Why is History so unkind to Conservatives? Kind to Liberals?

[Narmer]

I guess those that prey on fear and are content with the status quo aren't in sync with the drive of mankind, which (I think) is advancement.

History is littered with revolutionaries that were laughed at, lambasted, and/or persecuted in their time. Today, it is the conservatives that cherish their idealism and seek to protect while the liberals want to carry it to the next level. A simple example of this would be the bedrock of Western Civilization, Christianity.

History is littered with conservatives who were made to look like fools as time passed. Joseph McCarthy is an easy example. But others include about every monarchy known to man and their fight against what those in the West would consider Freemasonic idealism.

May God bless inclusion, freedom, and ingenuity.

 

[sandorski]

Conservatism helps to keep the pace of change steady and prevents going too far too fast, but basically you are correct. A world of rampant Liberalism would suck as much as a world of rampant Conservatism IMO. It's a Ying/Yang thing.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Conservatism helps to keep the pace of change steady and prevents going too far too fast, but basically you are correct. A world of rampant Liberalism would suck as much as a world of rampant Conservatism IMO. It's a Ying/Yang thing.

You're right. Too much of anything is bad.

 

[Rainsford]

I'm not sure I'd say that all conservatives and all liberals are part of two homogeneous groups, but there is certainly a brand of conservatives who's lot in history is to look like idiots time and time again. And those conservatives seem to be in charge of the right-wing in THIS country at least. There is nothing wrong with a lot of conservative ideas, but the problem is reactionary people who are fundamentally opposed to anything different or radical and who think the best time in this country was 1957. Liberalism has the same issues of course, as history is littered with "radical" liberal ideas that are mainstream, or even conservative, today. But liberals also have their hippies. If history seems to be more kind to liberals than conservatives, it might be because liberals have a higher value to kook ratio.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

"Joseph McCarthy" needed no help from historians to look like a fool. He did just fine by himself, unless you posit someone else wrote his speeches for him.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm not sure I'd say that all conservatives and all liberals are part of two homogeneous groups, but there is certainly a brand of conservatives who's lot in history is to look like idiots time and time again. And those conservatives seem to be in charge of the right-wing in THIS country at least. There is nothing wrong with a lot of conservative ideas, but the problem is reactionary people who are fundamentally opposed to anything different or radical and who think the best time in this country was 1957. Liberalism has the same issues of course, as history is littered with "radical" liberal ideas that are mainstream, or even conservative, today. But liberals also have their hippies. If history seems to be more kind to liberals than conservatives, it might be because liberals have a higher value to kook ratio.

I don't understand that last part.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Narmer
I guess those that prey on fear and are content with the status quo aren't in sync with the drive of mankind, which (I think) is advancement.

History is littered with revolutionaries that were laughed at, lambasted, and/or persecuted in their time. Today, it is the conservatives that cherish their idealism and seek to protect while the liberals want to carry it to the next level. A simple example of this would be the bedrock of Western Civilization, Christianity.

History is littered with conservatives who were made to look like fools as time passed. Joseph McCarthy is an easy example. But others include about every monarchy known to man and their fight against what those in the West would consider Freemasonic idealism.

May God bless inclusion, freedom, and ingenuity.

bWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

McCarthy wasn't made to look like a fool...he was a total and complete ass all on his own and people finally found out about it.

Chrisitianity (and all religions) have been a crutch and a foudation of hate, abuse, prejudice, and general evil for many thousands of years.

What I'm trying to say is, history isn't always misrepresenting things - it's often just clarifying them.

 

[Steeplerot]

More conservative victimization hurrah! Poor poor you.

You want to know why? When there is a great liberal moment someone wins civil rights, a great injustice is defeated etc.

When there is a big conservative moment it usually involves large amounts of people being stuffed into a oven or some such idea.

The world will always move forward, going back is a stupid idea as history is manipulated to look favorable to the scared ignorant people.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Narmer
I guess those that prey on fear and are content with the status quo aren't in sync with the drive of mankind, which (I think) is advancement.

History is littered with revolutionaries that were laughed at, lambasted, and/or persecuted in their time. Today, it is the conservatives that cherish their idealism and seek to protect while the liberals want to carry it to the next level. A simple example of this would be the bedrock of Western Civilization, Christianity.

History is littered with conservatives who were made to look like fools as time passed. Joseph McCarthy is an easy example. But others include about every monarchy known to man and their fight against what those in the West would consider Freemasonic idealism.

May God bless inclusion, freedom, and ingenuity.

Topic Title: Why is History so unkind to Conservatives? Kind to Liberals?

Bahahahahahaaa :laugh:

I heard Hannity today say the same thing.

You on his staff?

He set up a "Hate Hannity Hot Line" as well.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
More conservative victimization hurrah! Poor poor you.

You want to know why? When there is a great liberal moment someone wins civil rights, a great injustice is defeated etc.

When there is a big conservative moment it usually involves large amounts of people being stuffed into a oven or some such idea.

The world will always move forward, going back is a stupid idea as history is manipulated to look favorable to the scared ignorant people.

Hindsight is 20/20, as PrinceofWands asserted. What's odd is that people are willing to have similar fights over and over again. However, I'd be interested in a bad liberal moment or a good conservative moment if you have any. The obvious ones I can think of would involve the advent of communism, but that is more or less a feudal system by any other name wrapped in the aforementioned Freemasonic idealisms.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Narmer
I guess those that prey on fear and are content with the status quo aren't in sync with the drive of mankind, which (I think) is advancement.

History is littered with revolutionaries that were laughed at, lambasted, and/or persecuted in their time. Today, it is the conservatives that cherish their idealism and seek to protect while the liberals want to carry it to the next level. A simple example of this would be the bedrock of Western Civilization, Christianity.

History is littered with conservatives who were made to look like fools as time passed. Joseph McCarthy is an easy example. But others include about every monarchy known to man and their fight against what those in the West would consider Freemasonic idealism.

May God bless inclusion, freedom, and ingenuity.

Topic Title: Why is History so unkind to Conservatives? Kind to Liberals?

Bahahahahahaaa :laugh:

I heard Hannity today say the same thing.

You on his staff?

He set up a "Hate Hannity Hot Line" as well.

I don't listen to Hannity and Colmes. This is a topic I've been thinking about for years. Pure coincidence. What did he say?

 

[Arkaign]

Well LBJ is widely panned, and rightly so .. and he's not a 'conservative' .. and look at Carter, by all accounts a great human being, but his presidency is viewed as an utter failure.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Well LBJ is widely panned, and rightly so .. and he's not a 'conservative' .. and look at Carter, by all accounts a great human being, but his presidency is viewed as an utter failure.

Can you provide more detail?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Well LBJ is widely panned, and rightly so .. and he's not a 'conservative' .. and look at Carter, by all accounts a great human being, but his presidency is viewed as an utter failure.

Can you provide more detail?

Well, LBJ was so hated that he actually declined to run for his 2nd term, and was also responsible for dividing the democratic party into several factions, each backing different policies and candidates.

Carter, while well regarded as a sincere humanitarian, and well-liked by most people, is undeniably viewed as a failure, having accomplished little during his 4-year term (bouncing off of the Republican / Nixon implosion!) and he, whatever the reason, could not get the Iran hostage crisis handled fast enough to appear competent. He was trounced by Reagan for the 1980 election.

Both are viewed harshly, and rightly so. I loathe LBJ, and respect Carter, but both of their presidencies were more debacle than success by almost any measurement.

Does that explain it?

 

[UberNeuman]

Being Conservative or Liberal is wonderful - until the viewpoint for both sways into a fundamental stance that doesn't learn from mistakes and keeps "staying the course."

The "conservatives" as of late are much the type that will not admit error, will not look to change, will not accept the voices of dissent...

 

[Genx87]

Conservatism doesnt have true roots. As an ideology it is more or less defined as resisting change and preserving the status quo.

What the mainstream conservative movement in the United States is trying to preserve is the old ideals of liberalism. To keep those roots which our founding fathers planted from being pulled to the left by big govt.

As for right minded ideologies. There is plenty of disasters on both sides of the aisle to go around.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Well LBJ is widely panned, and rightly so .. and he's not a 'conservative' .. and look at Carter, by all accounts a great human being, but his presidency is viewed as an utter failure.

Can you provide more detail?

Well, LBJ was so hated that he actually declined to run for his 2nd term, and was also responsible for dividing the democratic party into several factions, each backing different policies and candidates.

Carter, while well regarded as a sincere humanitarian, and well-liked by most people, is undeniably viewed as a failure, having accomplished little during his 4-year term (bouncing off of the Republican / Nixon implosion!) and he, whatever the reason, could not get the Iran hostage crisis handled fast enough to appear competent. He was trounced by Reagan for the 1980 election.

Both are viewed harshly, and rightly so. I loathe LBJ, and respect Carter, but both of their presidencies were more debacle than success by almost any measurement.

Does that explain it?

I don't know much about LBJ but I do know that he "stayed the course" in Vietnam. That may have had something to do with his unpopularity and it is a conservative mantra. I also remember hearing about his "Great Society" program. How was that?

As for Carter, he may not be remembered for his overall Presidency but he will be remembered for his peace drive in the Middle East. And he did get a Nobel Prize, right?

I'm not going to defend every liberal or frown upon every conservative, but there is a general theme throughout the ages, which is that liberalism is remembered more fondly than conservatism. Perhaps it is not surprising that you mention these two men, who are more or less accidental Presidents. Under normal circumstances, they would've stayed the exception. Perhaps that is why they still are.

Originally posted by: Genx87
Conservatism doesnt have true roots. As an ideology it is more or less defined as resisting change and preserving the status quo.

What the mainstream conservative movement in the United States is trying to preserve is the old ideals of liberalism. To keep those roots which our founding fathers planted from being pulled to the left by big govt.

As for right minded ideologies. There is plenty of disasters on both sides of the aisle to go around.

You've said quite a lot there. It's especially glaring considering that you agree with me. But even more so considering that the current conservative government in power is all about big government and uprooting those freedoms you so cherish. What do you have to say about that?

 

[Screech]

I'm not going to defend every liberal or frown upon every conservative, but there is a general theme throughout the ages, which is that liberalism is remembered more fondly than conservatism.

I think you need to be careful in making such a statement, mainly in terms of distinguishing modern "liberalism" from historic liberalism. I agree with your premise in that historically, "liberals" who agitated for change have been viewed in a more positive light than conservatives.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Conservatism doesnt have true roots. As an ideology it is more or less defined as resisting change and preserving the status quo.

What the mainstream conservative movement in the United States is trying to preserve is the old ideals of liberalism. To keep those roots which our founding fathers planted from being pulled to the left by big govt.

As for right minded ideologies. There is plenty of disasters on both sides of the aisle to go around.

I wish that were so, but look at the NeoConservative movement, most of the rank and file so-called 'conservatives' locked in goose-step with this bunch of maniacs, and look where it's taken our country. It's a laundry list of expanded government power, total disregard to public opinion (the Iraq war, specifically), arrogance towards the world community and international law (Rumsfeld on Gitmo : 'It abides by the Geneva Convention, for the most part'), crony attorney generals committed to destroying the rule of law as it existed before (Ashcroft, no comment necessary, and now this new jerk trying to subvert the rule of law), it just goes on and on.

Clinton was a prick, but as much as I was displeased with him at the time, I'd give almost anything if he was in the W.H. instead of this delusional jackass.

GW Bush should burn in a special hell, along with Saddam, and later Ahmedinejad, Chavez, and other enemies of freedom and peace.

Bring back the conservatism you speak of, and we'll talk. There's nothing 'status quo' about Bush and his cadre of fake conservatives.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: screech

I'm not going to defend every liberal or frown upon every conservative, but there is a general theme throughout the ages, which is that liberalism is remembered more fondly than conservatism.

I think you need to be careful in making such a statement, mainly in terms of distinguishing modern "liberalism" from historic liberalism. I agree with your premise in that historically, "liberals" who agitated for change have been viewed in a more positive light than conservatives.

This could have something to do with people known as 'conservatives' fighting against letting women vote, fighting against civil rights, fighting against freedom in general through the decades.

 

[Legend]

You've said quite a lot there. It's especially glaring considering that you agree with me. But even more so considering that the current conservative government in power is all about big government and uprooting those freedoms you so cherish. What do you have to say about that?

The Executive Branch admin is socially conservative and economically liberal. Liberal in a different way than Democrats. Spending more than you have, whether it be for more social security or national healthcare (Democrats) or for old people's meds and tax cuts (Republicans) is by definition spending money liberally.

Basically what I'm saying is that Bush != conservative. IMO he's missing the best part about conservatives...Economic liberty.

 

[Moonbeam]

I find this rather simply-mindedly silly, really. I think liberal and conservative are two sides of the same coin, the coin that is seen as one coin when opposites are integrated in higher understanding. Each is equally valid and equally false depending. It is the higher understanding that makes it possible to spend the coin and collect its value, not the contest as to which face is better. Truth and higher understanding involve the elimination of paradox through integration at higher levels of understanding.

Let us look at one example, how liberals and conservatives deal with the notion of criminal evil. The conservative says that man is basically evil and without the threat of punishment will commit crimes. The liberal says that man is good and that punishment is wrong, that rehabilitation is needed, that empathy and understanding should fix the problem of crime. The fact is there is right and wrong in each position.

Crime is a function and result of self hate, something, however, which all of us were made to feel. It expresses itself differently in different people, but beneath the surface has the identical root. As children we were made to conform, to follow some invisible standard and pattern we could not comprehend. The liberal rebels and sympathizes with the oppressed whereas the conservative adopts and identifies with the oppressor. The conservative seeks stability and fairness in control and the liberal in freedom of expression. The liberal wants what he believes is th good in him to be free and the conservative wants to repress what is bad in him. This duality is the result of the notion of good and evil. At a higher understanding one sees there is no such thing as good and evil. These are ideas created by language that label and create emotional feelings. Once one assigns reality to, say evil, one can be made to feel that is who one is by being put down and called that, made to feel that, as a child. Once that feeling is in place it has to be suppressed because it is tremendously painful to feel that you are actually no good. It is this suppression that prevents integration in higher understanding. The liberals fight to proclaim their innocence and the innocence of all men and the conservatives fight to keep all hell from breaking loose.

Both are right and both are wrong. If you encourage people who are filled with self hate to accept who they are as good they will commit all manner of evil. They will act their negative feelings out. If you try to repress evil it just becomes more difficult to discover and weed out. Humanity is not good or evil as such. Humanity is sick and can heal. This can happen only through religious transcendence or psychoanalysis, self understanding, in my opinion. All else, I think, is just the wheel of karma, and endless back and forth between imaginary poles that are really the same.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm not sure I'd say that all conservatives and all liberals are part of two homogeneous groups, but there is certainly a brand of conservatives who's lot in history is to look like idiots time and time again. And those conservatives seem to be in charge of the right-wing in THIS country at least. There is nothing wrong with a lot of conservative ideas, but the problem is reactionary people who are fundamentally opposed to anything different or radical and who think the best time in this country was 1957. Liberalism has the same issues of course, as history is littered with "radical" liberal ideas that are mainstream, or even conservative, today. But liberals also have their hippies. If history seems to be more kind to liberals than conservatives, it might be because liberals have a higher value to kook ratio.

I don't understand that last part.

Engineering term. The number of "good people" in the liberal movement through history is pretty high compared to the number of kooks in that same history. When you do a similar comparison to conservative history, the comparison is not so favorable to the "good people". Hell, it's not even people, it's ideas. Anyone who says conservatives haven't done their share hasn't been paying attention, but when you look at the big ideological conflicts, liberals seem to be on the right side more often, if you'll pardon the pun.

 

[teclado]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Chrisitianity (and all religions) have been a crutch and a foudation of hate, abuse, prejudice, and general evil for many thousands of years.

Loving thy neighbor is general evil? I'll keep that in mind.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but the general principles of (most) religions are not intended to create "hate, abuse, prejudice, and general evil," but rather the opposite. I know what you mean, though. There are (and have been) many who kill, hate, and propagate genuine evil in the name of their religion. The religions themselves are not to blame, but their follower wannabes.

 

[Tab]

Wow, I actually understood Moonbeam's post...

Narmer, I would think it would be most helpful if you would give us some specific examples.