True Conservatives, (And That Doesn't Include Limbaugh or Beck.)

[BobTheDonkey]

All these definitions fit members on both sides. So what, then, is the difference between a "True Conservative" and a "True Liberal"?

As I recall from years ago, I was told a "True Conservative" would place the responsibility for a person's well-being on the individual where the "True Liberal" would place the responsibility on Society.

 

[Ladewig]

Nope.

And, I think that's the point. Not too much difference between the real deal on either side.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm sick of it. I tired of hearing about "conservatives" like Beck, Palin, Limbaugh, and their ilk. In all honesty, I don't think they understand the meaning of the word, and what it once meant. When I think of Conservative, I look more to my Grandfather, Thomas Dunn Watson, Jr., than I do anyone else. He understood what genuine Conservatism is really about than most of these folks, and he lived it for the most part.

Your thoughts?

Bingo.

I have been trying to tell people this for years - Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly aren't conservatives, they're extremist whacktards. And they have their equivalents on the left.

Liberal and conservative used to be opposite, but respected positions. Not anymore.

I happen to be a conservative. Not a whacktard, but a real conservative.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I sympathize with this. I used to consider myself somewhat conservative (although others might have deemed me liberal in some respects), but now I do not feel that I can use the word "conservative" to describe myself. The so-called "conservative" talking heads and "leaders" have poisoned the label.

The word used to mean that one tended to favor not making a change unless there was a good reason to make it. Generally speaking, the more extreme the change, the more compelling the reason had to be. A conservative tended to be less risk-averse, because a conservative did not want to jeopardize losing what is good. A conservative did not oppose all change, because doing so would be the height of folly. Things will change whether people want them to or not. A conservative would strive for prudent and reasoned responses to changes.

That is not what the term means today.

Today's "conservatives" play to people's stupidity (as well as their racism and bad urges), engage in shameless hypocrisy, promote ghastly fear-mongering and unrealistic scenarios as factual, encourage cliquishness and cronyism, and behave as though "the end justifies the means." None of these is a conservative principle.

Well said.

A local columist, Bill McClellan, has always identified himself as a liberal, but also says he used to respect conservatives, because they were the crabby old men who watched his money.

 

[Zep]

What's with all the labelling and pigeon-holing? Everyone is different across a broad spectrum of responses to issues. Putting people in arbitrary groups based on a few select criteria simply closes off thinking about them as whole people.

Example: We had a president of the Returned Soldiers League here (Veterans association, for US folks). He was a highly vocal critic of how aboriginals were financially supported by government - did the whole Beck thing much like you hear about illegals from Mexico and got a lot of people's backs up. But he was also a WW2 vet and strong veterans rights advocate, including for Vietnam vets when it was not so popular to be so. And married to a charming Japanese lady from when he was a young occupation soldier. So was he a reactionary right-wing nutball? Or a latent leftist hippy? He was all of these, at the same time...

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

how is a true conservative different than a true libertarian?

Higher IQ and a lot more money.

 

[The Charnel Expanse]

A lot of what you say is what both sides say about themselves. But things like "Maximum benefit for the greatest number" sounds curiously like socialism, and while I agree that caring people of any party or philosophy think that is what they are doing, that is not a thing to be said out loud in many conservative circles.

Still, I wish there were more conservatives like you.

Not if it's done voluntarily, out of a sense of responsibility for one's surroundings.

 

[dc1971]

All the "issues" they pretend to care about is just smoke and mirrors.

In what way?

 

[dc1971]

1.) A Conservative lives as though he doesn't need the laws.

2.) A Conservative values merit above all else.

3.) A Conservative is truthful not only with others, but himself.

4.) A Conservative works towards the maximum benefit for the greatest number.

Your thoughts?

I would also add that A Conservative will understand the science behind imbalances in nature and how such phenomenon will affect the earth's environment.

In other words, there are whack-job liberals who believe in "rights" for certain species in the animal kingdom yet the establishment of rights is a human creation. You cannot have rights without either A) living up to certain responsibilities or B) being part of a group with a leader who's purpose is to protect your rights.

Certain species of animals need their population controlled, it's plain and simple. If such a sport like hunting or trapping is banned, then be prepared for a serious population explosion of biblical proportions.

To add my background to this discussion, I had mentioned in a previous post that at one time I did buy into the Limbaugh sensationalism only to realize that this guy is just a right wing hack who does NOT speak for most conservatives let alone most Americans. I feel that the truer modern day conservatives are people like David Frum, Joe Scarborough, David Brooks, and Colin Powell.

 

[Piscivore]

In what way?

Getting people all worked up about the Irish Italians Chinese Germans Japanese Mexicans coming into the country, or gays getting married, so we forget about the rich white guys that loot the country. Or setting up government agency after government agency that ends up doing more to line the pockets of an ever-growing bureaucracy than alleviating any social ill.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm sick of it. I tired of hearing about "conservatives" like Beck, Palin, Limbaugh, and their ilk. In all honesty, I don't think they understand the meaning of the word, and what it once meant. When I think of Conservative, I look more to my Grandfather, Thomas Dunn Watson, Jr., than I do anyone else. He understood what genuine Conservatism is really about than most of these folks, and he lived it for the most part.

There aren't many points to understand in what makes someone a Conservative, so the whole concept is pretty easy to grasp.

1.) A Conservative lives as though he doesn't need the laws.

This means pretty much what it says. You don't need speed limit laws, simply because you don't overdrive for the conditions. You don't need to be told not to discriminate, simply because you already know it's wrong. You don't dump filth into the nation's waterways, because you already know someone is going to wind up drinking the filth you dump into the water.

In other words, you consider the consequences of your actions before you act, the behave accordingly.

Help me out here.

If you do overdrive, what then?

Sounds like all the illegal immigrants are OK. I thought conservatives were against that.

Sounds like environmentalism. I thought the conservatives were against that.

2.) A Conservative values merit above all else.

In other words, you have your position in life because you've earned it, not because you're given it. You make it by the sweat of your own brow, and you don't do it by taking from others, either through the courts or dishonest business practices.

Further, you don't discriminate on any basis; if someone isn't being promoted, it's because they're either lazy, incompetent, or both. It has nothing to do with race, creed, sexuality, religion, national origin. Work hard, do good work, and you move forward. That simple.

What about the children of the rich who are given their parent's wealth. Is that included in the merits you refer to?

And is it fair that hard earned income is taxed differently than sit on your butt investment income in the mind of a conservative?

3.) A Conservative is truthful not only with others, but himself.

In short, a genuine Conservative is more interested in facts, and is working towards eliminating bias. It means being honest about your own actions, and not trying to mitigate the impact of them simply because it's convenient, or because it supports your so-called allies. It means you're going to base your actions on rationality, rather than emotion.

That totally rules out Fox News and a very big chunk of people who call themselves conservative. I assume you know that.

4.) A Conservative works towards the maximum benefit for the greatest number.

A Conservative is more interested in pluralism, and in the community, rather than his/her own pockets, in short because it also benefits him/herself. A golden parachute is nice, but if it comes to the detriment of the company -- and its employees -- what's the point?

By this definition, Al Dunlap, Rush Limbaugh's buddy, is not a conservative. Likewise, neither is Limbaugh. Sean Hannity? Not a chance. Ditto Beck, and his ties with a rather suspect gold trader. Something to consider.

Your thoughts?

That last one is a joke, right?

 

[Brown]

And, sadly, that sounds like a lot of "liberals."

You hear this a lot. Leaving aside the notion that it seems to be changing the subject, there is another problem with this point.

It is not well-supported by evidence.

It is certainly true that there are loony liberals. (I can name half a dozen without catching a breath.) But as far as I can tell, none of them is considered to be a principal voice of liberalism (whatever that means), although many would like to think of themselves that way. The actual principal voices of progressivism do not suffer from the "Soviet disease" the way that that the big guns of the self-described "conservatives" do.

The Soviets, for example, insisted that certain scientific principles had to be valid, not because they were supported by evidence, but because they were consistent with ideology. Many so-called "conservatives" do this, with evolution and climate change being two notable examples in which ideology is deemed to trump evidence. Do "liberals" do this?

Do so-called liberals purge those with whom they disagree? Do so-called liberals make inflammatory hawkish talk? Do liberals seek to punish (not just rebut, but punish) dissenters? There is evidence that so-called conservatives do all of these things, just as the Soviets did.

 

[Ysidro]

I do wonder, do True Conservatives use salt or sugar?

 

[BenBurch]

I do wonder, do True Conservatives use salt or sugar?

Vinegar.

 

[drkitten]

1.) A Conservative lives as though he doesn't need the laws.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with this one entirely. The role of "laws" (and specifically their number and scope) is one of the major areas where "true" conservatives differ from "true" liberals.

This means pretty much what it says. You don't need speed limit laws, simply because you don't overdrive for the conditions.

Does this mean that True Conservatives are omniscient? If so, I might believe that, because that means that they're also nonexistent. The problem with "you don't overdrive for the conditions" is that you, personally, are a lousy judge of the conditions and of what constitutes "overdrive"-- and the worse you are at judging, the more confident you are in your judgement. (Dunning-Kroger effect again.) The whole point of a bright-line standard is that it gives everyone else a clear-cut standard by which to rein you in when your judgement falters.

It's elementary psychology. In general, people don't propose laws against stuff they themselves want to do; you'll never hear a mother asking for a stop sign on her corner because she can't be bothered to stop and she's worried that she's going to hit her children. You hear her complain about how other drivers won't stop.

Every time you see a law, you see a problem that someone took seriously enough to petition for a solution.

We can see the same thing in global warming. Since there are no laws regarding it yet, who are the people "living as though they don't need the laws"? The people who are the most opposed to the law are also the people denying that it's a real issue. If "true conservatives" don't need laws to restrict pollution, why was is necessary to pass those laws? If "true conservatives" don't need laws to restrict greenhouse gases, why is AGW still happening?

4.) A Conservative works towards the maximum benefit for the greatest number.

Again, I disagree. A Conservative works towards the maximum benefit for him or herself. A conservative assumes that the global maximum will come from individual greedy optimization. When this assumption is true, of course, then it's generally a good thing. When this assumption is false....

As an example of that, Jim Crow laws directly reduce the maximum benefit for the maximum number, because not only do they reduce the pool of available competitors to provide a service, but that also means that the services is done more poorly and more expensively.

By contrast, liberals tend to work directly towards the maximum benefit for the greatest number, without the assumption that it will arise from greedy optimization.

Your thoughts?

Yeah. This misrepresents "conservatism" in two major ways and completely blurs the distinction between the "conservative" and "liberal" point of view. What you present (as was pointed out) is actually a fairly good description of classical liberalism; what you present is also a lousy description of classical conservatism.

 

[Chaos]

I'm sick of it. I tired of hearing about "conservatives" like Beck, Palin, Limbaugh, and their ilk. In all honesty, I don't think they understand the meaning of the word, and what it once meant. When I think of Conservative, I look more to my Grandfather, Thomas Dunn Watson, Jr., than I do anyone else. He understood what genuine Conservatism is really about than most of these folks, and he lived it for the most part.

There aren't many points to understand in what makes someone a Conservative, so the whole concept is pretty easy to grasp.

1.) A Conservative lives as though he doesn't need the laws.

This means pretty much what it says. You don't need speed limit laws, simply because you don't overdrive for the conditions. You don't need to be told not to discriminate, simply because you already know it's wrong. You don't dump filth into the nation's waterways, because you already know someone is going to wind up drinking the filth you dump into the water.

In other words, you consider the consequences of your actions before you act, the behave accordingly.

2.) A Conservative values merit above all else.

In other words, you have your position in life because you've earned it, not because you're given it. You make it by the sweat of your own brow, and you don't do it by taking from others, either through the courts or dishonest business practices.

Further, you don't discriminate on any basis; if someone isn't being promoted, it's because they're either lazy, incompetent, or both. It has nothing to do with race, creed, sexuality, religion, national origin. Work hard, do good work, and you move forward. That simple.

3.) A Conservative is truthful not only with others, but himself.

In short, a genuine Conservative is more interested in facts, and is working towards eliminating bias. It means being honest about your own actions, and not trying to mitigate the impact of them simply because it's convenient, or because it supports your so-called allies. It means you're going to base your actions on rationality, rather than emotion.

4.) A Conservative works towards the maximum benefit for the greatest number.

A Conservative is more interested in pluralism, and in the community, rather than his/her own pockets, in short because it also benefits him/herself. A golden parachute is nice, but if it comes to the detriment of the company -- and its employees -- what's the point?

By this definition, Al Dunlap, Rush Limbaugh's buddy, is not a conservative. Likewise, neither is Limbaugh. Sean Hannity? Not a chance. Ditto Beck, and his ties with a rather suspect gold trader. Something to consider.

Your thoughts?

Those are good principles.

Trouble is, most "conservatives" would simply assume they are following most of these principles. Like, they´re not discriminating against Muslims, it´s simply (to them) a fact that Muslims are evil and out to get non-Muslims.
Or, they´re not discriminating against [n-word]s, it´s simply (to them) a fact that [n-word]s are lazy and incompetent, so they feel justified in treating them differently.
Or, they do look at the environmental consequences of their actions, but their action (to them) don´t have environmental consequences because (to them) "global warming" and such is a liberal conspiracy.
Or, they do look after the greatest benefit for the greatest possible number, only (to them) it is a perfectly obvious fact that the only possible way to achieve this is to throw money at the rich. (I really like Nyarlathotep´s old line about that, "trickle-down economics mean the rich piss on the middle class, leaving cold urine to trickle down on the poor")

So, to make a long story short, it isn´t about principles. As has been hinted at in this thread already, the bulk of all liberals (and "liberals") would wholly or mostly agree with your principles, as would the bulk of all "conservatives". The difference is, some people actually try to adhere to these principles in reality, while others prefer the delusion that they are already adhering to them. Not so much serious people versus hypocrites, as sane versus delusional people.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

And is it fair that hard earned income is taxed differently than sit on your butt investment income in the mind of a conservative?

Just out of curiosity, where did the money come from to make the original investment? Was it taxed? Hint: The answers are, 1) someone worked hard for it and 2) Yes.

Just because your life has been a failure, doesn't mean others haven't worked hard for their money.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm sick of it. I tired of hearing about "conservatives" like Beck, Palin, Limbaugh, and their ilk. In all honesty, I don't think they understand the meaning of the word, and what it once meant. When I think of Conservative, I look more to my Grandfather, Thomas Dunn Watson, Jr., than I do anyone else. He understood what genuine Conservatism is really about than most of these folks, and he lived it for the most part.

There aren't many points to understand in what makes someone a Conservative, so the whole concept is pretty easy to grasp.

1.) A Conservative lives as though he doesn't need the laws.

This means pretty much what it says. You don't need speed limit laws, simply because you don't overdrive for the conditions. You don't need to be told not to discriminate, simply because you already know it's wrong. You don't dump filth into the nation's waterways, because you already know someone is going to wind up drinking the filth you dump into the water.

In other words, you consider the consequences of your actions before you act, the behave accordingly.

2.) A Conservative values merit above all else.

In other words, you have your position in life because you've earned it, not because you're given it. You make it by the sweat of your own brow, and you don't do it by taking from others, either through the courts or dishonest business practices.

Further, you don't discriminate on any basis; if someone isn't being promoted, it's because they're either lazy, incompetent, or both. It has nothing to do with race, creed, sexuality, religion, national origin. Work hard, do good work, and you move forward. That simple.

3.) A Conservative is truthful not only with others, but himself.

In short, a genuine Conservative is more interested in facts, and is working towards eliminating bias. It means being honest about your own actions, and not trying to mitigate the impact of them simply because it's convenient, or because it supports your so-called allies. It means you're going to base your actions on rationality, rather than emotion.

4.) A Conservative works towards the maximum benefit for the greatest number.

A Conservative is more interested in pluralism, and in the community, rather than his/her own pockets, in short because it also benefits him/herself. A golden parachute is nice, but if it comes to the detriment of the company -- and its employees -- what's the point?

By this definition, Al Dunlap, Rush Limbaugh's buddy, is not a conservative. Likewise, neither is Limbaugh. Sean Hannity? Not a chance. Ditto Beck, and his ties with a rather suspect gold trader. Something to consider.

Your thoughts?

You are more innumerating what you consider to be positive traits not anything that would distinguish a conservative from a liberal. It would seem that you are using those traits to contrast conservative from others, and I don't see why those traits tie into conservative thought better than others.

I would say that a conservative favors slow thoughtful changes if any to the status quo instead of large sweeping change. Basically an individual who is more concerned with making new problems while a progressive would be more concerned with fixing existing problems.

Of course these have little to nothing to do with contemporary american politics and how they use the terms.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Hard to say. What I've noticed is that most Liberals tend to be far more focused on what role the community plays in the lives of individuals, (hence, the reason most Liberals tend to support such things as governmental social programs, where most Conservatives would rather see that handled by private organizations.) That would be my first point of departure.

The thing is that these points do not do anything about the values you cited, both believe in the idea of the greatest good for the greatest number, this is a very socialist ideology. So you are distinguishing how they achieve their social agenda as the main point of difference?

 

[ponderingturtle]

What's with all the labelling and pigeon-holing? Everyone is different across a broad spectrum of responses to issues. Putting people in arbitrary groups based on a few select criteria simply closes off thinking about them as whole people.

Example: We had a president of the Returned Soldiers League here (Veterans association, for US folks). He was a highly vocal critic of how aboriginals were financially supported by government - did the whole Beck thing much like you hear about illegals from Mexico and got a lot of people's backs up. But he was also a WW2 vet and strong veterans rights advocate, including for Vietnam vets when it was not so popular to be so. And married to a charming Japanese lady from when he was a young occupation soldier. So was he a reactionary right-wing nutball? Or a latent leftist hippy? He was all of these, at the same time...

Applying one countries political distinctions to a different country is just silly and sloppy thinking. He clearly does not fit into modern american political ideology.