When did conservatism turn violent

[BPSCG]

The myth of the United States as perpetually expanding was part of the Manifest Desinty creed which dominted the 1800's. West we went, with guns. Mexicans, Indians, it didn't matter who was there, we shot them dead for the crime of being on our land before we got there. It was just, because our way of life was awesome, and theirs was bad. Besides, they started it by fighting back! Since we can exploit their land better than they can, we deserve to have it. - Conservatism.

Why does belief in Manifest Destiny = Conservatism?

That's like saying wallpaper paste = Chevrolet.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Why does belief in Manifest Destiny = Conservatism?

That's like saying wallpaper paste = Chevrolet.

Cultural conservativism in the 1800's in the U.S. went hand in hand with Manifest Destiny, as it was viewed as one of the essentialy elements of our "Frontier" culture. It's certainly not fiscally conservative, but it was characteristic of the right in U.S. politics at the time.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The myth of the United States as perpetually expanding was part of the Manifest Desinty creed which dominted the 1800's. West we went, with guns. Mexicans, Indians, it didn't matter who was there, we shot them dead for the crime of being on our land before we got there. It was just, because our way of life was awesome, and theirs was bad. Besides, they started it by fighting back! Since we can exploit their land better than they can, we deserve to have it. - Conservatism.

This is wrong. It was a major debate that there was any power to expand the united states. So in the early 19th century manifest destiny was not an established US policy and so would not be part of Concervetism.

Modern Concervitives and Liberals do not nessacarily have any connection to concervative vs reformist or(I am not sure what the real opposite of concervative is, I suppose you could try neophilic or something like that)

Just because something is on the right does not make it concervative, just like something being on the left does not mean it isn't concervative. This is a lie told by modern pundits.

Real concervatives believe in the continuance of contemperary accepted practices. changeing that either to the right or left is not concervatism.

This is why I feel bush isn't a concervative, he tries to change to much to be concervative.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Cultural conservativism in the 1800's in the U.S. went hand in hand with Manifest Destiny, as it was viewed as one of the essentialy elements of our "Frontier" culture. It's certainly not fiscally conservative, but it was characteristic of the right in U.S. politics at the time.

The year is 1803, prove that the Louisiana Purchase is a concervative act.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

The year is 1803, prove that the Louisiana Purchase is a concervative act.

It wasn't. It was a legal purchase from a cash strapped Empire. It was purely capitolistic choice. One made by Jefferson who was liberal in both the fiscal and social senses, for his time. The Mexican-American war, a land grab resulting in the theft of half of a foreign nation however, was.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I grew up in a conservative family as well. I remember conservative ideals as being more patriotic whereas now they seem more nationalistic. I remember the push for a strong defense, whereas now we concentrate on a strong offense. I remember my conservative father pointing to the ideals that made us "better than the Soviet Union," whereas now we spy on our own people, attempt to censor the media (or incarcerate them when they don't comply), and I remember the pride with which my father pointed to America as a melting pot where citizens can coexist together in harmony, whereas now we point at each other in suspicion and paranoia.

I also remember when (some) Conservatives could maintain an honest debate without resorting to personal attacks, graceless misdirection or shameless excuses. Certainly there are liberals who are equally guilty of fanaticism, but the neo-cons (at least to me) are very obviously guilty of a new brand of political vehemence and their knee-jerk reactions to many "problems" is very disturbing, especially if you consider the amount of lives being lost to their solutions.

Pot, kettle.

When was conservatism peaceful? Explain how the jingoism of the 1800's, the Spanish American War, and Mexican American War, the Westard Expansion and genocide of Native Americans, and the thousands of lynchings of any black person "uppity" enough to step out of line and try to be equal to the white people in defiance of tradition were all perfectly conservative. Conservatism values law and tradition, not peace. Conservtism assumes "we" are better than "them." Wherever there was someone preserving tradition over justice, fairness, life and liberty, there was Conservatism.

You're just posting libel. It's clear where, at least in this thread, the fanaticism lies.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It wasn't. It was a legal purchase from a cash strapped Empire. It was purely capitolistic choice. One made by Jefferson who was liberal in both the fiscal and social senses, for his time. The Mexican-American war, a land grab resulting in the theft of half of a foreign nation however, was.

This is crap, it is a matter of public policy, it is just as much an issue of cocervative or not as anything else. Where was the establishment that the president or congress had the power to do this? It is clearly not concervative and is the basis for manifest destiny.

Hawks are not by definition concervative, expansonism is not by definition concervative. They can be or they can not be, it depends what the recent historical changes are. Interventionism vs Isolationism neither side is enherently concervative, it depends on what at the time was established practice.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You're just posting libel. It's clear where, at least in this thread, the fanaticism lies.

Really? Where have the destructive, agressive wars on behalf of Liberal values taken by the United States been?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Pot, kettle.

You're just posting libel. It's clear where, at least in this thread, the fanaticism lies.

Somewhat, it is clear that the issue here is not concervatism as a prinicpal but individuals who today would call themselves Concervative. That these are unrelated sets seems to be missed by some,

 

[ponderingturtle]

Really? Where have the destructive, agressive wars on behalf of Liberal values taken by the United States been?

WWI, Vietnam, WWII, 1812(we lost our capital in that one), the Barbary wars, civil war. All of those where changes in the established behavior of the country, and so by definition not concervative.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Somewhat, it is clear that the issue here is not concervatism as a prinicpal but individuals who today would call themselves Concervative. That these are unrelated sets seems to be missed by some,

Not to turn this into a spelling thread, but that's "conservative" and "principle".

Really? Where have the destructive, agressive wars on behalf of Liberal values taken by the United States been?

I'm not interested in playing the "no true Scotsman" game with you.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not to turn this into a spelling thread, but that's "conservative" and "principle".

I will never say I am a good speller

 

[Jocko]

I will never say I am a good speller

Neither will anyone else.

Welcome to the forum, Turtle!

 

[ImaginalDisc]

WWI, Vietnam, WWII, 1812(we lost our capital in that one), the Barbary wars, civil war. All of those where changes in the established behavior of the country, and so by definition not concervative.

I'm afriad that's simply untrue. The civil War was undertaken by the Union in order to "preserve the Union" and return us to the antebellum status quo. Freeing slaves didn't even come up until very late in the war and Emancipation Proclaimation did not free slaves in the Union, only in the Confederate states. WWI and WWII were both caused by factors much larger than left/right division. WWII for one thing is about as close to a "Just War" as has ever been conducted in the past thousand years. WWI was caused, in europe, by the arcane webs of alliances which had been used a diplomatic tool to prevent a repeat of the Napoleonic War. The barbary War was undertaken to protect American shipping, a capitolisitic modivation which niether exclusively left nor right.


If you want to find examples agressive, violent leftsim, you need to look at Cuba, or the USSR, not the U.S.

 

[Rob Lister]

It seems some here are directly equating conservatism with republicanism (ID, for example) and some here understand the difference (Turtle).

Turtle, I don't think you're going to get anywhere with those that cannot disassociate the two political philosophies simply because the association lends the opportunities to make snarky comments, raise strawmen, equivocate ad nasum and generally live by the standards of logical fallacies.

But other than that, most here get your points (well made).

p.s. I use Aspellfox

 

[ImaginalDisc]

It seems some here are directly equating conservatism with republicanism (ID, for example) and some here understand the difference (Turtle).

Turtle, I don't think you're going to get anywhere with those that cannot disassociate the two political philosophies simply because the association lends the opportunities to make snarky comments, raise strawmen, equivocate ad nasum and generally live by the standards of logical fallacies.

But other than that, most here get your points (well made).

p.s. I use Aspellfox

Please specify those things you consider to be strawmen, equivocations, and logical fallacies.

 

[Rob Lister]

definitions are available using a number of websites and even firefox plugins. If the snoo ◊◊◊◊◊, wear it. Otherwise don't worry about it.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

It wasn't. It was a legal purchase from a cash strapped Empire. It was purely capitolistic choice. One made by Jefferson who was liberal in both the fiscal and social senses, for his time. The Mexican-American war, a land grab resulting in the theft of half of a foreign nation however, was.

How is that Conservative by any other definition than "things I don't like = Conservative"?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm afriad that's simply untrue. The civil War was undertaken by the Union in order to "preserve the Union" and return us to the antebellum status quo. Freeing slaves didn't even come up until very late in the war and Emancipation Proclaimation did not free slaves in the Union, only in the Confederate states.

Nice try, but the point is this, the south only tried to leave because of slavery, it was certainly caused by differing opinions between concervatives and liberals, but the rebublicans where the liberals there. So it might be viewed as a concervative reaction to a liberal agenda where the liberals won I guess. I am not sure how to view secession as a concervative or not view at the time. It was certainly not established.

WWI and WWII were both caused by factors much larger than left/right division.[/qoute]

So what? This is a matter of public policy and can be cast into concervative or non-concervative means. It has nothing to do with left/right. You keep reading modern politics into history instead of looking for the actual concervatives of the time and seeing where they stood.

This is about US policy and that can always be viewed as either concervative and keeping up historic precident or makeing changes. THat is not a right/left thing.

We are clearly talking past each other, so lets try again.

Define Concervative, as it does not seem to have anything to do with concervative behavior.

WWII for one thing is about as close to a "Just War" as has ever been conducted in the past thousand years. WWI was caused, in europe, by the arcane webs of alliances which had been used a diplomatic tool to prevent a repeat of the Napoleonic War. The barbary War was undertaken to protect American shipping, a capitolisitic modivation which niether exclusively left nor right.[/qoute]

What does "Just War" have to do with anything? US involvement would either be following established patters or not, which is it?

US involvement in WWI was not caused by anysuch thing, so was it part of the status quo or not to get involved in a continental war?

Why does capitalistic modivations prevent any classification of its concervatism? It was an agreesive new policies that lead to the Barbary war, so that would seem to not be exactly concervative either.

If you want to find examples agressive, violent leftsim, you need to look at Cuba, or the USSR, not the U.S.

You are getting confused again, right/left does not make concervativism on one side or the other. THe concervatives in many european countries would be very much to the left here, because the status quo is a more leftist one.

If you mean the Right and not Concervatives, well say that. Then you get the problem that the Right isn't a long historic entity as it stands now so talking about its beliefs. The current rebuplican party holds different beliefs than it did when Teddy Rosevelt was president and different ones when Eisenhower was president.

So all you are doing is taking a modern group you don't like and blameing what ever history you want to on it. You can do this for the Right or the Left, and neither is helpful.

 

[Rob Lister]

How is that Conservative by any other definition than "things I don't like = Conservative"?

Ah, mexican american war...e.g. Polk's War.

Polk is my favorite democrat of all time and one of my top three favorite presidents.