The current state of the Conservative Movement

[cwjerome]

I think at its base Conservatism stands on three basic principles: lower taxes, limited government, and free markets. That said, President Bush has certainly set the conservative movement back by at least the number of years he's been in office.

The religious right, an awkward strain of conservatism, plays an integral role in electing conservatives, and only therefore holds a place at the table. HOWEVER, one of the problems as I see it is the RR has morphed the movement itself and has started replacing some of the traditional and intellectual base of Conservatism with its own breed of ideas.

As a deeply conservative person, yet fairly nonpolitical in many respects, it's an understatement to say I'm a conservative before I'm a republican. People like me have thought of the republican party merely as the vehicle to use to get ideas across. A lot of conservatives may have thought they took over the republican party... but in many respects, the party has taken over the movement.

The scrappy intellectuals are being replaced with tv and radio pundits. The energetic movement that sought reform in the 80s and 90s (and did a fairly decent job) has turned on itself and I'm afraid the movement is moving from small-government conservatism to big-government conservatism.

The conservative label will rebound like it did after Nixon. But one of the first things that needs to be addressed currently is how the term conservative is becoming to mean -in many people's eyes- a mean spirited attitude, as opposed to self-reliance, independence, and limited government. If there isn't some change, "Conservative" could take on a negative connotation just like Liberal did.

 

[sandorski]

As long as Rush and other idiotic Talking Heads are what "Conservatives" watch/listen to, Conservatism will continue to spiral downwards. Intellectualism, Respect, and (dare I say) Elitism needs to be restored to the movement. Fear, Hate, and Disgust of "Liberals" can't be the sole reason for Conservatim forever. People need a Philosophical and Intelligent argument for Conservatism, which is sadly missing.

 

[Moonbeam]

Conservative means backward because that is what it is used to preserve. It's the party of Neanderthals terrified to enter the world advanced humans will create.

 

[Duwelon]

I was disappointed when Mccain got the nomination. Not that he won't make a good president, but there are far better choices out there. You had Rush Limbaugh pretty opposed to Mccain and trying to support other candidates, but his support for other candidates wasn't nearly as loud as his opposition to Mccain.

Now that Mccain is nominated though, you would think Rush has been a life long support of Mccain. Basically, the Republican party has sold out *some* of it's principals for a more malliable republican nominee. Mccain is oddly conservative now, but I doubt he'll stay very conservative after the election.

So the conservative base has a nominee who they don't prefer, but are forced to support republicans due to sheer socialist agenda on the other side that wants to enslave America to the government in the name of UHC, "fairness", and other big government programs.

THat's why Palin is so popular, she's imo a true conservative and I honestly won't shed a tear if Mccain has to step aside for any reason and give the reins to Palin. If you want to make a difference in the republican party, make it clear if you send them money that you are only doing it for people like Palin, and not Mccain, and even Bush, although I have no regrets about Bush because he's been one hell of a stalwart leader among the most viscious political attacks and entertainment media bastardizations ever.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Conservative means backward because that is what it is used to preserve. It's the party of Neanderthals terrified to enter the world advanced humans will create.

Conservative means preserving the way of life that made America Great(with a capital G).

Only someone who hates the status quo, aka people who want to tear down Judeo Christian values and institutions and seek to take power from people and give it to a few leaders instead, thinks like a neanderthal.

 

[Duwelon]

What if instead of 1 nomination by a party, we had 2 nominee's each? How would that change the political landscape for the better or worse?

 

[bdude]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
I was disappointed when Mccain got the nomination. Not that he won't make a good president, but there are far better choices out there. You had Rush Limbaugh pretty opposed to Mccain and trying to support other candidates, but his support for other candidates wasn't nearly as loud as his opposition to Mccain.

Now that Mccain is nominated though, you would think Rush has been a life long support of Mccain. Basically, the Republican party has sold out *some* of it's principals for a more malliable republican nominee. Mccain is oddly conservative now, but I doubt he'll stay very conservative after the election.

So the conservative base has a nominee who they don't prefer, but are forced to support republicans due to sheer socialist agenda on the other side that wants to enslave America to the government in the name of UHC, "fairness", and other big government programs.

THat's why Palin is so popular, she's imo a true conservative and I honestly won't shed a tear if Mccain has to step aside for any reason and give the reins to Palin. If you want to make a difference in the republican party, make it clear if you send them money that you are only doing it for people like Palin, and not Mccain, and even Bush, although I have no regrets about Bush because he's been one hell of a stalwart leader among the most viscious political attacks and entertainment media bastardizations ever.

YES, please nominate Palin for 2012. YES PALIN 2012!!!

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

As long as Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the right wing echo chamber are in any way, shape, or form associated with anything "Conservative" in this country your party will fail.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: bdude

Originally posted by: Duwelon
I was disappointed when Mccain got the nomination. Not that he won't make a good president, but there are far better choices out there. You had Rush Limbaugh pretty opposed to Mccain and trying to support other candidates, but his support for other candidates wasn't nearly as loud as his opposition to Mccain.

Now that Mccain is nominated though, you would think Rush has been a life long support of Mccain. Basically, the Republican party has sold out *some* of it's principals for a more malliable republican nominee. Mccain is oddly conservative now, but I doubt he'll stay very conservative after the election.

So the conservative base has a nominee who they don't prefer, but are forced to support republicans due to sheer socialist agenda on the other side that wants to enslave America to the government in the name of UHC, "fairness", and other big government programs.

THat's why Palin is so popular, she's imo a true conservative and I honestly won't shed a tear if Mccain has to step aside for any reason and give the reins to Palin. If you want to make a difference in the republican party, make it clear if you send them money that you are only doing it for people like Palin, and not Mccain, and even Bush, although I have no regrets about Bush because he's been one hell of a stalwart leader among the most viscious political attacks and entertainment media bastardizations ever.

YES, please nominate Palin for 2012. YES PALIN 2012!!!

I've said this before and I'll say it again. If the GOP even considers nominating Palin for 2012 I will personally donate to her campaign. She will send the GOP back even further than Bush did.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Conservative means backward because that is what it is used to preserve. It's the party of Neanderthals terrified to enter the world advanced humans will create.

Conservative means preserving the way of life that made America Great(with a capital G).

Only someone who hates the status quo, aka people who want to tear down Judeo Christian values and institutions and seek to take power from people and give it to a few leaders instead, thinks like a neanderthal.

The Republican disaster that's destroying the nation is the status quo. Christian values are anything but fundamentalist loon values. What we see aren't Christian values, they're shit, filthy backward bigotry.

 

[Lemon law]

Its all well and fine to assert that "I think at its base Conservatism stands on three basic principles: lower taxes, limited government, and free markets. That said, President Bush has certainly set the conservative movement back by at least the number of years he's been in office."

But its far more than that, conservatism is at best a vague term, can be practiced so many different ways. Which means that the results can be good or bad, depending on how conservatism is practiced.

But lower overall taxes either implies a limited government or it is not really true conservatism IMHO. And combine that with totally free markets, and you are more talking about libertarianism than anything that originates in the republican party.

The GOP has made much ado over the Obama remark to Joe the plumber, the idea of redistributing the wealth has a somewhat socialist context. But GWB's taxes cuts also redistribute wealth, as the already rich get far more benefits, meaning the middle class makes up the shortfall, or the shortfall is simply put on the national credit card in the form of spend and borrow. Nor has trickle down economics ever worked.
But alternately, the democratic ideas of soak the rich do not work that well either.

Which implies the correct policy lies somewhere in between those two extremes. But the danger of too much wealth concentrating in too few hands is that it leads to a Hiatian style economy in which there is much higher unemployment, still enough high end goods being produced, but very few customers to buy the even the diminished output of the economy.

So the one immutable iron law of economics is no system of economic can distribute what is not produced. It is what killed communism in Russia, people were not motivated to produce, so what was produced got smaller and smaller.

Go too conservative and what the economy produces goes down, what has happened under GWB, the wealth is still seemingly there, but what is being produced is mostly now phony paper wealth, and its simply put on the national credit card as the middle classes lose their purchasing power.

So sorry, cwjerome, classic conservatism always fails, we now have to go back to a more Clinton type economy. Its like a biological food chain, unless the base of the food chain is healthy, those on top are doomed.

 

[IronWing]

Conservatism died the day Reagan chose deficits over spending cuts. In doing so he paved the way for political irresponsibility on a scale never seen before in this country. Reagan wanted his 600 ship navy and his star wars and his peacekeeper missiles and a plethora of dirty little wars but he couldn't have them without money so he threw his stated ideology into the ash bin and borrowed like a Republican. Conservatives have never been fond of free markets that benefited anyone but themselves.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
I was disappointed when Mccain got the nomination. Not that he won't make a good president, but there are far better choices out there. You had Rush Limbaugh pretty opposed to Mccain and trying to support other candidates, but his support for other candidates wasn't nearly as loud as his opposition to Mccain.

Now that Mccain is nominated though, you would think Rush has been a life long support of Mccain. Basically, the Republican party has sold out *some* of it's principals for a more malliable republican nominee. Mccain is oddly conservative now, but I doubt he'll stay very conservative after the election.

So the conservative base has a nominee who they don't prefer, but are forced to support republicans due to sheer socialist agenda on the other side that wants to enslave America to the government in the name of UHC, "fairness", and other big government programs.

THat's why Palin is so popular, she's imo a true conservative and I honestly won't shed a tear if Mccain has to step aside for any reason and give the reins to Palin. If you want to make a difference in the republican party, make it clear if you send them money that you are only doing it for people like Palin, and not Mccain, and even Bush, although I have no regrets about Bush because he's been one hell of a stalwart leader among the most viscious political attacks and entertainment media bastardizations ever.

Sorry, I really can't take you seriously after reading the bolded sentences.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

THat's why Palin is so popular, she's imo a true conservative and I honestly won't shed a tear if Mccain has to step aside for any reason and give the reins to Palin. .

It really saddens me to know that there are people out there that think as you do... Backwards from the floor up.

As for the GOP, and what they have done to conservatism... Good riddance. I dont care how it died as long as its dead =). Of course it will be back someday soon, but for now, we have at least one election cycle, likely 8 years of Obama to fix it.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Duwelon

THat's why Palin is so popular, she's imo a true conservative and I honestly won't shed a tear if Mccain has to step aside for any reason and give the reins to Palin. .

It really saddens me to know that there are people out there that think as you do... Backwards from the floor up.

As for the GOP, and what they have done to conservatism... Good riddance. I dont care how it died as long as its dead =). Of course it will be back someday soon, but for now, we have at least one election cycle, likely 8 years of Obama to fix it.

Too many Republicans have listened to political entertainers like Limbaugh and Hannity for too long. This has led them to delusions like thinking that Palin is the solution rather than the problem.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Conservative means backward because that is what it is used to preserve. It's the party of Neanderthals terrified to enter the world advanced humans will create.

Conservative means preserving the way of life that made America Great(with a capital G).

Only someone who hates the status quo, aka people who want to tear down Judeo Christian values and institutions and seek to take power from people and give it to a few leaders instead, thinks like a neanderthal.

The Republican disaster that's destroying the nation is the status quo. Christian values are anything but fundamentalist loon values. What we see aren't Christian values, they're shit, filthy backward bigotry.

Just please remember that it wasn't fiscal conservatism, social liberalism, and small government that the Republican party stands for.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: ironwing
Conservatism died the day Reagan chose deficits over spending cuts. In doing so he paved the way for political irresponsibility on a scale never seen before in this country. Reagan wanted his 600 ship navy and his star wars and his peacekeeper missiles and a plethora of dirty little wars but he couldn't have them without money so he threw his stated ideology into the ash bin and borrowed like a Republican. Conservatives have never been fond of free markets that benefited anyone but themselves.

Conservatism died with Reagan? Is that supposed to be comedy? I seriously doubt you have any idea at all...

Conquering communism was just as conservative a notion as small (spending) government and in the political world pragmatism and sacrifices are sometimes made to achieve a just as important ideological end. What is wrong with you that you think a politician somehow embodies some ideologically pure principle and never deviates. Not only is it impossible, it's stupid.

 

[cwjerome]

Jesus LL, your whole post -as usual- is a giant non-sequitur. Classic conservatism always fails you say? Is that what we've had this past 8 years, "classic conservatism?" Care to define that?

There is no ONE conservatism, never has been, never will be. This fact was assumed in the OP... the modern conservative movement dating from the 1950s is an evolving mixture of various factions.

 

[quest55720]

I am sure the conservative movement will make a big comeback soon. It won't take long for the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triangle of doom to make shit worse than it is right now. People will be back on the fiscal conservative band wagon soon enough. Won't take a year or 2 of high taxes to pay for social programs to get people on board. Obama has backed himself into a corner. He either has to raise taxes on everyone or cut back on his trillion dollars of new social spending. Either way he breaks some major promises and it will only help the conservative movement.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: quest55720
I am sure the conservative movement will make a big comeback soon. It won't take long for the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triangle of doom to make shit worse than it is right now. People will be back on the fiscal conservative band wagon soon enough. Won't take a year or 2 of high taxes to pay for social programs to get people on board. Obama has backed himself into a corner. He either has to raise taxes on everyone or cut back on his trillion dollars of new social spending. Either way he breaks some major promises and it will only help the conservative movement.

State the last year you think we were on the fiscal conservative band wagon... It definitely hasn't been in the past eight years.

 

[Jhhnn]

Modern conservatives harbor a variety of illusions, both about themselves and the world around them. They're mostly drawn together by some very carefully formulated sloganeering and framing from rightwing thinktanks. They all hold some idealized notions about America's past, whether that's the 50's, the 20's, the 1890's or the earlier westward expansion. They believe, to the last man, in things that aren't true, that never were true.

CWJerome's attack on big govt and defense of Reagan in the same thread exemplifies their dilemma. Ronnie claimed the $1T national debt he inherited was an abomination, and then proceeded to quadruple it. He created the modern financial structure of SS, and set the stage for its demise with the same deficit spending. He championed the forgotten american, and broke the balls off of Labor every chance he got. He cut taxes for America's wealthiest, setting the stage for the huge inequality of today. He funded the contras with illegal arms sales to Iran, armed and funded the Mujahedin, today's Taliban, along with the Contras and Salvadoran/ Guatemalan death squads. He believed AIDS was God's punishment for the unrighteous, and consulted astrologers, too...

Yeh, that's the idol of modern conservatives... a real peach. He does get credit for going against his own (conservative) advisors in accepting Gorbachev's initiatives wrt nuclear weapons and the end of the cold war... but that wasn't really "conservative", now was it?

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: quest55720
I am sure the conservative movement will make a big comeback soon. It won't take long for the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triangle of doom to make shit worse than it is right now. People will be back on the fiscal conservative band wagon soon enough. Won't take a year or 2 of high taxes to pay for social programs to get people on board. Obama has backed himself into a corner. He either has to raise taxes on everyone or cut back on his trillion dollars of new social spending. Either way he breaks some major promises and it will only help the conservative movement.

State the last year you think we were on the fiscal conservative band wagon... It definitely hasn't been in the past eight years.

2000 when the social conservative bush took over. Outside tax cuts bush has been the most fiscal liberal president since carter. It won't get any better now that we will have 3 fiscal liberals running the country. Hopefully fiscal conservatives can take a few seats in 2 years and in 4 years take back the white house.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: ironwing
Conservatism died the day Reagan chose deficits over spending cuts. In doing so he paved the way for political irresponsibility on a scale never seen before in this country. Reagan wanted his 600 ship navy and his star wars and his peacekeeper missiles and a plethora of dirty little wars but he couldn't have them without money so he threw his stated ideology into the ash bin and borrowed like a Republican. Conservatives have never been fond of free markets that benefited anyone but themselves.

Conservatism died with Reagan? Is that supposed to be comedy? I seriously doubt you have any idea at all...

Conquering communism was just as conservative a notion as small (spending) government and in the political world pragmatism and sacrifices are sometimes made to achieve a just as important ideological end. What is wrong with you that you think a politician somehow embodies some ideologically pure principle and never deviates. Not only is it impossible, it's stupid.

Reagan conquered communism for one reason and one reason only, he stopped being a moron conservative with all their stupid absolutisms like bamacre has in his sig and adopted the pragmatic and infinitely sensible idea of negotiating with your enemy. He found, not an evil emperor, but a leader looking for a way to save his country from communist madness. They were able to find accommodation.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Conservative means backward because that is what it is used to preserve. It's the party of Neanderthals terrified to enter the world advanced humans will create.

lol, you are something special

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I think at its base Conservatism stands on three basic principles: lower taxes, limited government, and free markets.

Really?

I think conservatism - the ideology rarely seen by all you yahoos since Reagan in the runaway right-wing - stands for something else. It's not a definition everyone will agree on.

In fact, I'm not going to try to define it in this post - sorting through its seemingly contradictory tenets isn't worth the bother.

But I'll note the absence of "liberty", of "individual rights", in your 'basic principles'.

You not only make what I view as a mistake so often made of equating 'liberty' and 'capitalism'; you actually get rid of the pesky 'liberty' issues and only implicitly give any reference to them in one of the three 'principles', 'limited government' which can be defined many ways, many of them economic, and we've seen how Republicans can define it.

Are you an opponent of Teddy Roosevelt because he was a 'progressive Republican', as opposed to, for example, Taft?

Your first 'principle' is nonsensically written, because as written it would require pushing taxes to zero, if not negative taxation. You fail to offer any guidelines for where to set the tax rates by principle, you only say 'lower'. Not lower than what, not 'but above such and such'.

Your second 'principle' is absurdly amorphous. Should 'limited government' follow Jefferson's call for never having a standing military, for example?

Your third 'principle', our founding fathers would not agree with much - I guess you are against those 'liberals' too - our nation relied almost entirely on tariffs for its revenue.

As this useful article notes:

Between the Civil War and the Second World War, the USA was literally the most heavily protected economy in the world...

In protecting their industries, the Americans were going against the advice of such prominent economists as Adam Smith and Jean Baptiste Say, who saw the country?s future in agriculture. However, the Americans knew exactly what the game was. They knew that Britain reached the top through protection and subsidies and therefore that they needed to do the same if they were going to get anywhere. Criticising the British preaching of free trade to his country, Ulysses Grant, the Civil War hero and the US President between 1868-1876, retorted that ?within 200 years, when America has gotten out of protection all that it can offer, it too will adopt free trade?. When his country later reached the top after the Second World War, it too started ?kicking away the ladder? by preaching and forcing free trade to the less developed countries.

In short, your 'principles' lack principle IMO, with little to nothing for the good of mankind - instead of making the priority what is good for people, you insist on certain systems.

You should consider what you're concerned with. If limited government, in what sense? Would a private tyranny of an oligarchy of Rockefellers and Waltons be ok?

Is the 're-distribution of power' from the 'natural' system of such an oligarchy, to the masses via democracy (and powerful government), something you advocate or oppose?

Is public education - a massive government project - something you support or oppose?

I avoid the ideological that tends to get caught up in catchphrases (e.g., 'lower taxes', 'limited government') and judge policies on their own merits (in other words, not 'does the policy fir the catch phrase', but 'is the policy going to have a desirable effect?' Far too many 'conservatives' lack much coherency but to be 'against communism'. These people are all too manipulatable by the powerful interests who pursue their own interests at the expense of society and hide behind the 'conservative catch phrases'.