Foundation of Conservatism

[DamnYankee]

...

BTW, was it just me or did you miss Midcan's post where she absolutely crushed Dixie's assertion?

Midcan's never had an original thought in his life so you must have misinterpreted somehow.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Midcan's never had an original thought in his life so you must have misinterpreted somehow.

Midcan is a she and it doesn't take an original thought to point out the flaw in Dixies post.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

That may be true and well and fine but what does that have to do with the false dichotomy Dixie presented?

for that matter, since the Soviet Union no longer exists, what difference does it make WHAT it's constitution said......it was simply a thought shared....

 

[DamnYankee]

Midcan is a she and it doesn't take an original thought to point out the flaw in Dixies post.

Bullshit. There is no flaw.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

I wished that had been the decision...I am just not so positive he could have pulled it off.

Ya never know.

The republican party is a wasteland. The party leadership itself has abandoned all principals, and advocating we all abandon our own thoughts and beliefs to win elections.

Pragmatic they call it.

 

[Canceled2]

Ya never know.

The republican party is a wasteland. The party leadership itself has abandoned all principals, and advocating we all abandon our own thoughts and beliefs to win elections.

Pragmatic they call it.

I hear ya AHZ. Have you followed the Scozzafava race? She is a fiscal conservative republican with a pretty socially liberal outlook. I have to say that I really do not believe the two poles are compatable in one candidate...and yet we here from liberatrian's all the time who hold these conjoined views.

Gingrich, who was very successful in building a republican coalition, believes that it is not pragmatics as mush as reality that in certain districts throughout the US candidates like Scozzafava are the reality. That socially conservative candidates just don't have a chance and so any vote for them is a vote for the democrat...what say you?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

I hear ya AHZ. Have you followed the Scozzafava race? She is a fiscal conservative republican with a pretty socially liberal outlook. I have to say that I really do not believe the two poles are compatable in one candidate...and yet we here from liberatrian's all the time who hold these conjoined views.

Gingrich, who was very successful in building a republican coalition, believes that it is not pragmatics as mush as reality that in certain districts throughout the US candidates like Scozzafava are the reality. That socially conservative candidates just don't have a chance and so any vote for them is a vote for the democrat...what say you?

There is no path to a free government inside the two party system as configured today.

"Fiscal conservative" today just means you believe execs should get to keep their lavish salaries after a taxpayer funded bailout.

Both parties are owned and operated by keynesian fascists.

Just in case you needed a starker vision, there ya go.

All citizens should stop voting.

 

[Canceled2]

There is no path to a free government inside the two party system as configured today.

"Fiscal conservative" today just means you believe execs should get to keep their lavish salaries after a taxpayer funded bailout.

Both parties are owned and operated by keynesian fascists.

Just in case you needed a starker vision, there ya go.

All citizens should stop voting.

That's not realistic in its goals whatever they might be. There does exist real conservative candidates who are Constitutionally worthy to be elected. I do believe that this idea that you can be fiscally conservative and socially liberal is a contradiction in terms...i.e. how do you pay for the social programs you'd support?

Anyway, I am gonna chew on Gingrich's "realist" or "pragamatist's" perspective and try to gain my own.

 

[zappasguitar]

Comparing his to yours you must be damn stupid.

WOW!

You think that one up all by yourself?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That's because Reagan was aware that social conservatism is hugely unpopular with most of the nation.

This is where you are just way wrong Hoop. Reagan was aware that most of the nation wasn't bible-thumping Baptists... yes! But he was also aware that 95% of America has some belief in a higher power, and he articulated a message which resonated with many of those people. He made the connection between our almost universal belief in something greater than self, and what that means to America as a nation. He explained why we are the greatest nation and government ever known to man, a shining city on the hill.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

That's not realistic in its goals whatever they might be. There does exist real conservative candidates who are Constitutionally worthy to be elected. I do believe that this idea that you can be fiscally conservative and socially liberal is a contradiction in terms...i.e. how do you pay for the social programs you'd support?

Anyway, I am gonna chew on Gingrich's "realist" or "pragamatist's" perspective and try to gain my own.

It's realistic. It would send a message.

the message is "All these fascist candidates suck".


I understand that you need to feel a sense of hope working within the system as it is.

Is it "fiscally conservative" to beleive execs should keep their bonuses after a bailout? That's what it's come down to. There is not real debate on the most important issue, the nature of our currency.

 

[DamnYankee]

WOW!

You think that one up all by yourself?

Yes. Watch and learn, youngin!

 

[Canceled2]

It's realistic. It would send a message.

the message is "All these fascist candidates suck".


I understand that you need to feel a sense of hope working within the system as it is.

Is it "fiscally conservative" to beleive execs should keep their bonuses after a bailout? That's what it's come down to. There is not real debate on the most important issue, the nature of our currency.

I agree that if companies take bail out they invite government in to set rules regarding compensation until the money is payed back. What I disagree with is the notion "Too Big To Fail". These companies that were bordeing on failure should have failed if they had allowed their greed to rule their business decisions. The politics invested in these companies is, as you allude, the reason they were bailed out. Would allowing them to have failed devestated our economy? Hard to say since there were other alternatives to absolute faliure such as banckruptcy and selling off of assets.

When I talk about true conservativism, I speak to the traditonal understanding and attitude we have held in this country over the protection of life and liberty; which is managed by states rights that are further protected and guarenteed by our Democratic Republic's Constitution.

I think what you ask is unrealistic because everyone would have to participate. That said I guess you are right that I need/want to believe that electively we can still institute a better governement than we have experienced in the last few decades.

Let's audit the Federal Reserve!

 

[Sammy Jankis]

I agree that if companies take bail out they invite government in to set rules regarding compensation until the money is payed back. What I disagree with is the notion "Too Big To Fail". These companies that were bordeing on failure should have failed if they had allowed their greed to rule their business decisions. The politics invested in these companies is, as you allude, the reason they were bailed out. Would allowing them to have failed devestated our economy? Hard to say since there were other alternatives to absolute faliure such as banckruptcy and selling off of assets.

When I talk about true conservativism, I speak to the traditonal understanding and attitude we have held in this country over the protection of life and liberty; which is managed by states rights that are further protected and guarenteed by our Democratic Republic's Constitution.

I think what you ask is unrealistic because everyone would have to participate. That said I guess you are right that I need/want to believe that electively we can still institute a better governement than we have experienced in the last few decades.

Let's audit the Federal Reserve!

I often seem unrealistic and crazy, because the very concept of "normal" is just a composite personality, created in a propaganda laboratory. It's an idea of how elitists liars wished we all were, trusting, sheepish, just going along with what authority figures say.. etc...


And YES let's audit the fed, then return to sound currency.

The ability to create money is a totalitarian power.

Keynesianism is totalitarianism.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

This is where you are just way wrong Hoop. Reagan was aware that most of the nation wasn't bible-thumping Baptists... yes! But he was also aware that 95% of America has some belief in a higher power, and he articulated a message which resonated with many of those people. He made the connection between our almost universal belief in something greater than self, and what that means to America as a nation. He explained why we are the greatest nation and government ever known to man, a shining city on the hill.

Dixie, to state the obvious. Believing in a higher power does not make one a social conservative.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, to state the obvious. Believing in a higher power does not make one a social conservative.

No, but most social conservatives also believe in a higher power, and people who believe in a higher power are mostly social conservative. Did you have some point to make, or is this another lame pinhead attempt to "trounce" Dixie's argument?

What's the phrase? ...Epic Fail!

 

[Adam Weinberg]

One thing that I believe has been missing from the Republican Conservative dialogue, is an articulation of the connection between social conservative values and fiscal conservative policies. I think the left, along with help from so-called moderates, have successfully vilified the 'religious right' or 'the moral majority' in America. It is no longer 'in vogue' to mention 'God' in stump speeches, people like Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin are labeled "religious zealots" and effectively silenced in the 'intellectually serious' public arena of debate. Heaven forbid a politician attend National Prayer Day ceremonies, or be seen with Ralph Reid in public. They may as well be seen with Osama Bin Laden, because that is how ugly the left has become with their anti-religious rhetoric campaign.

In this atmosphere, I look back to Ronald Reagan, and I think... Here is a man who was governor of California, one of the nation's liberal bastions, his wife consorting with psychics, not really all that "religious" in their public life. Reagan certainly wasn't some southern bible-thumping morality preacher, but there was something very special about the Reagan philosophy and message. It did make the connection between social conservative values and fiscally conservative principles, in a way that hasn't been articulated since. Perhaps it was precisely Reagan's background which insulated him somewhat, from the heat of the anti-religious left, or maybe it was during a time when the anti-religious left was still a harmless and ineffective force. But for some reason, Reagan was able to connect the values and beliefs of social conservatives, with the pragmatic and prosperous principles of capitalism and free market economy. In other words, he vulcanized social and fiscal conservatism.

I believe he did so with the following message... I know there have been other constitutions, new ones are being drawn today by newly emerging nations. Most of them, even the one of the Soviet Union, contains many of the same guarantees as our own Constitution, and still there is a difference. The difference is so subtle that we often overlook it, but is is so great that it tells the whole story. Those other constitutions say, “Government grants you these rights” and ours says, “You are born with these rights, they are yours by the grace of God, and no government on earth can take them from you.”


Social Conservatism is the foundational cornerstone of Conservatism. It is through our belief in something greater than mankind, that we can have faith in our constitution, that we can trust individual liberties and free market economies to work, and at the same time, tend to the needs of the less fortunate among us. It is the humanitarianism found in our beliefs, which enable us to promote prosperity and capitalism. When you strip away a conservative's faith in something greater than man, you concede that our liberty and freedom are not 'endowed' by a Creator, rather they are appointed by courts and politicians. You effectively say, you believe in capitalism for the sake of greed and wealth, and nothing more. If our prosperity can't be used for the christian concept of helping those in need, aren't we just greedy capitalists who worship the dollar?

What most "moderate" conservatives don't realize, is how the left has eroded our foundation. Because they don't personally have strong religious faith, it has become easy for them to distance themselves from today's 'social conservative' and proclaim they are not a part of that. Oh, they believe in fiscal conservatism, they just don't go along with the 'religious right' on their issues... but, it is those issues which define what Conservatism is all about. The foundational cornerstone, the basis for all that follows, and without it, there is no compelling basis to support conservatism. It was clever of the left to go after religion, because Socialism works so much better in a Godless society. It's just very disappointing that so many so-called conservatives, can't understand or comprehend what conservatism is about.

I think social conservatives deserve a place at the table because religious freedom and diversity of opinion is taken for granted and in some quarters unfairly marginalized.

At the same time, this is still one of the freest countries in the world for all varieties of religion, and the very liberties that allow a person to live by a fundamentalist creed undisturbed in the United States are not that far off from the kinds of liberties that permit people to live in ways many would consider non-traditional or to engage in behaviors some would see as vices or worse.

If you listen to what a lot of these Eagle Forum type folks want, as much as a bunch of their views are very much in line with what a serious intellectual conservatism requires, you also get that they don't really have a strong commitment to limited government. They approve of the same kinds of institutions they would fear the left would use to cast them out of society entirely.

They have a strong commitment to limiting government only when it relates to changing or overturning laws about the legislation of their social values, and what's more, they believe greater legislation is necessary to ensure their level of comfort in society. In this, they seem very often to not have confidence in the value and righteousness of their own beliefs without a legislative mandate.

Social conservatives seem mixed up about how to get what they want. Their movement has become so politicized that they have tied their fortunes to temporary political institutions. Religion is not a temporary thing, nor is it usually a democratic institution, so why attempt to rely on these methods? If their conservatism is a social one, what is wrong with practicing a more active engagement in actual society?

Their view of traditional sexuality and gender roles are accepted by many people in personal practice even if their faith is not, but they seem more concerned with what the state or other more liberal establishments of religion have to say about it. They don't seem to think it would be sufficient to speak out against or offer alternatives to non-family friendly media, sodomy, pornography or gambling, but instead to promote efforts to ban it for all people.

If your interest is the condition of society, and you claim that government doesn't work to serve social goals in most other realms of policy, then what is the chance that government will be a positive influence for your traditional moral values? You mention that it is a Christian idea to promote charity. This is also a commandment in Jewish and Muslim faith. Would it be a better fulfillment of your faith to have the state be the primary agent of charity as many social conservatives would like the state to be an even more foremost agent of morality than their church and clergy?

Most governments that go down this path require a perverse degree of authority that undermines many of the potentially good reasons people suggested they lift a finger in the first place.

As you can see, I think limited government is the greatest thing that has ever happened to social conservatives and social liberals. The two camps would be better suited to realize that they need each other for their particular view of freedom to work. Religious freedom also means non-religious freedom and vice-versa. It also means tolerance of non-traditional or non-indigenous religious practices.

I can't agree with the argument that the majority of people who happen to believe in a higher power are also socially conservative, and certainly not in the political sense. Many people in this country belong to moderate or even outwardly liberal religious movements.

As well, when we hear rhetoric against people of the Muslim faith from the right, I am left to scratch my head as to why they would condemn so many innocent people with whom they would agree so much more on cultural norms than the secular liberals they oppose.

As a personal note, I have plenty of experience in my own life with the concept of religious customs being considered laws from a higher power by adherents. There are many people who practice fundamentalist types of religion in this country who do not actively seek a state endorsement of their customs. I think this is the right way to go about it.

I am not saying government has no place in enforcing any kind of morality. Liberty in our country is a moral idea.

We want freedom and capitalism not just because with it we get to do what we want for our own personal happiness. There is no contradiction in a free society with the pursuit of personal happiness and the building of greater establishments of prosperity, enlightenment, and justice. There are rarely any other ways to achieve these goals if people's rights are not being respected.

It is not the role of a limited government to enforce all morality for all purposes, but to foster an order in which the greatest amount of good can be done (intentionally and unintentionally) and the least amount of harm will be done to the people, especially harm to society that would be done intentionally and without consent.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I am only going to comment on a snippet of your post Adam...

Social conservatives seem mixed up about how to get what they want. Their movement has become so politicized that they have tied their fortunes to temporary political institutions. Religion is not a temporary thing, nor is it usually a democratic institution, so why attempt to rely on these methods? If their conservatism is a social one, what is wrong with practicing a more active engagement in actual society?

Their view of traditional sexuality and gender roles are accepted by many people in personal practice even if their faith is not, but they seem more concerned with what the state or other more liberal establishments of religion have to say about it. They don't seem to think it would be sufficient to speak out against or offer alternatives to non-family friendly media, sodomy, pornography or gambling, but instead to promote efforts to ban it for all people.

The thing that strikes me first, is the apparently unconscious way you switched from talking about social conservatives to evangelical fundamentalists, and never missed a lick. It seems you equate "social conservative" with "religious people" and I think they are not one in the same, and that has been part of the whole problem.

I am socially conservative, but non-religious. While I am sure there are many religious social conservatives, not all of them are. Your generalizations seem to apply to what I would say is probably less than half of all social conservatives. Most social conservatives believe in God, but don't regularly attend church services. There are a number of compelling moral and ethical reasons to be a social conservative, which do not require a religious foundation.

This is precisely what I was alluding to in my original post. Reagan was able to make that connection, with true social conservatives, not religious fundamentalists, not the 700 Club, but everyday average Americans who have socially conservative family-oriented, traditional values... regardless of their personal faith. There is a place at the table for social conservatives, it's the Big Chair up front.

One other parting shot...

"They don't seem to think it would be sufficient to speak out against or offer alternatives to non-family friendly media, sodomy, pornography or gambling..."

I would be interested to know what you think fundamentalists would "offer" as an alternative to sodomy and porn? You know, this is kind of ridiculous, don't you think?

 

[Adam Weinberg]

Virtually everyone I’ve ever run across on message board who self-identifies as a stanch “fiscal conservative” (meaning in reality, they support huge war and defense spending, but not social spending) and yet poses or presents themselves as a social liberal, is going to vote Republican 99% of the time regardless.

Because even if they claim to be socially liberal, pro-marijuana, or whatever, when it comes to stepping into the voting booth and voting their priorities they’re always going to vote to keep taxes low on the rich, and to keep the war machine well funded and well oiled. Being pro-Gay marriage is just a catch phrase to ingratiate themselves with liberals. But, it will never be a top priority when stepping into the voting booth and voting their values.

I don't really think that is the case. This is an active debate in the Republican Party and the conservative movement, and there are plenty of venues for different kinds of Republicans to attempt to get a greater influence in the party. Naturally, we have a problem with the national leadership squelching grassroots movements as well.

You might be correct that a liberal or libertarian Republican in some cases would choose a conservative Republican before a liberal Democrat (though not always).

But returning to the point about inconsistencies between what a party stands for and what a party gets for leadership, I would ask if you don't think as a liberal in the Democratic Party that your partisan identification isn't often more important to your people than choosing candidates who are supportive of your stated beliefs.

The liberal wing of the Democratic Party always seems to let the centrists and Blue Dogs take the wheel once they get scared they might lose an election to a Republican. They strangely seem to think it would be so much worse a fate for the country than a Democrat who thinks 95% of the same things. Is this not blind partisanship?

Many conservatives withheld their support from McCain's campaign because his partisan label is not as important to them as his actual views.

I think the conservative movement will be much more resilient to their losses then had the shoe been on the other foot. Losing is their incentive to actually do what they committed to doing in the first place. The left never accepts losing as an instruction to really fulfill their vision. They act like being out of power is a death sentence rather than an opportunity.

With all the time they spent out of power in the first six of the Bush years they were not really able to get it right on fundamentals. They haven't proven effective as a minority or a majority to actually achieve what they believe in.

You can state your case once against that most of the original Democrats in Congress were against the war, but many of those folks had a limited constituency to answer to. It's not courageous to preach to the choir in a gerrymandered district.

It is clear that nationally prominent Democrats in control of the party who do fear answering to a broad segment of the public are largely pro-war, largely for corporate influence in government, for the Patriot Act and the like, against same-sex marriage and for the death penalty.

If you read these issue positions out to folks in my generation who voted for Hope and Change they wouldn't recognize any of these as reasons they associate with the incumbent Democratic President, but often reasons they were opposed to the previous President.

Other than being a terrible campaigner, one of the reasons we didn't end up with John Kerry as President is because he didn't do a good enough job explaining how he would be fundamentally different than George W. Bush. Not superficially, but how his policies were any different.

In the end, he was telling the country that he would continue Bush's policies (in fact, if we recall he promoted an idea very much like the surge years before John McCain in that campaign), but enact them in a more intelligent way. Obama is currently carrying out that same concept, more or less, but told the country it would be a major change in the way government runs and he was much more successful in capturing people's attention.

To what positive end for your party? I don't know. Obama, even if he privately believes what the liberals believe, is mostly only comfortable to publicly act as a corporate leftist and not a liberal.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

I am only going to comment on a snippet of your post Adam...



The thing that strikes me first, is the apparently unconscious way you switched from talking about social conservatives to evangelical fundamentalists, and never missed a lick. It seems you equate "social conservative" with "religious people" and I think they are not one in the same, and that has been part of the whole problem.

I am socially conservative, but non-religious. While I am sure there are many religious social conservatives, not all of them are. Your generalizations seem to apply to what I would say is probably less than half of all social conservatives. Most social conservatives believe in God, but don't regularly attend church services. There are a number of compelling moral and ethical reasons to be a social conservative, which do not require a religious foundation.

This is precisely what I was alluding to in my original post. Reagan was able to make that connection, with true social conservatives, not religious fundamentalists, not the 700 Club, but everyday average Americans who have socially conservative family-oriented, traditional values... regardless of their personal faith. There is a place at the table for social conservatives, it's the Big Chair up front.

One other parting shot...

"They don't seem to think it would be sufficient to speak out against or offer alternatives to non-family friendly media, sodomy, pornography or gambling..."

I would be interested to know what you think fundamentalists would "offer" as an alternative to sodomy and porn? You know, this is kind of ridiculous, don't you think?

I don't equate the two, but as far as those who are actual players and peddlers in the largely social conservative political agenda in the United States, the evangelical organizations, among other religiously inclined institutions are it.

If you're just talking about appealing to people who happen to be socially conservative in their own right and are against same-sex marriage and pro-life, then we're talking apples and oranges, yes, but I think my argument stands even more. I also made an edit here to point out that many people who are socially conservative in the manner you are describing would not call themselves or identify as social conservatives as their primary interest. Socially conservative leftists who voted for Obama are the reason Prop 8 succeeded in banning same-sex marriage in California.

You do not need to be religious to take either of these views or to think that the states should decide those kinds of issues, for or against.

But when you say who is sitting in that big chair up front, just remember (as if I would have to remind you) that it would be the people who want us to live like puritans, and not Joe the Plumber, who wants to save babies and doesn't want his Pastor to be forced to marry gays.

And that is a kind of manipulation and distortion of real intention, just as social conservatives themselves are manipulated by not particularly conservative Republicans.

As for alternatives to banning non-traditional behavior...how about engaging people to promote traditional behavior? After all, don't some of these folks believe they can "pray the gay away"?