posted
Ok, so you win on that. Still, I think it has become less and less of a priority and more of a rhetorical tool about liberal government programs. The Social and Religious priorities are ten times more abundant than the economic priorities.
Three points for Dagonees textual proficiency. Still think its a less than honest portrayal of what Conservatives current positions are.
quote:Honestly, Dagonee, most(notice I said most) self-described conservatives are communitarians. No matter what those links might say, I don't think it's a stretch to say that the conservative ideal is bent towards pushing the individual to behave within the 'traditional' community.
Which doesn't speak to big government, of course. Nor does it match most of my experience.
posted
Anyone find it ironic that the conservative point of view is apparently quite subject to change?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a liberal, any war in the other camp is good news for me.
Keep it up, and you won't be able to keep in power past 2006.
I enjoy debates and discussions, but I think everyone here would agree there is one definition of Conservative that is wrong--"Anything President Bush does is Conservative."
Yet much of what I hear from some outspoken young people claiming to be "True Conservatives" is Presidential Apologetics.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:As a liberal, any war in the other camp is good news for me.
The problem is, for liberals, the war is over. The only thing left is small skirmishes by those like Dagonee who still cling to what has become in the Bush/Religious Right years antiquated. Just read that list I gave.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then what that means is that the Conservative stand that Dagonee says he holds has pretty close to given up. If I am understanding what he is saying correctly -- loyalty and winning, over ideals for the "more small government first" group.
posted
As a side note, I'm amazed at how radically non-conservative W's politics are in comparison to Herbie's, honestly.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only thing left is small skirmishes by those like Dagonee who still cling to what has become in the Bush/Religious Right years antiquated. Just read that list I gave.
First, that list you gave is on a site that is dedicated to the social side of conservatism. No wonder it lists sites that have social conservative bents. And even among them, limited government is a big theme.
Second, it ain't over. I, and many like me, will tolerate this when necessary, especially when the corresponding choices are so bad. But this isn't final.
quote: Which doesn't speak to big government, of course. Nor does it match most of my experience.
So, in your experience, conservatives that you've known aren't for a strong military and civilian police force? Conservatives you've known aren't for various laws that enforce, or promote, the mythical traditional ideal? You don't know of a lot of conservatives that are for public schools that promote traditional values--flags in the classroom, traditional social standards taught, love of country taught? Interesting.
See, my experience is that neither side is for 'big government' when that government isn't working towards things they value, but both sides are for government that works towards things they value and supports their group. If government interference helps them to achieve that, they're for it. If government interference would screw with power they already have, or intrude on areas they think are fine on their own, they're against it.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You win on the rhetoric. I've already agreed with that. Now the question is, what is "small government" mean? Do you feel they represent that?
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
WOW! I’m just getting home. Went for my Tuesday night run with the Hash House Harriers. What a trail. But anyway, then I had to pick up my neighbors from the airport. So I have a lot of catching up to do but doubt I’ll get to much tonight!
But I wanted to say it is so nice to have a buddy here on Hatrack. Thanks for the words of encouragement Occasional.
Ok, Farmgirl has been there too, but she likes to stay out of the big discussions for the most part.
Now to catch up….. Doubt I’ll post more tonight. But tomorrow looks promising at work again!
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, in your experience, conservatives that you've known aren't for a strong military and civilian police force?
Both traditionally can only be effectuated by the government.
quote:Conservatives you've known aren't for various laws that enforce, or promote, the mythical traditional ideal? You don't know of a lot of conservatives that are for public schools that promote traditional values--flags in the classroom, traditional social standards taught, love of country taught? Interesting.
I didn't say that. I said that's not big government.
quote:See, my experience is that neither side is for 'big government' when that government isn't working towards things they value, but both sides are for government that works towards things they value and supports their group. If government interference helps them to achieve that, they're for it. If government interference would screw with power they already have, or intrude on areas they think are fine on their own, they're against it.
Interesting that you'd call anything that happens in school "government interference." Why do you think I support school choice so much? Because the continuing entrenchment of the government is forcing religion and morality out of more and more areas of public life. Allowing more private service providers is directly aimed at this.
posted
See, S.S., my experience is the same thing. I do believe in less economic governmental interference. But, I am not for less governmental interference in social causes.
Bringing me back to the question I had; what does "smaller government" mean? Less interference or less size? I guess that is a matter of opinion.
posted
I figured out why I'm so annoyed. When someone calls me a token (and please don't pretend it wasn't obvious that I was one of those you were referring to), calls me suspect, and attempts to coopt my beliefs, I get testy. Especially when he doesn't have the balls to do it by name.
What you are describing as "real" is now known as "neo-conservative," and it basically consists of a loose coalition between several groups whose goals are, while not complementary, still compatible, such as religious groups and war hawks (seems like it would be incompatible, doesn't it?). One of the reasons neo-conservatism is on the rise is that one needn't have a real understanding of the issues to find it appealing, since it is the philosophy that many of the emotional arguments tend to best coincide with, such as the "my country right or wrong patriotism, or the desire to legislate specific religious dogmas. I find this coalition very scary.
However, traditional conservatism, like the kind Dagonee represents, is the one that has been a major part of the political topography of the nation since its inception. It's the one based on federalism, the same ideas that you can find in the Federalist papers that were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay (who went on to sit on the Supreme Court) as arguments for the ratification of the constitution. It is a philosophy that isn't going anywhere, and if the Neo-Conservatives completely take over the Republican Party, I'm sure the party will split, because it's still an idea that resonates with a huge number of those who bother to come up with a coherent political philosophy. It comes, in large part, from the writings of John Locke, especially in that it places property as an important (if not the most important) concern of society, and particularly the protection of one's own property against things like exorbitant taxes. Arguments that you hear on C-Span (though, from your comments, I really doubt you watch congressional proceedings much) for lower taxes often come straight down from Locke himself, and they haven't changed much.
I am what you would call a liberal, but even I understand that true conservatism has been a huge force in our society and that the tenets it espouses, though I don't agree with all of them, are based on a reasonable set of principles intended to strengthen the nation, and not ephemeral emotional appeals like the things neo-conservatives have been doing.
Dagonee is my favorite conservative on the board, because even when I can't agree with him, his level of discourse and experience is so high that one can't really dismiss what he is saying. I always feel that I have a great deal to learn from him. People like Jay and his predecessors are really really easy to dismiss. That's why they aren't successful.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly my point about the go with what you've got thing -- the neocons controlled the Republican primary agenda in 2000, and the conservatives weren't able to steal it back (though McCain gave a spirited try, it was not spirited in the really-had-a-chance sense once the primaries had actually started). And since you're talking about the primaries, who one should have voted for in the main election matters little, though its worth pointing out that Gore's proposed budgets were significantly more fiscally conservative than Bush's budgets, both proposed and real.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And my argument, Idem, is that kind of Conservatism is losing ground fast. NOT that it was never part of the philosophy, but that it is becoming (if not on the edge) antiquated. At best it is getting assimilated and redifined.
I am not sure if Neo-Conservatism is the one that is gaining ground (unless you count the social and religious concerns in with that). It is larger than that International viewpoint position.
quote:...most(notice I said most) self-described conservatives are communitarians. No matter what those links might say, I don't think it's a stretch to say that the conservative ideal is bent towards pushing the individual to behave within the 'traditional' community.
I think this deserves comment. While this is true, the 'traditional' values is much higher priority than the 'community.' At least in conservatism according to me. The reason Republicans arose was to oppose issues that would have persisted in a strictly democratic system but were simply immoral i.e. slavery. Of course, in those days I guess the Republicans would have been the liberals and the Democrats the conservatives.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, you are right, the true conservative position may be losing ground to the Neo-Conservative coalition, just as it lost ground to progressivism practically since FDR through 1994. The point is, however, that it is still a major presence and that it is not, as you claim, on it's last legs. The "real" conservatives (and by that I mean limited government folk, not neo-cons) as Dag said above, are just putting up with the Neo-Con stuff because it got them into power. However, it's a lot easier to find a Republican who is pro-choice than it is to find a Republican who is for, for example, the welfare system (an oft-touted "Big Government" program). The criteria you are using to judge conservative are not the ones they use to define themselves. I'll be back soon. I have to collect my thoughts.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The old definition doesn't fit, and those who are at best moderate Conservatives don't seem to recognize that fact.
I was rereading, and this struck me as terribly strange. Am I imagining the irony in this sentence? The people who aren't Conservative enough are those that won't adopt the new definition of Conservative?
posted
I think finally learned when it was the Democrats became liberal and the Republicans were pushed into conservativeness. On a PBS MLK day special, MLK called Johnson and explained to him that if a democrat president gave the blacks the vote, the blacks would give the democrats the south. Was it possibly an accident of who happened to be in the White House when MLK's crest of influence arrived? I guess a Republican wouldn't have been influenced if they felt they didn't need to worry about gaining the South. I don't know.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is fine. I consider most liberals here insulting, if for nothing more than their arrogance and hatred.
It's funny. I'm pretty sure it's the hatred that keeps me from not being a troll.
Mothertree,
Do you really set Jay and Fugu equal to each other in terms of not being a troll? And I don't think it's as simple as MLK and LBJ. FDR and Adlai Stevenson and Kennedy were all more sympathetic to civil rights than Hoover, Eisenhower, Goldwater, and I think most people agree that Nixon made the Republican party the white guy's party.
posted
While that's an interesting theory, it probably would have more to do with the fact that LBJ happened to be in office at the time. Kennedy was working on the Civil Rights issues, but he was assassinated. Eisenhower made symbolic attempts at fighting for civil rights (like passing a voting rights act that had the result of an increase in African American voting that came to about 3%) but wasn't going to do anything bigger.
Another thing to remember about the civil rights movement is that it actually split on the states right's issue. For the federal government to pass a civil rights bill is is to impose on the state police powers. In fact they did it in a fairly sneaky way. If you haven't had a constitutional law class, you may not know that the Constitutional Power cited by Congress for a lot of the civil rights legislation is the power to regulate inter-state commerce! The constitution really doesn't give the Congress power to pass such sweeping legislation geared at governing individuals. It is more designed to govern the states. Nevertheless, the congress passed laws saying owners of private businesses couldn't segregate! That represented not only a victory in the civil rights movement, but a fairly large shift of power from the states to the Congress, and if the Warren court hadn't been on the bench, it wouldn't have flown.
The point is that a Republican president, being for small government, probably would not have done the sweeping things for civil rights that LBJ did. All one has to do is look at the campaign literature of the guy who ran against him, a man by the name of Barry Goldwater.
A lot of issue that people look at on the surface and take to be isolated emotional fights have at their root the struggle between state government and the federal. That's why the small government school will always be around.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidentally, I meant to bring that up earlier, when fugu said the "fiction" of the commerce clause doesn't come up much. Trust me fugu, it comes up ALL the time, because usually when Congress passes a law intended to "promote the general welfare" it does so under the commerce clause. The Rehnquist court has started to push a lot of that stuff back, but some examples are the Violence against Women Act in the early nineties (using the fact that cities with higher Rape rates discourage tourism, which is interstate commerce, so there should be civil remedies, harsher penalties, etc.,) a law concerning guns in schools (because guns in schools harms education, which is essential for employment, which allows, income which is used for commerce, so there should be stronger penalties to protect commerce) etc.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, no, it doesn't come up in political discourse. I can't think of any republican politican offhand who denounces it. Nary a one.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm confused. You seem very sarcastic there, but I really haven't heard about it much in the media, even from Republican interview subjects. Like... at all. The first I had ever heard of it was in my Con Law class. And I watch C-Span for fun! (Or I did when I got it.)
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
If you mean the comment above, I'm not being sarcastic. The no, no is chiding myself on not being clearer, and the assorted stuff towards the end is amusement.
My point was/is that it isn't part of political discourse, at all, really. No one, republican or democrat, "conservative" or "liberal", in congress voices any concern over the use of the commerce clause as a political bludgeon.
That's a problem I have, actually, my amusement being mistaken for derision in many cases (this doesn't just happen online). I take amusement from many things (I consider it a strength).
However, for instance in language classes, someone will say something (mistakenly) which is incredibly amusing. I will often burst into abrupt laughter. I mean them no derision at all, god knows my own attempts are fraught with mistakes. I am just exceedinly amused at whatever thoughts their mistake triggered.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's a part of the political discourse in that it is a reflection of the larger debate over the extent of the power of the federal government.However you are right in that it isn't specifically mentioned much outside of floor debates on the specific statutes where it's being used, simply because it's fairly high concept for inclusion in mass market media. I haven't read a lot of the think tank stuff I must admit, but I imagine they talk about it a lot more, and I KNOW that SCOTUS has been taking an interest.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its not just a fairly high concept; almost no politicians (particularly if we're talking about congresspeople) seem to have any desire to get rid of it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:So, in your experience, conservatives that you've known aren't for a strong military and civilian police force?
Both traditionally can only be effectuated by the government.
And, traditionally, conservatives are for 'larger' versions of these.
quote: quote:Conservatives you've known aren't for various laws that enforce, or promote, the mythical traditional ideal? You don't know of a lot of conservatives that are for public schools that promote traditional values--flags in the classroom, traditional social standards taught, love of country taught? Interesting.
I didn't say that. I said that's not big government.
Why isn't it 'big government'? It's the state engaging itself in people's lives in a very pervasive way.
quote: quote:See, my experience is that neither side is for 'big government' when that government isn't working towards things they value, but both sides are for government that works towards things they value and supports their group. If government interference helps them to achieve that, they're for it. If government interference would screw with power they already have, or intrude on areas they think are fine on their own, they're against it.
Interesting that you'd call anything that happens in school "government interference." Why do you think I support school choice so much? Because the continuing entrenchment of the government is forcing religion and morality out of more and more areas of public life. Allowing more private service providers is directly aimed at this.
I didn't say that 'anything that happens in school' is government interference. It's only interference if it contradicts what the individual or the group wants, eh? Othewise, it's a helping hand.
What I did say, and you aren't contradicting it with your statements, is that both liberals and conservatives seem to be for government in size and scope that helps them to accomplish their ends. Don't you think this is often true?
Now, there are people on both sides out there who are willing to live and let live, short of someone throwing a rock through their window, so to speak, and I think you are one of those people in a lot of ways, but I do very much believe that the power of the state is just so tempting and easy to use and abuse, I think most people on both sides jump to use government before they ask themselves if their goals could better be accomplished through persuasion.
Now, don't get me wrong. I don't look down my nose at people who want to use the power of the state.
I guess what I'm saying is that size is relative. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
[breaking in to thread with inane and stupid comment] I like tater-tots [/breaking in to thread with inane and stupid comment]
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair Dag, I've been saying something to you very similar to what Occasional is, which is that you are a poor example of people who self-label themselves as conservatives in this country. Of course, I think Doc Occ and I may be coming from very different places, but I'd agree that the majority of conservatives are more like Jay than like you. (And yes, I'd make a similarly unflattering statement about self-identifying liberals too.)
posted
I said the level of unflatteringness would be similar, not the actual comparision. Most people, regardless of party affiliation think and act irresponsibly.
Oh an Oc, conservative isn't the word for what you're describing. I think you may find authoritarian a better fit.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just wish that so many conservatives would NOT sound like Cartman... Perhaps I'd be a bit more open to them, I'm not completely unopen to conservative concepts like tradition and family values.... But, I still don't completely understand why some people think that gays are contrary to traditional values.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see why people are bothered when they find that few other posters on Hatrack agree with them about something.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But, I still don't completely understand why some people think that gays are contrary to traditional values.
What's to understand? Traditionally, homosexuality has been considered a sin in our culture. Therefore, homosexuality is agianst the traditional values of our culture.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What what's meant by traditional values? And do we mean traditional [i]western[i] values? Also, there used to be a time when homosexuality was mostly underground, but I'm reminded of a book that talked about intimate friendships women had in the Victorian Era and Boston Marriages...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional, your first post is a cowardly attack on most of the conservative members on Hatrack. Kat, Farmgirl, Pooka, Dags, NFL, MPH and many other posters here work hard to represent the conservative viewpoint in a clear and honest manner. You slander them with your mindless accusations ("You may not give them much respect, but they don't hold you with it either") and refuse to discuss your ideas when they are challenged. Frankly, I'm disgusted.
If you want more neo-cons on the website, that's fine. But please do not tell the conservatives on this board what to do.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But it is also supported by a long traditional history of personal freedom.
It isn't that cut and dried, at least not to us as a nation. Of course we all have our personal opinions about it, and those opinions ARE pretty cut and dried....but the question of homosexual freedoms is a log like other personal freedoms, and the arguments for allowing them are grounded in the same principals that allow you to be a Mormon, or a RC, or a Pagan.
We were traditionally a Christian nation, but our system of freedoms allowed others to practice their religions as well. No one could make you be Christian, but you aren't allowed to stop them from being one, and them being one doesn't negate their rights as Americans.
It isn't about approving of it as much as allowing people to enjoy their personal freedoms and live how they choose to live.
He is the one challenging Dag's credentials, and claiming that Dag doesn't know jack about his own political party, without posting a shred of proof other than his poorly thought out personal thought on the matter....so I called him on it.
Occ, you can't prove a negative, but that isn't what was necessary...you could have posted someone directly refuting it (there is at least one person you should be familiar with who has done so, but if you don't read the papers I am not going to spell it out for you ), or posted links that were highly conservative in nature that didn't mention it at all.
You could have posted links to the Republican platform that can't be done using the smaller government standard and tried to show how that would be possible.
You could have done a google search and posted random slanted news items, and tried to make your case that way.
As bad as some of those choices would have been, all of them would have been better than simply repeating the same thing over and over again, inferring that you have the authority to speak for all conservatives....even those like Dag who have 50 times the political savvy and experience....regardless of if they believe what you are claiming is the "truth".
As it stands, I won't bother to refute anything specifically that you have said....your own attempts at debate have proven my point without me even needing to be in this thread.
quote: The reason Republicans arose was to oppose issues that would have persisted in a strictly democratic system but were simply immoral i.e. slavery. Of course, in those days I guess the Republicans would have been the liberals and the Democrats the conservatives.
You're right in saying that the Republicans would have been the liberals then, but you're wrong about the other side of it. Republicans (well, Dagonee's type) and Democrats today come from the same roots, in Locke's philosophy back in the Enlightenment.
They split around the time of the slavery issue because the Classic Liberals (now Republicans) felt that (after defeating their opposition fairly soundly--the Whigs right?) their "job" was done. They had established a republic that addressed most of Locke's points. The Constitution protected their freedom and their property and government was small.
Today's Liberals were then people who felt that the "job" wasn't done. Yes, they had a small government and great freedoms and everything, but they decided that government had other purposes that Locke didn't talk about. They felt that perhaps if they added some social programs here and there, they could make the country even better and fix some injustices that Locke didn't predict. This perspective led to the social reforms supported by Democrats that have increased the size of government in persuit of what many feel are higher goals.
Edit to add: Conservatives started calling themselves "conservative" to underscore their efforts to adhere to the values they had from the Enlightenment. This has traditionally gone along with some degree of religious conservatism, as many of these people treasured the traditional values held by their religious practice.
If I've misrepresented something, let me know. I'm writing this from memory.
[ January 26, 2005, 03:17 AM: Message edited by: Nato ]
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course, a lot of the problem comes from that a lot of the "conservative" voters have never been conservative in a political/philosophical sense, but are often "whoever smashes the most of those stinkin' liberals" or "the more religion in US politics, the better" types. Or then there are my favorites, the ones who punch a button for straight party line republican even though they don't have any idea who's running for most of the positions.
Brilliant. You rock my world Fugu.
I consider myself a moderate too. I'm all for gay rights and the right to bear arms. I like smaller government and I'm all for the right to have abotion. I approve of the death penalty and I think stem cell research is really important. And the environment is good too. Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
), or posted links that were highly conservative in nature that didn't mention it at all.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
