Conservatism.edu

[miketheidiot]

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.

Ok how about "nonsensical concept," as opposed to "narrow defination"

further, you just stated yourself that these conservatives groups are united against a ideology that advocates rapid change from the status quo that those 4 ideologigies of yours represent. As in the only this that unites them is adversion to a change, as advocated by the "far-left liberal machine" which is probably the dumbest concept I have ever heard anyone ever propound here. The "far-left" is one of the most conflict ridden sections of political thought out there, and completely lacking in any sort of cohension or co-operation.

I think your trying to act like your an intellectual because you keep trying to pass off intellectual concepts like "american exceptionalism" and naming threads "conservatism.edu and then starting a debate over semantics.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
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.

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.

The national government has run the show since the constitution was signed, in fact, the Constitution was written in direct response to the anarchy of the states running the show. Calling everyone who understands the good the public sector can do an authoritarian just makes you look like a fool.

the second paragraph is some first-rate garbage. First, there is no such thing as an American culture; there are several dozen subcultures in America (west coast, Midwest, new england, etc), most of which belong to the Anglo-Saxon culture. "American" culture is distinct british in its origin, and anyone who bothers to look around them can tell that there is no such thing as a grand concept of an american. To go back to the op's continual mentions of "american exceptionalism", its is easily plausible that americas exceptionalism is because of its lack of a common theme, and the variance and social independence that comes from that. You are an american because you AREN'T british, or french, or chinese, etc.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
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.

bill gates got rich because his upper-middle class parents had the money to send him to an elite private school where he started playing with computers with another kid. Nearly all the people in the fortune 500 came from wealthy, or at least upper middle-class families; hell half the top 10 are there because they were Sam Walton's kids.

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.

Your confusing patriotism with nationalism I think, at least in a way. Patriotism is not blindly supporting the actions of your government, it is actively seeing that your government acts in a many which you can support. The "blame america first crowd" is probably the most ardent believers in "American exceptionalism" as the OP terms it, after all they assume that it is America's unique duty to act morally on the international stage and to do its best to right the wrongs of the world. If thats not idealistic patriotism, then I don't know what is.

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.

having people vote for you doesn't mean that your policies are smart, practical, or that people really believe in what you are saying. The way you say it, and for that matter saying it, is half the battle. Democrats have certainly been lacking in policies that can be summarized in 30 seconds that would significantly differentiate them from conservatism. After all depth and intellectual thought aren't easy to fit into a 30 second tv commercial.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
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.

People have been complaining about moral decay in this country since before it was a country.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
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.

That is the purpose of government; that the government does good by its existence and actions and exists to help people. Its even in the declaration of independence, people form governments to further their ends, to protect their liberties and provide for the common good, etc. No one believes that the government can solve everything, but many believe to varying degrees that government can solve social ills. Cwjerome said that already, that conservatives believe that they can use government to instill "morality" on the population. Is this any less big government than supporting public education, except that the costs are more hidden and then benefits more obscure?

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.

First, I would argue that it would the moral relativist arguing that it is ok for the US to have nukes but not North Korea. It is relatively ok for the US to have nukes. On the other hand, the moral absolutist would say that it is absolutely wrong for any country to have nukes, ABSOLUTELY. Get it? Good.

BTW god was taken out of government about 250+ years ago, but people keep trying to shove it back in.

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.?

How is this any different than the limousine conservatives? There are certainly people on the right that behave the same way.

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.

:roll: Internationalism is simply the opposite of isolationism. George Bush is certainly an internationalist now, though he ran as an isolationist. The labor wing of the democratic party is very against internationalism, and many parts of the republican party are very internationalist.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

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.

Ok how about "nonsensical concept," as opposed to "narrow defination"

further, you just stated yourself that these conservatives groups are united against a ideology that advocates rapid change from the status quo that those 4 ideologigies of yours represent. As in the only this that unites them is adversion to a change, as advocated by the "far-left liberal machine" which is probably the dumbest concept I have ever heard anyone ever propound here. The "far-left" is one of the most conflict ridden sections of political thought out there, and completely lacking in any sort of cohension or co-operation.

I think your trying to act like your an intellectual because you keep trying to pass off intellectual concepts like "american exceptionalism" and naming threads "conservatism.edu and then starting a debate over semantics.

I think you're drunk.

(And I put .edu because I keep hearing DNC toadies and leftwing pimps trying to define conservatism with superficial slogans, stereotypes, and cliches. If you can't take the time to read a book or check out some websites, maybe you can learn something about conservatism from a conservative here.)

 

[slash196]

1)suspicion about the power of the state, 2)preference for liberty over equality, 3)belief in established institutions and hierarchies

I see those as contradictory. Your thoughts?

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: slash196
1)suspicion about the power of the state, 2)preference for liberty over equality, 3)belief in established institutions and hierarchies

I see those as contradictory. Your thoughts?

I think they can be contradictory but doesn't mean they have to be. Although there are hard-core anarcholibertarians types, most small government can definitely believe in "institutions and hierarchies" because they know some government is needed and they focus more on private institutions and hierarchies that help take the place of expansive government. And many can tolerate the moralizing of the religionists because of the "noble myth" factor: the idea that it serves to help provide order and structure to society.

Some conservatives would happily replace the Constitution with the Good Book, but there are tens of millions of religious people who have no desire to put the bible at the center of government. I would argue that many of these people strongly believe in small government (in the tradition of religious people who came to America so they can worship freely), especially in the economics realm. There are dozens of major groups and think-tanks that believe in small government yet have a strong Christian (or Jewish) streak in them.

But it just goes to show what I say in the OP... many types, some contradictions.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I think you're drunk.

(And I put .edu because I keep hearing DNC toadies and leftwing pimps trying to define conservatism with superficial slogans, stereotypes, and cliches. If you can't take the time to read a book or check out some websites, maybe you can learn something about conservatism from a conservative here.)

Interesting that you complain about conservatives being stereotyped in the very same sentence that you do the same for the left. Pot, hey it's kettle, you're black!

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I think you're drunk.

(And I put .edu because I keep hearing DNC toadies and leftwing pimps trying to define conservatism with superficial slogans, stereotypes, and cliches. If you can't take the time to read a book or check out some websites, maybe you can learn something about conservatism from a conservative here.)

Interesting that you complain about conservatives being stereotyped in the very same sentence that you do the same for the left. Pot, hey it's kettle, you're black!

Those are stereotypes? I guess... if you classify ANY group with a name :roll:

You mean there aren't DNC toadies (or RNC toadies?)? Christ, grow a pair and quit being offended when I use terms like Liberal Machine or leftwing pimps.

 

[DealMonkey]

Are you seriously telling me you don't understand the definition of "stereotype?" Go look it up if you're so confused. And for the record, I'm not offended, it's just comical to watch you flail around blaming the (thus far) nameless "liberal machine" for every ill that conservatives seem to have...

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Are you seriously telling me you don't understand the definition of "stereotype?" Go look it up if you're so confused. And for the record, I'm not offended, it's just comical to watch you flail around blaming the (thus far) nameless "liberal machine" for every ill that conservatives seem to have...

What part of this do you not get?

Call it the liberal machine, call it a pink butterfly, call it whatever you want. The fact is, conservatives of many different stripes can unite because they perceive "that group of people" as being opposed to their beliefs/agendas.

WTF is so hard to understand about that? Do you have a better explanation as to why often-contradictory conservative types can still ally when necessary?

Besides, when I see people on P&N saying certain things and I believe they are a DNC mouthpiece, calling them DNC toadies isn't a stereotype... it's an observation and an opinion. What, does that hit close to home?

 

[DealMonkey]

Boy if you spent as much time naming some of these supposed individuals and orgs that are a part of the "far left liberal machine" instead of talking yourself in circles and demonstrating your hypocrisy, we might actually have an intelligent conversation here. But alas . . . you seem content to dodge my question again and again. Well played, sir.

 

[Zebo]

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.

That's pretty good. So it follows doesnt it that until conservatives get back to thier more libertarian roots they will continue to lose. When conservatives run on less govt, less taxes, less foreign meddleing, individual freedoms they get real popular really elected. When they get authoritarian they start losing. We got liberals for that and at least they give something back to peoples for thier police state unlike neo-cons.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Boy if you spent as much time naming some of these supposed individuals and orgs that are a part of the "far left liberal machine" instead of talking yourself in circles and demonstrating your hypocrisy, we might actually have an intelligent conversation here. But alas . . . you seem content to dodge my question again and again. Well played, sir.

What difference does it make? That's not what this thread is about... why are you wetting your pants about what specific people and orgs? Because you want to divert the topic? It's not like you don't already know, please.

People that conservatives may perceive? Maybe people like Ted Turner, Rosie O'Donnell, Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy and Al Sharpton, etc...

Orgs that conservatives may perceive? Maybe orgs like NOW, PETA, Planned Parenthood, Greenpeace, NAACP, Move-On, etc...

This topic isn't about Libs or the "liberal machine." It's a snapshot of modern conservatism.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Zebo

That's pretty good. So it follows doesnt it that until conservatives get back to thier more libertarian roots they will continue to lose. When conservatives run on less govt, less taxes, less foreign meddleing, individual freedoms they get real popular really elected. When they get authoritarian they start losing. We got liberals for that and at least they give something back to peoples for thier police state unlike neo-cons.

I think so. There's an ebb and flow... and when Cons start getting too religious and controlling, they will lose appeal, and the libertarian Conservative side swings in. I know many conservatives who aren't unhappy about Democratic gains because there needs to be a conservative re-alignment of sorts.

The problem is, Bush and the Reps aren't losing ground in the electorate because of big gov't and moralism... they are losing because of a faulty foreign policy.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Zebo

That's pretty good. So it follows doesnt it that until conservatives get back to thier more libertarian roots they will continue to lose. When conservatives run on less govt, less taxes, less foreign meddleing, individual freedoms they get real popular really elected. When they get authoritarian they start losing. We got liberals for that and at least they give something back to peoples for thier police state unlike neo-cons.

I think so. There's an ebb and flow... and when Cons start getting too religious and controlling, they will lose appeal, and the libertarian Conservative side swings in. I know many conservatives who aren't unhappy about Democratic gains because there needs to be a conservative re-alignment of sorts.

The problem is, Bush and the Reps aren't losing ground in the electorate because of big gov't and moralism... they are losing because of a faulty foreign policy.

I think it's actually a combination of these factors. Bush hasn't just made bad foreign policy decisions, he's made bad foreign policy decisions "BECAUSE GOD TOLD ME SO". He's pandered to the fringe wackos because truly paranoid people are motivated by their fears and emotions to a very high degree.

It has caused immeasurable harm to the conservative movement at large that they 'banded together' to support the NeoCon anti-conservative agenda just for expedience. Can you imagine the backlash against the 'liberal' establishment if ultra-left nutbags took the show and the regular democrats followed them like lemmings?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Zebo

That's pretty good. So it follows doesnt it that until conservatives get back to thier more libertarian roots they will continue to lose. When conservatives run on less govt, less taxes, less foreign meddleing, individual freedoms they get real popular really elected. When they get authoritarian they start losing. We got liberals for that and at least they give something back to peoples for thier police state unlike neo-cons.

I think so. There's an ebb and flow... and when Cons start getting too religious and controlling, they will lose appeal, and the libertarian Conservative side swings in. I know many conservatives who aren't unhappy about Democratic gains because there needs to be a conservative re-alignment of sorts.

The problem is, Bush and the Reps aren't losing ground in the electorate because of big gov't and moralism... they are losing because of a faulty foreign policy.

Thier foreign policy is big government. War is costing trillions when it's all said and done. Reagan would have never gone into Iraq on this hopeless rebuilding excersise. Yea he might have gone into break things as he often did by would have left it broken and let them figure their way out as they should. Collective punishment and self realization. Bush is fundamentally a big government liberal at heart. Mistakes like his are yet another unforeseen byproduct of cultural relativism which he's totally indoctrinated with....continually bleating that "After all, we are all alike, and all cultures have equal validity." and "everyone wants freedom and democracy" he just can not believe that the Iraqis will not behave like Kansans given enough money and time. A liberal.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Boy if you spent as much time naming some of these supposed individuals and orgs that are a part of the "far left liberal machine" instead of talking yourself in circles and demonstrating your hypocrisy, we might actually have an intelligent conversation here. But alas . . . you seem content to dodge my question again and again. Well played, sir.

What difference does it make? That's not what this thread is about... why are you wetting your pants about what specific people and orgs? Because you want to divert the topic? It's not like you don't already know, please.

People that conservatives may perceive? Maybe people like Ted Turner, Rosie O'Donnell, Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy and Al Sharpton, etc...

Orgs that conservatives may perceive? Maybe orgs like NOW, PETA, Planned Parenthood, Greenpeace, NAACP, Move-On, etc...

This topic isn't about Libs or the "liberal machine." It's a snapshot of modern conservatism.

You're the one getting your panties in a bunch over this. You're the one who made the point that conservatives of various stripes rally together because they perceive they have a common enemy. Your words not mine. I simply wanted to know who this common enemy is so I can see for myself who is deemed a threat and why.

 

[cwjerome]

Well now that you've wet your pants and my panties are bunched this sidebar issue is over with.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Well now that you've wet your pants and my panties are bunched this sidebar issue is over with.

:moon: :evil: :music:

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Zebo

That's pretty good. So it follows doesnt it that until conservatives get back to thier more libertarian roots they will continue to lose. When conservatives run on less govt, less taxes, less foreign meddleing, individual freedoms they get real popular really elected. When they get authoritarian they start losing. We got liberals for that and at least they give something back to peoples for thier police state unlike neo-cons.

I think so. There's an ebb and flow... and when Cons start getting too religious and controlling, they will lose appeal, and the libertarian Conservative side swings in. I know many conservatives who aren't unhappy about Democratic gains because there needs to be a conservative re-alignment of sorts.

The problem is, Bush and the Reps aren't losing ground in the electorate because of big gov't and moralism... they are losing because of a faulty foreign policy.

Thier foreign policy is big government. War is costing trillions when it's all said and done. Reagan would have never gone into Iraq on this hopeless rebuilding excersise. Yea he might have gone into break things as he often did by would have left it broken and let them figure their way out as they should. Collective punishment and self realization. Bush is fundamentally a big government liberal at heart. Mistakes like his are yet another unforeseen byproduct of cultural relativism which he's totally indoctrinated with....continually bleating that "After all, we are all alike, and all cultures have equal validity." and "everyone wants freedom and democracy" he just can not believe that the Iraqis will not behave like Kansans given enough money and time. A liberal.

Wait a minute! You are calling GWB a liberal!
:Q