What Does Conservatism Offer?

[Virus]

Thatcher was a conservative and she fixed Britain. The communist unions that held the economy hostage needed to be crushed. Her free-market reforms transformed Britain from a pathetic, poor quasi-socialist state like Greece to a first-rate world power with an economy that rivalled Germany.

 

[DavidJames]

I guess I am disqualified from being considered a conservative then.

If you plan on gaining a decent foot hold within the Republican party, yes, you may very well be disqualified.

My implication above is Republican=conservative. Within the scope of our two party system, and how America gets governed, I'm very comfortable with that implication. With all due respect to JREF conservatives, you are outsiders in the Republican party.

 

[NoahFence]

What Does Conservatism Offer?

nothing good for the vast majority of people.
it serves the rich and corrupt.

We've got Bingo!

Exactly. Conservatism now is defined by your ability to prevent the other side from doing anything, rather than they themselves doing something.

As long as the other side doesn't get their way, we're OK!

See:

 

[gnome]

Yeah, but as soon as those terrorist-loving socialists are out of power for good, we can actually get something done, don't you see?

(which is, purging the RINOs and fighting for total control of the GOP)

 

[bikerdruid]

I can't find any evidence that such laws exist. The burden of proof is on you to show that state legislatures have passed such laws, not on me to read every single law ever passed to show an absence of them. If it is true, it shouldn't be that hard. All I see when looking for it is message board discussions and the like but no actual evidence that state legislatures have made it legal to fire someone for being gay.

artful evasion noted.

 

[respect]

Then, what is "conservatism"?

Lots of things, link.

From the intro to conservatism in America:

"Conservatism in the United States includes a variety of political ideologies including fiscal conservatism, supply-side economics, social conservatism, libertarian conservatism, bioconservatism and religious conservatism,[82] as well as support for a strong military. Modern American conservatism was largely born out of alliance between classical liberals and social conservatives in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.[83]"

 

[respect]

If you plan on gaining a decent foot hold within the Republican party, yes, you may very well be disqualified.

My implication above is Republican=conservative. Within the scope of our two party system, and how America gets governed, I'm very comfortable with that implication. With all due respect to JREF conservatives, you are outsiders in the Republican party.

I have no plans to join the Republican Party.

 

[respect]

artful evasion noted.

In other words, you can't find the laws you are whining about.

 

[Tony]

Why do you assume that Republican pandering to religious conservatives is a permanent condition?

They don't merely pander to (religious) conservatives, conservatives dominate the republican party and it will continue as long as republicans believe conservatism will win them elections.

They haven't always done it, and there is no particular reason to think that other conservative elements can reign them in in the future.

I agree. There is no reason to think other conservative elements can reign them in in the future. That is an assumption I make in my OP.

And why do you keep saying "conservative" when what you seem to mean is "religious conservative"?

In terms of politicians that are elected and supported, it is the same thing. Any other "conservative" elements that support conservative politicians who run for office are useful idiots.

 

[respect]

They don't merely pander to (religious) conservatives, conservatives dominate the republican party and it will continue as long as republicans believe conservatism will win them elections.

I am skeptical that all that many Republican candidates for major offices really believe that God made a golem out of clay, stole his rib and made Eve who promptly damned her entire species by eating a piece of fruit that had been outlawed at the request of a snake who could talk. They do know that being critical of evolutionary theory can help them win elections though.

And again, you are conflating all conservative views with religious conservatism. At this point that can only be seen as deliberate dishonesty.

I agree. There is no reason to think other conservative elements can reign them in in the future. That is an assumption I make in my OP.

That was a typo on my part. There is no reason to think that it can't, or even won't, change in the future. Just because it is helpful now doesn't mean it always will be. If it starts hurting them at the ballot box it will change. It may not happen in the next election cycle or two, but many religious conservatives tend to be older. When that reliable vote block starts to pass on, the Republican Party will need to court younger voters who tend to be less religious.

In terms of politicians that are elected and supported, it is the same thing. Any other "conservative" elements that support conservative politicians who run for office are useful idiots.

Blah blah blah. So everyone who is not a religious conservative should vote Democrat to vote against them even if they don't agree with the Democrat's policies? Certainly plenty of people do vote Democrat just to vote against the Republicans just like many people vote Republican to vote against the Democrats. Using your standard, anyone who does not agree with a candidate on everything, especially if they are just voting for who they consider to be the lesser of two evils, is a useful idiot. So what do you suggest? That the vast majority of voters just stay home on election day and let the handful of the Parties' true fans duke it out?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...why do you keep saying "conservative" when what you seem to mean is "religious conservative"?

In terms of politicians that are elected and supported, it is the same thing.

Not at all, as someone recognized earlier in this discussion.

...Aside from a religious and pro-upper class agenda, conservatism has shown itself to be a totally bankrupt set of principles. If we go back to the height of conservatism, we find talk about small government, low government spending and personal freedom as bedrock conservative principles.

Seems to me people use "conservative" as a political label for three distinct, conceptually independent views: fiscal conservatives (free marketeers), religious traditionalists who oppose legalization of recreational drugs and abortion, and advocates for a strong DOD and for suspicion in foreign policy. Religious traditionalists voted Democrat until LBJ's Great Society programs drove many of them from the Democratic party. William Jennings Bryan (D) recognized that capitalism corrodes traditional social relations. Just consider what the automobile did to American mating habits.

Any other "conservative" elements that support conservative politicians who run for office are useful idiots.

Seems to me, anyone who accepts someone else's views on everything has surrendered his/her brain to that other person. Most of us accept that no person agrees with us 100%.

 

[Lurker]

As far as spending goes, Bush, Jr., increased spending a lot, especially near the end of his term. This is a liberal position, and he was called on it at the time.

Yeah, he was called on it so much that he was handily reelected. Did liberals reelect Bush or did conservatives? funny how I don't recall Bush being "called on it" (<---his increased spending) at the 2004 elections.

Data:
Year Outlay
2001 1,862,846
2002 2,010,894
2003 2,159,899
2004 2,292,841
2005 2,471,957
2006 2,655,050
2007 2,728,686
2008 2,982,544
2009 3,517,677

do the math and you get increases of:

2001 4%
2002 8%
2003 7%
2004 6%
2005 8%
2006 7%
2007 3%
2008 9%
2009 18%

I'd say that there is little difference between his first term and second term as far as increasing spending with the exception of 2009.

 

[Tony]

I am skeptical that all that many Republican candidates for major offices really believe that God made a golem out of clay, stole his rib and made Eve who promptly damned her entire species by eating a piece of fruit that had been outlawed at the request of a snake who could talk. They do know that being critical of evolutionary theory can help them win elections though.

So? They still use the people who do believe to win elections and get support for their laws.

And again, you are conflating all conservative views with religious conservatism. At this point that can only be seen as deliberate dishonesty.

Nope. It is the practical reality of the situation.

That was a typo on my part.

Which, ironically, was the first correct statement you made in this thread.

So everyone who is not a religious conservative should vote Democrat to vote against them even if they don't agree with the Democrat's policies?

Either Democratic or Libertarian. It is the only way non-religious conservatives can have a voice as long as religious conservatives dominate the republican agenda.

Using your standard, anyone who does not agree with a candidate on everything, especially if they are just voting for who they consider to be the lesser of two evils, is a useful idiot.

That isn't my standard at all. My standard is not supporting people who are fundamentally antagonistic to your rights, as religious conservatives are to non-religious conservatives.

So what do you suggest?

Stop jumping on the bandwagon with people who think you deserve to be sent to their deity's torture chamber and who craft their policies off ideals related to that principle. Furthermore, work to marginalize such voters instead of apologizing for them.

 

[Reginald Hobbes]

Exactly. Conservatism now is defined by your ability to prevent the other side from doing anything, rather than they themselves doing something.

As long as the other side doesn't get their way, we're OK!

See:
[qimg]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4lB_GTk2w5E/Tc26JE_etNI/AAAAAAAAArY/uD1ERzgn6Mc/s1600/tantrum.jpg[/qimg]

So, you're saying the Wisconsin state senate Democrats are all conservatives?

 

[Tony]

The Republican convention is currently happening and the foul stench of conservative BS is about to be turned to 11, I figure the time is ripe to bump this thread to see if conservatives can marshal an actual case that they really have ideas instead of slogans.

 

[Chaos]

The Republican convention is currently happening and the foul stench of conservative BS is about to be turned to 11, I figure the time is ripe to bump this thread to see if conservatives can marshal an actual case that they really have ideas instead of slogans.

You´re saying that like you think "cut taxes for the rich" and "outlaw abortion" aren´t ideas.

 

[Dcdrac]

Conservatism as it is is manifests in this day and age appears to me to be an agent of harm, in that it harms the interests of the majority while maintaining at all costs the interests of the minority.

In a developed society there should be a balance between the two, old style pragmatic conseravtives understood that, the new rant a lot conservatives do not appear to have learnt that lesson or are ignoring it.

 

[RandFan]

Thatcher was a conservative and she fixed Britain. The communist unions that held the economy hostage needed to be crushed. Her free-market reforms transformed Britain from a pathetic, poor quasi-socialist state like Greece to a first-rate world power with an economy that rivalled Germany.

And it provides a strong social safety net and government oversight and regulation. How about that? In fact, most of the top rated countries have strong social safety nets and take a strong role in regulating.

The UK simply demonstrates that what we need is a good mix of govt and private business.

 

[Cylinder]

I doubt many of the self described conservatives here identify themselves exactly with the Republican Party, want to put gays in concentration camps, want to eliminate civil rights for women and minorities or any of the other stupid crap posted in this thread.

Perhaps it isn't that they are unwilling to defend their ideological views, it is that they don't feel the need to defend against a bunch of strawmen.

This thread should be retitled: Scarecrow Convention.

You stole my post. If anyone wants to have a serious discussion of conservative values, I welcome it.

This ain't it.

 

[Tony]

You stole my post. If anyone wants to have a serious discussion of conservative values, I welcome it.

This ain't it.

You only say that because you don't where the discussion went. By all means, please articulate what you believe conservative values to be and I will treat it fairly.