of unilateral and pre-emptive military strikes (obviously, in support of the above as well as other perceived threats). Another extreme idea held by this camp is that it is quite OK for that elite in power (the neoconservative themselves) to lie through their teeth to the American population (the 'noble lie', in neoconservative terminology) because that elite is appropriately educated, sophisticated, virtuous and worthy and the rabble are not up to ruling themselves.
A second camp of ideology easily identifiable in the present republican party and the administration is that of the 'social conservatives'. The Dominionists are the least in tune with tradition (thus the most 'extreme') believing that all legislative and judiciary matters must fall junior to the Holy Scripture. To put this another way, it means the Constitution is a secondary document, and the Bible ought to be the primary document. But again, the range of notions and beliefs held by folks who term themselves Christians or 'social conservatives'in the US is very wide indeed (it's apparent, for example, that Bill Kristol and poppa are secular jews yet they are deeply committed to the idea that virtue needs to be shoved down the throats of citizens who aren't up to being virtuous on their own, a position the Pope and Jerry Falwell also maintain).
Let me make the point that where a particular christian (or Muslim, etc) ideology holds, as in the neoconservative position above, that the citizens themselves are not equipped (through lack of proper sophistication, lack of virtue, or lack of appreciating God and the One True Faith) to make their own decisions regarding their own lives AND regarding their own nation's laws, then you've got the best receipe for justifying the removal of liberties and rights and the rise of totalitarian control.
But for a simple answer to your questions, why not turn to moderate Republicans for their notions of what and who is 'extreme' and why they are consequently of real or potential danger? How about starting with Christine Todd Whitman's views...
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/whitmanqanda.html