A first step to Dialogue: We need eloquent conservative thought.

[Commodus]

Pretty sure eloquence isn't the problem. Alternative facts, now we might have something.

In this case, eloquence isn't so much a matter of language as the views themselves. Eloquent political thought, to me, means accepting that the world is complex and nuanced: being Muslim doesn't make you inherently dangerous, moving to renewable energy isn't as simple as banning fossil fuels, that sort of thing.

It also means accepting and working with evidence to formulate your conclusions, even if it tells you things you don't want to hear. Don't pretend human-made climate change doesn't exist, for example. Don't pretend that your preferred politician always obeys the law, or always makes the right choice. It's okay to say "yeah, my politician did something stupid" -- your world will not fall apart if you don't carry water for your leader of choice. It's possible to believe in conservatism while thinking that Trump is a threat to the country; it's possible to believe in liberalism while thinking that both Clinton and Sanders had significant flaws.

Basically, it means admitting that you don't have all the answers, and that any truly acceptable solution will involve some compromise and self-correction.

 

[agent00f]

Good luck with that.

A third of house dems - a *third* - couldn't be bothered to get their crusty asses to the swearing in ceremony of a new president.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inauguration_of_Donald_Trump#Protests_and_demonstrations

Let me say it again - a THIRD of house democratic law makers skipped the swearing in of a new US president.

Not only do a sizeable portion of the left NOT want a dialogue, they simply do not respect the office of the presidency. Party before country, congrats team blue!

At least Obama didn't try to defend these schlubs.

Rather poor excuses in lieu of naming even a single smart conservative.

 

[zinfamous]

Why don't conservatives pick their choice for a conservative spokesperson and liberals pick their choice for a liberal spokesperson? Why would people from a opposing viewpoint think they should pick an opponent that the don't and never will agree with?

sure. But do you deny that Gingrich's Speakership was not the birth of the current intractable breed of republican crybabies?

He is a smart guy, of course, but he's probably the central hypocrite for which republicans have sense laid the foundation of their party platform and values.

 

[Jhhnn]

What about David Frum? He's a neoconservative, but he's long been considered an intellectual conservative who's willing to point out problems with right-wing policy, compliment the left when he sees it doing things well, and change his ideas when logic and evidence suggest he's wrong. He welcomes social progress these days (he's fine with same-sex marriage) and believes the Republican party's recent fondness for obstructionism is destructive.

He was cast out as a heretic & a traitor 6 years ago-

http://www.frumforum.com/were-our-enemies-right/

Conservatives already found their spokesman in Donald Trump. He said "I am your voice. Only I can fix it." & they came to believe in him. There's no point in wishing it were some other way. He's all the eloquence they want & all the thought they care to handle.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

sure. But do you deny that Gingrich's Speakership was not the birth of the current intractable breed of republican crybabies?

He is a smart guy, of course, but he's probably the central hypocrite for which republicans have sense laid the foundation of their party platform and values.

How about he's not the Godfather of current conservative thought, but he was part of the foundation for Republican activism?

 

[kage69]

People don't want dialogue they want validation, too many, and if you aren't one of "us" you are one of "them". You kind of did that yourself. People yell I'm a Conservative because.. whatever, because I don't conform.

At this point I think Humpty Dumpty has hit the ground.

As a centrist I don't see myself as either really, plenty about each side drives me up the wall. I consider the eloquence of Buckley and others to be inextricably linked to intellect, education, experience - all things that mainly one side of the political spectrum spends a lot of time maligning and discrediting.

I agree though, validation if popular. You are however quite mistaken if you think I care about acceptance or membership from any political group. I read and discuss far too many unpleasant, unsettling things to be someone content with a 'safe zone'. I'd have fewer family members ostracizing me over having differing views too.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

He was cast out as a heretic & a traitor 6 years ago-

http://www.frumforum.com/were-our-enemies-right/

Conservatives already found their spokesman in Donald Trump. He said "I am your voice. Only I can fix it." & they came to believe in him. There's no point in wishing it were some other way. He's all the eloquence they want & all the thought they care to handle.

Again we have a Liberal like yourself wanting to delegate who represents conservatives. Why don't you pick out your own spokesperson? I'm at least trying to stay inline with what DixyCrat wanted in this thread.

 

[agent00f]

sure. But do you deny that Gingrich's Speakership was not the birth of the current intractable breed of republican crybabies?

He is a smart guy, of course, but he's probably the central hypocrite for which republicans have sense laid the foundation of their party platform and values.

Is that "smart for a conservative", or "prone to forming interesting thoughts" type smart? I've hardly seen evidence for the latter.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

As a centrist I don't see myself as either really, plenty about each side drives me up the wall. I consider the eloquence of Buckley and others to be inextricably linked to intellect, education, experience - all things that mainly one side of the political spectrum spends a lot of time maligning and discrediting.

I agree though, validation if popular. You are however quite mistaken if you think I care about acceptance or membership from any political group. I read and discuss far too many unpleasant, unsettling things to be someone content with a 'safe zone'. I'd have fewer family members ostracizing me over having differing views too.

Yeah I wasn't playing the P&N game of "I accuse". If anyone wanted to see what the "good old days" were like watch Buckley debate with Truman Capote on the death penalty. That was a high point of discourse and probably impossible today. That doesn't mean it was always civil. To see that side watch Buckley and Gore Vidal. That was entertainment

But we just yell louder to talk over the cookie cutter left or right, because individuals must conform to one or the other. Like you I am not impressed by that.

 

[agent00f]

Just as a point of order, Buckley also wasn't much more of an intellectual than Gingrich, and similarly relied on a talent for sounding smart enough to non-intellectuals, which was obvious enough when he had to face off against people actually smart. His unsurprising go to strat when in trouble was to threaten punching the opponent in the face.

 

[Jhhnn]

Again we have a Liberal like yourself wanting to delegate who represents conservatives. Why don't you pick out your own spokesperson? I'm at least trying to stay inline with what DixyCrat wanted in this thread.

Dixiecrat wants a unicorn. Commodus (obviously not a conservative) offered up Frum. Frum isn't a unicorn & is way outside the bounds of current conservative thought, certainly of the Trumpist variety-

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/513872/

Conservatives overwhelmingly picked Trump to be their voice. He annihilated his primary opponents. He keeps the message simple, which they like. It's all the eloquence they want.

 

[ivwshane]

What about David Frum? He's a neoconservative, but he's long been considered an intellectual conservative who's willing to point out problems with right-wing policy, compliment the left when he sees it doing things well, and change his ideas when logic and evidence suggest he's wrong. He welcomes social progress these days (he's fine with same-sex marriage) and believes the Republican party's recent fondness for obstructionism is destructive.

He's a conservative that is actually capable of rational thought and he is capable of admitting when reality isn't what he wants it to be.

But what do you think frums standing is with the party? As far as I'm aware, he currently holds zero influence and value to the current Republican party.

 

[WHAMPOM]

We need eloquent conservative thought.

Not for the sale of conservatives, but for the sake of engagement.

Let us remind ourselves that there is a language just as illiterate and worthless on the Left - postmodern gibberish.

We need somone to eloquently explain the meanings views of both sides in a common language.


Do we agree this would be a useful and good first step to dialogue?

William F. Buckley and coherent discussion are dead and gone, Tea-baggers, birthers, lifers have left no room for a three digit IQ in the party of the right.

 

[pcgeek11]

Or left.

 

[Victorian Gray]

sure. But do you deny that Gingrich's Speakership was not the birth of the current intractable breed of republican crybabies?

He is a smart guy, of course, but he's probably the central hypocrite for which republicans have sense laid the foundation of their party platform and values.

I think you need to go back several more decades at least. These lines ring any bells? Hint, think late 60s and early 70s

"In the United States today, we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism. They have formed their own 4H Club the hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history."

"The student now goes to college to proclaim rather than to learn. A spirit of national masochism prevails, encouraged by an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals."

"One modest suggestion for my friends in the academic community: the next time a mob of students, waving their non-negotiable demands, starts pitching bricks and rocks at the student union- just imagine they are wearing brown shirts or white sheets- and act accordingly."

"The criminal left belongs not in a dormitory, but in a penitentiary."

"Perhaps the place to start looking for a credibility gap is not in the offices of the Government in Washington but in the studios of the networks in New York!"

"If you've seen one city slum, you've seen them all."

"The criminal left is interested in power. It is not interested in promoting the renewal and reforms that make democracy work; it is interested in promoting those collisions and conflict that tear democracy apart."

 

[Jaskalas]

Conservatives overwhelmingly picked Trump to be their voice. He annihilated his primary opponents. He keeps the message simple, which they like. It's all the eloquence they want.

It was a crowded field. One man was not the same as the others. In a proper run off election, where voters get to vote by order of preference as the lowest candidate is eliminated per round and their voters still count towards the next preferable candidate, Trump would not have prevailed. It really is the horrible method by which we handle multiple candidates that we allowed a minority candidate to attain victory.

 

[agent00f]

It was a crowded field. One man was not the same as the others. In a proper run off election, where voters get to vote by order of preference as the lowest candidate is eliminated per round and their voters still count towards the next preferable candidate, Trump would not have prevailed. It really is the horrible method by which we handle multiple candidates that we allowed a minority candidate to attain victory.

Keep telling yourself he's so unpopular that nearly half the voters wanted him to be pres. The party of personal responsibility trying to pawn the fault on anyone but themselves is the reason why there are no students of the enlightenment left among your peers.

 

[Jhhnn]

It was a crowded field. One man was not the same as the others. In a proper run off election, where voters get to vote by order of preference as the lowest candidate is eliminated per round and their voters still count towards the next preferable candidate, Trump would not have prevailed. It really is the horrible method by which we handle multiple candidates that we allowed a minority candidate to attain victory.

In a proper fantasy scenario... things might be different, obviously. They're not.

Trump thrashed his primary opposition, obtained nearly twice as many votes as his nearest competitor, Cruz, the darling of the Fundies. Trump had an outright majority of delegates at the convention. His nomination was completely legitimate.

Trump has all the con man eloquence that Repub voters ever wanted.

 

[Sunburn74]

I think the issue isn't thought or discussion or eloquence. Its a fundamental dispute of facts.

 

[MongGrel]

David Brooks. But he's a RINO and quite possibly a traitor to America.

I imagine Reagan would be called a RINO these day by Trump, and a Liar to boot

 

[Sonikku]

I long for the days of Teddy's kind of Conservatism. Conservatism today scarcely resembles it. Teddy today would no doubt be labeled a RINO.

 

[Atreus21]

We need eloquent conservative thought.

Not for the sale of conservatives, but for the sake of engagement.

Let us remind ourselves that there is a language just as illiterate and worthless on the Left - postmodern gibberish.

We need somone to eloquently explain the meanings views of both sides in a common language.


Do we agree this would be a useful and good first step to dialogue?

Conservative thought - oxymoron of the day.

haha. Dialogue.

 

[bshole]

Just as a point of order, Buckley also wasn't much more of an intellectual than Gingrich, and similarly relied on a talent for sounding smart enough to non-intellectuals, which was obvious enough when he had to face off against people actually smart. His unsurprising go to strat when in trouble was to threaten punching the opponent in the face.

Disagree. Buckley went to Yale and graduated with honors. That does not happen in the absence of a sharp intellect, it just doesn't. He was also a skilled orator. I would put him on the level of Hitchens.

 

[Commodus]

He's a conservative that is actually capable of rational thought and he is capable of admitting when reality isn't what he wants it to be.

But what do you think frums standing is with the party? As far as I'm aware, he currently holds zero influence and value to the current Republican party.

He's a relative outsider now, to be sure -- I'm just thinking of conservatism in terms of the general school of thought, not necessarily Republican ideology as it is circa 2017. Someone who embodies the classic conservative values (lower taxes, emphasis on free market) without the logical extremes that have corrupted the Republicans lately.

 

[bshole]

He's a relative outsider now, to be sure -- I'm just thinking of conservatism in terms of the general school of thought, not necessarily Republican ideology as it is circa 2017. Someone who embodies the classic conservative values (lower taxes, emphasis on free market) without the logical extremes that have corrupted the Republicans lately.

Lower taxes on the wealthy.... yep that's a conservative value that is repugnant on any level. Any person advocating for such have reprehensible morals.