Conservatism.edu

[cwjerome]

Most dictionary definitions for conservative read like ?adverse to rapid change? and ?moderate, avoiding extremes.? Although it depressingly appears a lot of people pretty much use this extremely thin dictionary definition to describe modern political conservatism, anyone with a half-decent background in ideological history and contemporary issues knows that conservatism is much more than that.

Look at Bush? he?s got the tax-cut side of the capitalists, the religious side of the moralists, and the interventionist side of the hawks. He is a mixture of conservative ideas, just like most people whether they admit it or not. Yeah, each little branch of conservatism often claims the ?other? conservatives aren?t really conservative but that?s just BS. The fact is, conservatism is a huge tent, and because of that hugeness, there?s a lot of contradictions.

The movement is a far cry from Edmund Burke?s skepticism about progress and elitism. I would crudely reduce it to a few main principles: 1)suspicion about the power of the state, 2)preference for liberty over equality, 3)belief in established institutions and hierarchies, and 4)idealistic patriotism. Each principle is exaggerated by different ?often competing- groups. The creed cannot be ideologically pigeonholed, especially modern American conservatism.

There are thousands of activists, hundreds of think tanks (compare Heritage with Enterprise with Cato), and a small army of conservative intellectuals. Yet the broad church means that people worship different gods? wherever you go, you?ll discover contradictions. That?s what many on the Right don?t acknowledge. On the other hand, many on the Left also don?t want to acknowledge the vigorous populism (and optimism) that permeates the Right. The Right is all about changing things from a grass-roots level, a very far cry from maintaining the status-quo.

It?s the Conservative Paradox, and whether it?s the homeschoolers in Colorado, the gun activists in Florida, the planned communities in Arizona or the free marketers in Virginia, they all have a basic bond that ties them together: Enemy #1 is the far-left liberal machine... because they are seen as not believing in ANY of the 4 conservative principles I listed above. A common "enemy"... it?s that simple.

 

[miketheidiot]

First you start out by saying that conservatives are more than just people out to slow or stop rapid change, but end by saying that "conservatives" are united by fear of rapid change (the far left liberal machine).

Going further, you criticize a narrow definition of conservative, but blindly propound a very simplistic "liberal machine"


In summary, stop trying to pass yourself off as some sort of intellectual, its not working.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
First you start out by saying that conservatives are more than just people out to slow or stop rapid change, but end by saying that "conservatives" are united by fear of rapid change (the far left liberal machine).

Going further, you criticize a narrow definition of conservative, but blindly propound a very simplistic "liberal machine"


In summary, stop trying to pass yourself off as some sort of intellectual, its not working.

First I reiterate that conservatives are more than just people out to slow rapid change... and I ended by saying they are united against a type of ideology, specifically, an ideology seen as generally opposed to the 4 principles I pointed out. NOT rapid change.

Read much?

Going further, I criticize a very narrow definition of conservative, but how is my use of the term "liberal machine" a narrow definition? How is it a definition?

Read much?

In summary, you think I'm trying to be an intellectual because you're insecure... and obviously don't read well.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
First you start out by saying that conservatives are more than just people out to slow or stop rapid change, but end by saying that "conservatives" are united by fear of rapid change (the far left liberal machine).

Going further, you criticize a narrow definition of conservative, but blindly propound a very simplistic "liberal machine"


In summary, stop trying to pass yourself off as some sort of intellectual, its not working.

First I reiterate that conservatives are more than just people out to slow rapid change... and I ended by saying they are united against a type of ideology, specifically, an ideology seen as generally opposed to the 4 principles I pointed out. NOT rapid change.

Read much?

Going further, I criticize a very narrow definition of conservative, but how is my use of the term "liberal machine" a narrow definition? How is it a definition?

Read much?

In summary, you think I'm trying to be an intellectual because you're insecure... and obviously don't read well.

Bahahahahaha I love seeing Republicans sputtering in an identity crisis now :laugh:

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Bahahahahaha I love seeing Republicans sputtering in an identity crisis now :laugh:

I won't even try...

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Most dictionary definitions for conservative read like ?adverse to rapid change? and ?moderate, avoiding extremes.? Although it depressingly appears a lot of people pretty much use this extremely thin dictionary definition to describe modern political conservatism, anyone with a half-decent background in ideological history and contemporary issues knows that conservatism is much more than that.

Look at Bush? he?s got the tax-cut side of the capitalists, the religious side of the moralists, and the interventionist side of the hawks. He is a mixture of conservative ideas, just like most people whether they admit it or not. Yeah, each little branch of conservatism often claims the ?other? conservatives aren?t really conservative but that?s just BS. The fact is, conservatism is a huge tent, and because of that hugeness, there?s a lot of contradictions.

The movement is a far cry from Edmund Burke?s skepticism about progress and elitism. I would crudely reduce it to a few main principles: 1)suspicion about the power of the state, 2)preference for liberty over equality, 3)belief in established institutions and hierarchies, and 4)idealistic patriotism. Each principle is exaggerated by different ?often competing- groups. The creed cannot be ideologically pigeonholed, especially modern American conservatism.

There are thousands of activists, hundreds of think tanks (compare Heritage with Enterprise with Cato), and a small army of conservative intellectuals. Yet the broad church means that people worship different gods? wherever you go, you?ll discover contradictions. That?s what many on the Right don?t acknowledge. On the other hand, many on the Left also don?t want to acknowledge the vigorous populism (and optimism) that permeates the Right. The Right is all about changing things from a grass-roots level, a very far cry from maintaining the status-quo.

It?s the Conservative Paradox, and whether it?s the homeschoolers in Colorado, the gun activists in Florida, the planned communities in Arizona or the free marketers in Virginia, they all have a basic bond that ties them together: Enemy #1 is the far-left liberal machine... because they are seen as not believing in ANY of the 4 conservative principles I listed above. A common "enemy"... it?s that simple.

The only thing I see the Its only my Religion that is Right group, The profit uber alles group, and Figters for US imperialism have in common is that they or others call them conservatives. I do not see how they are trying to conserve anything but they are trying to implement their agenda.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
The only thing I see the Its only my Religion that is Right group, The profit uber alles group, and Figters for US imperialism have in common is that they or others call them conservatives. I do not see how they are trying to conserve anything but they are trying to implement their agenda.

Although you paint a cynical, cliched picture, it's a decent point... and I'm not sure I totally know the answer, but I think it's something along these lines:

For those on the Right conservatism is not a matter of political strategy-- it goes to the heart of what it means to be an American (and it's what other countries lack). Each group, to some degree, believes they are trying to conserve American ideals ie American Exceptionalism. They don't want America to change into a European country, to be socialistic, etc, they want to conserve what they see as American values... those 4 points I mentioned that bring conservatives together to one degree or another.

 

[techs]

You fail to mention how conservatives APPLY these principles in the U.S.

1)suspicion about the power of the state

Conservatives have no suspicions about thow the State will surveil them, prosecute them or imprison them or act in a manner that applies one group (the rich and powerful versus group, the poor and powerless). Liberals have a far greater suspicion of the power of the State. Hence, Liberals actually are more conservative on these issues.

2)preference for liberty over equality

Yes, conservatives hate the idea that human beings are equal and should be treated equally under the law. They believe the rich and powerfull should have the right to better treatment by the state than others.

3)belief in established institutions and hierarchies,

Yes, conservatives believe institutions should be inflexible. Not because they work well but because inflexible institutions give the rich and powerful the ability to play the system. It is much easier to take advantage of an institution that doesn't respond to change. And of course conservatives believe in established hierarchies that preserve the power and influence of the rich.

4)idealistic patriotism

Now that one is crock of sh*t. Liberals are far more idealistic than conservatives. Conservatives believe in an idealized view of the state as already achieving a nearer degree of perfection, hence less need for any change that might reduce their already achieved power.

All in all, it is easy to see why conservatism is a bad philosphy.

 

[DealMonkey]

OK, I'll bite. Please define the "far left liberal machine" that is your common enemy. Who precisely are you talking about?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: techs
You fail to mention how conservatives APPLY these principles in the U.S.

1)suspicion about the power of the state

Conservatives have no suspicions about thow the State will surveil them, prosecute them or imprison them or act in a manner that applies one group (the rich and powerful versus group, the poor and powerless). Liberals have a far greater suspicion of the power of the State. Hence, Liberals actually are more conservative on these issues.

Flat out lie when taking me into account as a Conservative. I hate the big government Authoritarians in my party, they all belong with your big socialist government.

2)preference for liberty over equality

Yes, conservatives hate the idea that human beings are equal and should be treated equally under the law. They believe the rich and powerfull should have the right to better treatment by the state than others.

I do not find a contradiction between liberty and equality, the two are not polar opposites and both should be cherished.

It is easy to fall into the trap, of thinking liberty must be removed, you pretty much outright state it here by stating equality and free people do not go together.

3)belief in established institutions and hierarchies,

Yes, conservatives believe institutions should be inflexible. Not because they work well but because inflexible institutions give the rich and powerful the ability to play the system. It is much easier to take advantage of an institution that doesn't respond to change. And of course conservatives believe in established hierarchies that preserve the power and influence of the rich.

The established institution is authoritarian socialism. I do not believe in preserving the big government union that we grew in the 1900?s, I believe in dissolving it entirely back it its 1700's definition where states ran the show. The more localized and in our hands our government is, the freer we all are.

4)idealistic patriotism

Now that one is crock of sh*t. Liberals are far more idealistic than conservatives. Conservatives believe in an idealized view of the state as already achieving a nearer degree of perfection, hence less need for any change that might reduce their already achieved power.

They can?t be patriotic, because that gets in the way of demonizing them, eh?

As I understand #4, it means strong unapologetic foreign policy that puts American interests first. Means being a hawk for your own country, and not wanting other cultures to replace your own. Means being proud that you live in the freest nation in the history of this planet and you intend to fight to keep it that way.

All in all, it is easy to see why conservatism is a bad philosphy.

You're at war against conservatism, you've been taught to hate it all the while you'd install dictatorial authority with a big government to combat conservatives. You'd create the foundations of patriot acts and then question how someone could abuse your socialist government to create communism, as if that hasn?t happened before.

The great distinction these days should be Libertarian / Authoritarian. Because the battle between Liberals and Conservatives is marred by the fact that EVERYONE in Washington DC is an Authoritarian growing government and taking away your rights.

Just because they do it under a different name and different special interests to preserve, does not mean Democrats and Republicans are any good for this country. They?re merely opposite heads of the same rotten coin.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: techs
You fail to mention how conservatives APPLY these principles in the U.S.

1)suspicion about the power of the state

Conservatives have no suspicions about thow the State will surveil them, prosecute them or imprison them or act in a manner that applies one group (the rich and powerful versus group, the poor and powerless). Liberals have a far greater suspicion of the power of the State. Hence, Liberals actually are more conservative on these issues.

2)preference for liberty over equality

Yes, conservatives hate the idea that human beings are equal and should be treated equally under the law. They believe the rich and powerfull should have the right to better treatment by the state than others.

3)belief in established institutions and hierarchies,

Yes, conservatives believe institutions should be inflexible. Not because they work well but because inflexible institutions give the rich and powerful the ability to play the system. It is much easier to take advantage of an institution that doesn't respond to change. And of course conservatives believe in established hierarchies that preserve the power and influence of the rich.

4)idealistic patriotism

Now that one is crock of sh*t. Liberals are far more idealistic than conservatives. Conservatives believe in an idealized view of the state as already achieving a nearer degree of perfection, hence less need for any change that might reduce their already achieved power.

All in all, it is easy to see why conservatism is a bad philosphy.

Do you actually believe in what you're saying? Poor you. That whole "power and influence of the rich" crap is laughable and shows you have ZERO clue about the people you despise. People are conservative at various income levels for a multitude of reasons. And you're truly delusional if you think all rich and powerful are Conservative.

A truly amazing post there techs... I haven't heard the class warfare talking point so clearly in a while.

 

[feralkid]

At least OP is making an attempt to stick to his guns.

Most have run away and are now claiming to have been libertarians all along.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
OK, I'll bite. Please define the "far left liberal machine" that is your common enemy. Who precisely are you talking about?

There is no precise answer. A general answer is in the OP: those that "are seen as not believing in ANY of the 4 conservative principles I listed above."

Make no mistake, there is an even better conservative "machine". When Hillary talked about a vast rightwing conspiracy, people like me could complain about her tone, but not her substance. There is a lot more cohesion to the conservative movement, local and national, than most people realize.

My comment was to help explain WHY so many different types of conservatism -often contradictory- are still able to ally themselves to a certain degree. A common enemy.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Most dictionary definitions for conservative read like ?adverse to rapid change? and ?moderate, avoiding extremes.? Although it depressingly appears a lot of people pretty much use this extremely thin dictionary definition to describe modern political conservatism, anyone with a half-decent background in ideological history and contemporary issues knows that conservatism is much more than that.

Look at Bush? he?s got the tax-cut side of the capitalists, the religious side of the moralists, and the interventionist side of the hawks. He is a mixture of conservative ideas, just like most people whether they admit it or not. Yeah, each little branch of conservatism often claims the ?other? conservatives aren?t really conservative but that?s just BS. The fact is, conservatism is a huge tent, and because of that hugeness, there?s a lot of contradictions.

The movement is a far cry from Edmund Burke?s skepticism about progress and elitism. I would crudely reduce it to a few main principles: 1)suspicion about the power of the state, 2)preference for liberty over equality, 3)belief in established institutions and hierarchies, and 4)idealistic patriotism. Each principle is exaggerated by different ?often competing- groups. The creed cannot be ideologically pigeonholed, especially modern American conservatism.

There are thousands of activists, hundreds of think tanks (compare Heritage with Enterprise with Cato), and a small army of conservative intellectuals. Yet the broad church means that people worship different gods? wherever you go, you?ll discover contradictions. That?s what many on the Right don?t acknowledge. On the other hand, many on the Left also don?t want to acknowledge the vigorous populism (and optimism) that permeates the Right. The Right is all about changing things from a grass-roots level, a very far cry from maintaining the status-quo.

It?s the Conservative Paradox, and whether it?s the homeschoolers in Colorado, the gun activists in Florida, the planned communities in Arizona or the free marketers in Virginia, they all have a basic bond that ties them together: Enemy #1 is the far-left liberal machine... because they are seen as not believing in ANY of the 4 conservative principles I listed above. A common "enemy"... it?s that simple.

Obviously all conservatives don't fit into one particular mold. One only has to look at the two most arguably powerful think tanks on the right, Cato and Heritage, to see exactly what I'm talking about. Heritage is unflagging in it's support of social conservative ideas, and is a very strong supporter of the Republican party. Cato, on the other hand, is far more libertarian, to the point where it almost seems anti-Republican at the moment. And as someone who knows many people who consider themselves conservatives, I'd agree that the idea that they all fit the dictionary definition to be overly simplistic.

And yet, there is a pretty obvious thread that links the various aspects of the modern conservative movement (with the notable exception of true libertarians), one that comes pretty close to being "adverse to rapid change". As you pointed out, the right DOES try to change things at the "grassroots" level (although I think a great deal of that is Astroturf campaigning), but what they are trying to change to is an isolated, homogeneous, society. It's not that they don't like "rapid change" so much as they don't like things that are too different. The reason they have the appearance of pushing change is that in many cases, change has already happened, and they are trying to change BACK. We had the Scopes monkey trial decades ago, yet modern conservatives seem intent on refighting that battle. Now that real sexual education is pervasive in a lot of schools, there is a huge push from the Right to move back to the days of willful ignorance in the futile hope that by not telling kids about condoms, they won't have sex. Society is finally reaching the point where gay people don't get beat to death for being different, and conservatives are fighting tooth and nail against legal equality for gay relationships. 9/11 was the point where most people took notice of Islamic terrorist, but a significant number of conservatives decided the best response to that is war against all of Islam. Illegal immigration is certainly a problem right now, but the objection a lot of conservatives seem to have to it is that it dilutes our European derived society. In other words, the problem isn't illegal immigration, the problem is MORE immigration...which explains why proposals to make legal immigration easier don't seem to gain too much ground.

Now I'm not suggesting all conservatives hold all those views, or even that conservatives are the only ones holding those views, but it does seem to be a pretty consistent thread in conservative beliefs. And when it comes to counter-examples, I'm having trouble coming up with any instances of conservatives embracing something new and different and forward looking. The conservative activists seem mostly to be concerned with UNdoing advances made as long as a century ago, not in embracing the future. But the basic idea is the same, whether you're maintaining the status quo of 2007 or the status quo of 1957. If it's a new and different idea, you can be sure conservatives are fighting against it.

 

[ProfJohn]

One thing you need to understand is that the political term ?conservative? has nothing to do with the dictionary term ?conservative? or ?conserve?

The idea isn?t that conservatives are against change; the idea is that conservatives want to return things to a more traditional way of life.

But even that is no longer a good definition since the movement has coalesced around a few main points: less government and a return to federalism, a strong emphasis on social and family values, and a strong pro active national defense. I think all of the OP?s ideas are included in that list.

The OP was right about the big tent idea. The Republican (conservative) is much more of a big tent in that its interlocking ideas tend to mesh together well. A religious conservative is very likely to also be a small government/strong defense conservative as well.

However, the Democrat (liberal) party does not work the same way. The Democrats today are a coalition of ideas that do not always blend together well. There is no underlying unifying philosophy you might say. The anti-globalization and the internationalism movements are both part of the Democratic Party, and yet are totally opposite of each other.

Rainsford
I believe Cato thinks of its self as a libertarian think tank, not a conservative one.
Which is why in the 90?s under big government Clinton it opposed him and appeared to be conservative, and now under big brother Bush it leans against him and some of his anti-war on terror policies.

 

[ProfJohn]

Techs, one again you show your lack of depth of knowledge and understanding in your post.

Originally posted by: techs edited for length
1)suspicion about the power of the state
Conservatives have no suspicions about thow the State will surveil them, prosecute them or imprison them or act in a manner that applies one group (the rich and powerful versus group, the poor and powerless). Liberals have a far greater suspicion of the power of the State. Hence, Liberals actually are more conservative on these issues.

The conservative suspicion of the ?power of the state? comes from our aversion to ?big government?, not to the governmental use of surveillance or prosecution. Liberals belief that the government can solve all our problems, hence the big push for ?universal healthcare? The fact that the free market has not provided universal healthcare is a sign of its inability to do so, therefore the government must step in and provide it for us. Conservatives doubt that the government can manage such a program, thus we are suspicious about the power of the state. I should note that this suspicion applies mainly to state run social programs which have proven to be ineffective, inefficient and overly expensive.

2)preference for liberty over equality
Yes, conservatives hate the idea that human beings are equal and should be treated equally under the law. They believe the rich and powerfull should have the right to better treatment by the state than others.

Once again you totally miss the boat in your understanding of the idea put forth by the OP.
Liberty over equality, meaning government mandated equality. The governmental use of affirmative action, set asides, quotas etc to create equality in a situation where equality does not naturally exist. Not enough blacks getting into the University of Michigan Law School, not a problem, we will just create an entrance system that rewards people for being black so that more of them will be enrolled. In the end we haven?t created any equality though; we have just transferred the discrimination from one group to another.
Do not mistake this for meaning we support racism or discrimination in any form though.

3)belief in established institutions and hierarchies,
Yes, conservatives believe institutions should be inflexible. Not because they work well but because inflexible institutions give the rich and powerful the ability to play the system. It is much easier to take advantage of an institution that doesn't respond to change. And of course conservatives believe in established hierarchies that preserve the power and influence of the rich.

I am not sure what the OP was getting at with this one. I would assume he means the traditional power structure of our country which was state and local government based as opposed to an overly strong central government.
I do know that the answer Techs give is total BS though and again shows a total lack of understanding of how things work. Bill Gates did not become the richest man in the world by ?playing the system? he did it by providing a product that people wanted to buy. Look at nearly all the richest people in the country, they all got there in a similar fashion, providing goods or services that people wanted. Your whole ?rich and powerful? train of thought seems to show a lack of understanding on how people become rich and powerful.

4)idealistic patriotism
Now that one is crock of sh*t. Liberals are far more idealistic than conservatives. Conservatives believe in an idealized view of the state as already achieving a nearer degree of perfection, hence less need for any change that might reduce their already achieved power.

I have no clue what planet you are living on with the above statement. Idealistic patriotism in that our government generally does the right things and makes the right decisions in foreign affairs. Yes our government does make mistakes, but it generally tries to do the right thing.
Liberals on the other hand have a far more skeptical view of our government and its actions. Go find the thread I created about why we went to war in Iraq and you will see the conservatives with the idealistic belief that we went to war to establish democracy in Iraq in the belief that it would spread through out the Middle East. Meanwhile all the liberal/democratic posters thought we went to war over oil, or power, or so Bush could finish the job his dad started.
Much of the liberal left is totally devoid of patriotism, as exhibited in the ?blame America first? crowd who seeks to blame America for every problem in the world. Again, I am talking about patriotism as written about in the OP, not patriotism as in loving your country, but patriotism as in how your country conducts itself on the world stage.

All in all, it is easy to see why conservatism is a bad philosphy.

Which explains why it has been the dominant political philosophy for the past 27 or so years, since Reagan took office. During that time we have had one Democrat President who ran for office as a moderate, and when he tried to run the country as a liberal saw his approval numbers drop and the control of congress switch parties for the first time in 40 years. After this stunning defeat he moved to the middle and finished his term as a moderate and is hence thought of as a successful President.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The OP was right about the big tent idea. The Republican (conservative) is much more of a big tent in that its interlocking ideas tend to mesh together well. A religious conservative is very likely to also be a small government/strong defense conservative as well.

The current Republicans openly support huge government, which is not a conservative ideal.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The OP was right about the big tent idea. The Republican (conservative) is much more of a big tent in that its interlocking ideas tend to mesh together well. A religious conservative is very likely to also be a small government/strong defense conservative as well.

The current Republicans openly support huge government, which is not a conservative ideal.

And most conservatives do not view Bush as a small government conservative either.
With the exception of his fiscal policies though, most conservatives would agree with most of what Bush has done.

And even with his fiscal policies he is still preferable to a John Kerry or Al Gore.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
OK, I'll bite. Please define the "far left liberal machine" that is your common enemy. Who precisely are you talking about?

There is no precise answer. A general answer is in the OP: those that "are seen as not believing in ANY of the 4 conservative principles I listed above."

Make no mistake, there is an even better conservative "machine". When Hillary talked about a vast rightwing conspiracy, people like me could complain about her tone, but not her substance. There is a lot more cohesion to the conservative movement, local and national, than most people realize.

My comment was to help explain WHY so many different types of conservatism -often contradictory- are still able to ally themselves to a certain degree. A common enemy.

Right, I understand that and I also seek to understand this "common enemy" of yours. I find it hard to believe that not one specific example comes to mind when you are asked to define "far left liberal machine."

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The OP was right about the big tent idea. The Republican (conservative) is much more of a big tent in that its interlocking ideas tend to mesh together well. A religious conservative is very likely to also be a small government/strong defense conservative as well.

The current Republicans openly support huge government, which is not a conservative ideal.

There has always been people on the Right who aren't really small-government types. Whether it's the old Northeast patrician establishment of Rockefeller and Lodge or Nixon's government expansionist ways, there's always been that element. Unfortunately Bush carries along this tradition... the idea that government should be enabled and grown as long as it's to serve conservative ends. I think the idea is stupid.

The first modern small-government howl of conservatism came from Goldwater and eventually conquered with Reagan. It's an internal struggle that ebbs and flows, but let's be serious: Even Reagan ballooned the DoD (appropriately in my mind) and really didn't do all that much to cut things like subsidies and benefits (wrong, in my mind). Anyone with a drip of honesty and some brain molecules can see that modern conservatism's two main crusades -against big government and moral decay- have so far been more successful as rallying cries than policies. But the Right has been making the political weather for the last 25 years, much like the Libs did for a short in the 60s and early 70s.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Right, I understand that and I also seek to understand this "common enemy" of yours. I find it hard to believe that not one specific example comes to mind when you are asked to define "far left liberal machine."

I?ll try to answer the question about ?common enemies? of conservatives.
1. Traditional big government liberals, the people who think government can solve all our problems though more government programs. These would be the FDR-LBJ types.
2. The so called Secular-Progressives who want to take all mention of god out of government. These are the people who start the endless supply of ?religion is bad? threads on here. These people tend to fight any attempt to apply morality to the country and its culture. Could also call this the ?moral relativists? who say that American or Israel having a nuclear weapon is as bad as Iran and North Korea having it.
3. The liberal elite, aka limousine liberals. This is the group of people who think they know how to run your life better than you do. Very similar to the big government liberals, but I don?t think they would identify themselves as ?big government liberals.? Al Gore is a perfect example of these type ?listen to me, we are destroying the earth by using too much fossil fuels, now excuse me my private jet is waiting.?
4. The internationalists. Jimmy Carter is a fine example of this. There is not a problem in the world today that can not be solved by talking to our enemy or through the UN. Generally these people believe the UN can solve any world crisis and any use of force by the US is wrong. Lots of these types on P&N.

I am sure there are more, but these would be the big ?baddies? when it comes to the conservative movement. The people who are in 100% opposition to the conservative agenda.
Calling them ?enemies? is probably not a great way of putting our opposition to their ideas, a better term might be foes. In that the Saints are the Bears foes today, but they are not their enemies.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
One thing you need to understand is that the political term ?conservative? has nothing to do with the dictionary term ?conservative? or ?conserve?

The idea isn?t that conservatives are against change; the idea is that conservatives want to return things to a more traditional way of life.

But even that is no longer a good definition since the movement has coalesced around a few main points: less government and a return to federalism, a strong emphasis on social and family values, and a strong pro active national defense. I think all of the OP?s ideas are included in that list.

The OP was right about the big tent idea. The Republican (conservative) is much more of a big tent in that its interlocking ideas tend to mesh together well. A religious conservative is very likely to also be a small government/strong defense conservative as well.

However, the Democrat (liberal) party does not work the same way. The Democrats today are a coalition of ideas that do not always blend together well. There is no underlying unifying philosophy you might say. The anti-globalization and the internationalism movements are both part of the Democratic Party, and yet are totally opposite of each other.

Rainsford
I believe Cato thinks of its self as a libertarian think tank, not a conservative one.
Which is why in the 90?s under big government Clinton it opposed him and appeared to be conservative, and now under big brother Bush it leans against him and some of his anti-war on terror policies.

It's called the Democratic Party, not the "Democrat Party". Christ CAD, how many time do you have to be told?

:roll:

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Right, I understand that and I also seek to understand this "common enemy" of yours. I find it hard to believe that not one specific example comes to mind when you are asked to define "far left liberal machine."

I?ll try to answer the question about ?common enemies? of conservatives.
1. Traditional big government liberals, the people who think government can solve all our problems though more government programs. These would be the FDR-LBJ types.
2. The so called Secular-Progressives who want to take all mention of god out of government. These are the people who start the endless supply of ?religion is bad? threads on here. These people tend to fight any attempt to apply morality to the country and its culture. Could also call this the ?moral relativists? who say that American or Israel having a nuclear weapon is as bad as Iran and North Korea having it.
3. The liberal elite, aka limousine liberals. This is the group of people who think they know how to run your life better than you do. Very similar to the big government liberals, but I don?t think they would identify themselves as ?big government liberals.? Al Gore is a perfect example of these type ?listen to me, we are destroying the earth by using too much fossil fuels, now excuse me my private jet is waiting.?
4. The internationalists. Jimmy Carter is a fine example of this. There is not a problem in the world today that can not be solved by talking to our enemy or through the UN. Generally these people believe the UN can solve any world crisis and any use of force by the US is wrong. Lots of these types on P&N.

I am sure there are more, but these would be the big ?baddies? when it comes to the conservative movement. The people who are in 100% opposition to the conservative agenda.
Calling them ?enemies? is probably not a great way of putting our opposition to their ideas, a better term might be foes. In that the Saints are the Bears foes today, but they are not their enemies.

You mean to tell me that Gore and Carter are the "far left liberal machines" that are your common enemy?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Right, I understand that and I also seek to understand this "common enemy" of yours. I find it hard to believe that not one specific example comes to mind when you are asked to define "far left liberal machine."

I?ll try to answer the question about ?common enemies? of conservatives.
1. Traditional big government liberals, the people who think government can solve all our problems though more government programs. These would be the FDR-LBJ types.
2. The so called Secular-Progressives who want to take all mention of god out of government. These are the people who start the endless supply of ?religion is bad? threads on here. These people tend to fight any attempt to apply morality to the country and its culture. Could also call this the ?moral relativists? who say that American or Israel having a nuclear weapon is as bad as Iran and North Korea having it.
3. The liberal elite, aka limousine liberals. This is the group of people who think they know how to run your life better than you do. Very similar to the big government liberals, but I don?t think they would identify themselves as ?big government liberals.? Al Gore is a perfect example of these type ?listen to me, we are destroying the earth by using too much fossil fuels, now excuse me my private jet is waiting.?
4. The internationalists. Jimmy Carter is a fine example of this. There is not a problem in the world today that can not be solved by talking to our enemy or through the UN. Generally these people believe the UN can solve any world crisis and any use of force by the US is wrong. Lots of these types on P&N.

I am sure there are more, but these would be the big ?baddies? when it comes to the conservative movement. The people who are in 100% opposition to the conservative agenda.
Calling them ?enemies? is probably not a great way of putting our opposition to their ideas, a better term might be foes. In that the Saints are the Bears foes today, but they are not their enemies.

You mean to tell me that Gore and Carter are the "far left liberal machines" that are your common enemy?

Now Deal, it was the OP who called them enemies. I called the foes, as in people who when in power take action that I am opposed too.

Osama Bin Laden is my enemy, Al Gore is not.

 

[DealMonkey]

Okay sure, let's call them "foes." Well, neither Gore or Carter are in power, so why are they even on your short list?