• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

When did conservatism turn violent

Dcdrac said:
I gre up in a conservative family and i do not rcall violence being the cntre for sorting the worlds ills, on the contrary the ideaology seemed at least, if not the practice, to sterr clear of violence and keep order at all codts. So when did conservatism turn to the violent prescriptions that, unless I am wildly misinterpreting htem, I see coming from the conservative types posting here?
Click to expand...

What a mopey, loaded, inane question.

Though if you fix the following.......... then I will ignore you exactly as much as I was going to anyway:


gre
i
rcall
cntre
worlds
ideaology
sterr
codts
htem
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Wherever there was someone preserving tradition over justice, fairness, life and liberty, there was Conservatism.
Click to expand...

I don't think the beginning of your post really addressed conservatism per se, but this sentence here is spot on. That's signature material. :)
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Conservitivism is the prioritization of traditions above other values.
Click to expand...
No, it's not.

ImaginalDisc said:
Manifest Desinty, the westward expansion and cultural imperialism were the traditional value of the 1800's.
Click to expand...
In other words, any time this country does anything that you don't agree with, you're going to blame it on conservatism. Whatever values the country held at the time will be declared the "traditional" values, therefore conservatism will be blamed. Why does this not go the other way? Why is not everything that goes right also due to conservatism? Our traditional values include tolerance and equality. Therefore, expansion of civil rights is due to conservatism.
 
Art Vandelay said:
No, it's not.

In other words, any time this country does anything that you don't agree with, you're going to blame it on conservatism. Whatever values the country held at the time will be declared the "traditional" values, therefore conservatism will be blamed. Why does this not go the other way? Why is not everything that goes right also due to conservatism? Our traditional values include tolerance and equality. Therefore, expansion of civil rights is due to conservatism.
Click to expand...
No, everytime this country succumbs to jingoistic fervor, denies people rights or privilages simply because we've extended those rights in the past, and every time this country sneers on the less fortunate, it is being lead by conservative values.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Manifest Desinty, the westward expansion and cultural imperialism were the traditional value of the 1800's.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, you are taking a very simplistic black/white view of American History.

The Whig Party was opposed (generally) to the Mexican War. The Party was considered "conservative" in that it favored economic improvement and national banks, tariffs, etc. The richer subset of the population voted for it.

The Democratic Party was the party of the "common man" yet was in favor of expansion, militarily if necessary.

Trying to fit this into a "conservative" or not model how we use the term today is a foolhardy excercise since the issues were not as simple as you make them out to be.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
No, everytime this country succumbs to jingoistic fervor, denies people rights or privilages simply because we've extended those rights in the past, and every time this country sneers on the less fortunate, it is being lead by conservative values.
Click to expand...

The War of 1812, mentioned above, was pushed for years by Jefferson and his followers. They pushed war with Britian over almost any excuse.

Were they "conservative?"
 
ponderingturtle said:
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.
Click to expand...


Excellent post.

.
 
Last edited:
ImaginalDisc said:
No, everytime this country succumbs to jingoistic fervor,
Click to expand...
"Every time".

denies people rights or privilages simply because we've extended those rights in the past,
Click to expand...
No idea how to correct that.

and every time this country sneers on the less fortunate, it is being lead by conservative values.
Click to expand...
"Led".

I don't have anything but editing comments, because you haven't presented anything for me to respond to.
 
Mike B. said:
The War of 1812, mentioned above, was pushed for years by Jefferson and his followers. They pushed war with Britian over almost any excuse.

Were they "conservative?"
Click to expand...
No. They were francophiles. There was a divsion between those who wanted closer ties to France and those who wanted closer ties to England in U.S. government at the time. The issue of the English forts along the Great Lakes was unresolved and the failing of diplomacy to handle that caused the war of 1812. Jefferson did not push for it. He knew England would kick our ass, and they did.
 
Dcdrac said:
I gre up in a conservative family and i do not rcall violence being the cntre for sorting the worlds ills, on the contrary the ideaology seemed at least, if not the practice, to sterr clear of violence and keep order at all codts. So when did conservatism turn to the violent prescriptions that, unless I am wildly misinterpreting htem, I see coming from the conservative types posting here?
Click to expand...
How exactly does one "steer clear of violence" and "keep order at all costs" at the same time? What if the cost of keeping order is violence? Or did you not really mean at all costs? I'm not sure what type of ideology you are referring to.

What "violent prescriptions" are you referring to? Iraq war and neo-cons? Neo-cons are former liberals who have seen the damage caused to the US by liberalism since the Vietnam War and manifested in over-spending in social programs while neglecting national defense. Violence isn't so much the issue as it is taking an active role rather than a passive one. In my eyes, removing Saddam was not so much preemptive as it was way overdue. We should have took him out in Gulf War I, but pacifism got in the way.

Conservative and liberal values change over time. There are different kinds of liberals and conservatives. For example, regardless of whether or not I am a conservative or liberal in this century, I would be regarded as completely nuts if I spoke out in favor of slave trading, yet at one time in US history that is what a certain type of conservative would say.

Conservatism is based in traditionalism, but that doesn't mean it isn't adaptable to new situations or information.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
No. They were francophiles. There was a divsion between those who wanted closer ties to France and those who wanted closer ties to England in U.S. government at the time. The issue of the English forts along the Great Lakes was unresolved and the failing of diplomacy to handle that caused the war of 1812. Jefferson did not push for it. He knew England would kick our ass, and they did.
Click to expand...

Yes, they were Francophiles. The Federalists were pro-Britian.

However, that does not invalidate the fact that the Jeffersonians pushed for war.
The Federalists (the conservative party) was pro-peace.

Jefferson even pushed for war by allowing Citizen Genet to arm ships in America against the British as far back as 1793 as Secretary of State.

You left out the biggest issue. The impressment of sailers and the supposed inflaming of the Indians on the border. These were far bigger issues than the forts.

Again this example invalidates your thesis.
 
Liberal FDR did everything he could to support Britain and get the U.S. into WW II. Conservative isolationists fought him every step of the way, right up to Pearl Harbor.

Liberal LBJ oversaw the massive expansion of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam war and trounced conservative Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential elections.

This is a silly thread; as pointed out earlier, the OP is a strawman of the "no true Scotsman" variety.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom