The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: mystery-ak on February 12, 2020, 04:59:15 pm
-
Conservatism Is the Real Resistance
The anti-Trump “resistance†deserves another name: #TheReactionaries. They believe they are always moving, ever pursuing social change, pushing for more reform, more correction, but having conquered so much of American society, they are, in effect, a mighty status quo.
February 12, 2020
If you ask conservatives what they stand for—I mean genuine conservatives, not libertarians who were aligned with conservatives long ago because of a shared anti-Communism even though their social beliefs were wholly liberal—here is what they will say: “God. Family. Country.â€
Yes, it’s that simple. Conservatives want a churchgoing public, stable families, and national identity. Limited government, low taxes, free markets, and deregulation are secondary commitments.
Establishment Republicans didn’t understand this, which is why they underestimated in 2015 the appeal of Donald Trump. Trump’s “Build the wall!†slogan hindered the free flow of labor that businesses favored, and the other candidates slammed him. But Republican voters loved it. Finally! A leader who understands that a country without borders is not a country.
When Trump promised that his White House would say “Merry Christmas,†he picked a fight that most Republican politicians preferred to avoid. But voters found it mighty refreshing for one of their leaders to respect the Christian meaning of December 25.
more
https://amgreatness.com/2020/02/11/conservatism-is-the-real-resistance/
-
I do believe my vote is more to keep the Democrats out rather than just being a big fan of the GOP. Some I definitely am a big fan.
-
Conservatism Is the Real Resistance
And insisting that we adhere to the Constitution as written is Conservatism IMHO!
-
And insisting that we adhere to the Constitution as written is Conservatism IMHO!
:amen: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:
-
If you ask conservatives what they stand for—I mean genuine conservatives, not libertarians who were aligned with conservatives long ago because of a shared anti-Communism even though their social beliefs were wholly liberal—here is what they will say: “God. Family. Country.â€
Yes, it’s that simple. Conservatives want a churchgoing public, stable families, and national identity. Limited government, low taxes, free markets, and deregulation are secondary commitments.
As a libertarian-leaning conservative, I'll just point out that your definition of conservative doesn't really have anything to do with politics at all. You don't need a government to tell you to go to church or have a stable family. "National identify" may, but it is so broad as to be pretty meaningless.
In terms of what I want out of my government, the three things you listed second are what are important to me. The other things I can handle on my own, and would prefer the government stay away from.
-
Ronald Reagan himself.
"“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/83332-if-you-analyze-it-i-believe-the-very-heart-and (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/83332-if-you-analyze-it-i-believe-the-very-heart-and)
)I don't need yet aother pontificator, to tell me about 'genuine conservatism' or 'principled conservatism,' every other day.
-
As stated, Principled Conservatism has barely peripheral association w/politics, economics and religion; yet the usual suspects endlessly conflate all of these, making rubbish of their assertions.
Rather, it's an amalgam of first principles derived from the Natural Law which defined the
moral order and conduct for Mankind, necessary for it to survive and thrive.
These Principles include:
* The Family unit of Father, Mother, Son and Daughter, is the eternal bedrock of culture/society.
* Custom and continuity define the stability of a society.
* The Principle of Prescription asserts that precedent is superior to current whim.
* The Principle of Prudence asserts that current decisions be measured against future consequences.
* As Men are individual and unequal by their Soul, variety must be encouraged to foster human
creativity.
* As Man is not a prefectable being, tolerance must be encouraged.
* The Right of private ownership is a catalyst for personal Responsibility.
* Communal voluntarism is superior to destructive collective non-voluntarism.
* The coercive impulse within governance must be repressed for culture/society to thrive.
The are many more of these in the writings of the 18th century English Whigs, most prominently Edmund Burke.
-
Ronald Reagan himself.
"“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."
)I don't need yet aother pontificator, to tell me about 'genuine conservatism' or 'principled conservatism,' every other day.
---------------------------
Respectfully;
The Principles of Conservatism were articulated by the Ancients among them Sargon, Hammurabi
and most prominently Plato, in his majestic "The Republic."
Libertarianism was birthed late in the Enlightenment by Montesquieu a contrarian to the Liberal radicalism of Rousseau; nevertheless both ideologies were spawned by the Enlightenment and neither has anything to do w/Principled Conservatism, birthed thousands of years earlier.
-
Ronald Reagan himself.
"“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/83332-if-you-analyze-it-i-believe-the-very-heart-and (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/83332-if-you-analyze-it-i-believe-the-very-heart-and)
)I don't need yet aother pontificator, to tell me about 'genuine conservatism' or 'principled conservatism,' every other day.
How about you be honest and finish out the quote..from your link
I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories.
He was a Libertarian only to the point of believing in smaller government...fiscal responsibility and free enterprise wit minimal governmental regulation.
But with the rest of the Libertarian philosophy he was the opposite...and that was all of the social views.
Ron Paul and his drones always tried to glom on to Reagan using that half quote you posted and the famous pic of Reagan and Dr. Nuts together as proof Reagan was a Libertarian.
But anyone with a brain and a modicum of a grasp on reality knew it wasn't true.
Reagan espoused some Libertarian beliefs...but he wasn't a Libertarian.
-
What people...even some Republicans fail to understand about Conservatism...is that it's not a political philosophy...it's a belief and values system for the people that believe in it. Progressivism, Populism, Socialism, and the rest of the "ism's" are ideology and ideology can always shift with popular trends or a shift in popularity of superficial things in life.
Conservatism doesn't waver and neither do the people who consider themselves Conservative...and if they do shift in their beliefs it tends to be towards being more conservative than less as they gain life experience and age.
We get told all the time we're too "rigid"...we're "behind the times" or that we're "a dying breed" yet the numbers of Conservatives...those who lean conservative or have Conservative beliefs don't really change from survey to survey over the years.
Conservatism is the firewall in this country against all out Statism. And these calls from within the GOP to abandon our Conservative beliefs endangers that firewall.
-
How about you be honest and finish out the quote..from your link
I don't see how any of that real changes anything.
He was a Libertarian only to the point of believing in smaller government...fiscal responsibility and free enterprise with minimal governmental regulation. But with the rest of the Libertarian philosophy he was the opposite...and that was all of the social views.
What are the "social views" of the libertarian philosophy, and I'm using libertarian with a small "l" as opposed to the capital L that is the Libertarian Party in particular. As best as I can figure, "social views" are completely irrelevant to libertarianism because it is a principle/philosophy that applies only to government, and not to social views.
-
What people...even some Republicans fail to understand about Conservatism...is that it's not a political philosophy...it's a belief and values system for the people that believe in it. Progressivism, Populism, Socialism, and the rest of the "ism's" are ideology and ideology can always shift with popular trends or a shift in popularity of superficial things in life.
What's with the antipathy towards "ism"? Isn't "conservatism" an "ism"? Isn't capitalism an "ism"?
Maybe the discussion is more about Burkean conservatism versus the libertarian strain of conservatism that Reagan generally supported. Because though there is overlap, they aren't quite the same thing. Because if you're talking the conservatism of someone like Edmund Burke, then that's something a bit different, and does involve social values rather than just our view of government. It places a lot more emphasis on tradition, stability, values, and "manners".
The Bushes and Romney are Burkean conservatives. Trump very much is not, and that probably comes closest to explaining the fault line between those self-described conservatives who support him, and those who don't.
-
I don't see how any of that real changes anything.
It's a more honest assessment of what Reagan was trying to say.
What are the "social views" of the libertarian philosophy, and I'm using libertarian with a small "l" as opposed to the capital L that is the Libertarian Party in particular). As best as I can figure, "social views" are completely irrelevant to libertarianism because it is a principle/philosophy that applies only to government, and not to social views.
This is where the Conservatives and the Libertarians part ways on social issues:
Oppose the death penalty. (May 2016)
Support restitution; and maintain constitutional safeguards. (Nov 2014)
Three Strikes approach is illusory & dangerous. (Nov 2000)
Omnibus Crime Bill, including death penalty, has failed. (Nov 2000)
Encourage private efforts to fight crime. (Jul 2000)
Allow drugs, alcohol, prostitution, gambling, and suicide. (Jul 2000)
Strengthen, not reduce, the rights of the accused. (Jul 2000)
Hate crimes are used to punish blacks. (Feb 2000)
De-fund war on drugs, and end violent drug cartels. (Jan 2015)
Repeal all drug laws creating “crimes†without victims. (May 2008)
The war on drugs threatens individual liberties. (Jul 2000)
No gender identity restrictions on child custody or adoption. (May 2016)
Eliminate all restrictions on immigration. (Jul 2000)
https://www.ontheissues.org/Libertarian_Party.htm (https://www.ontheissues.org/Libertarian_Party.htm)
Those are the big social issues where the Libertarian party sounds more like the Progressives in the Democrat party today. Then there's the ideological split when it comes to military and foreign policy as well. And we won't even get into some of the more radical ideas about finance like returning tot he Gold Standard.
-
The Bushes and Romney are Burkean conservatives. Trump very much is not, and that probably comes closest to explaining the fault line between those self-described conservatives who support him, and those who don't.
I've never thought of either President Bush or Senator Romney as Conservative. They are mainline establishment "Rockerfeller Republicans".
Trump isn't a Conservative...he's not a Libertarian...he's a Populist.
-
My number one conservative principle, is winning.
If you fail with that, all the volumes of words and claims, and debates are not very much good.
If Trump (or another) fall short of one hundred percent perfect "conservatism," I readily accept that, knowing the alternative is not good.
If yourr one hundred percent pure conservative can't get nominated, and elected, what good is he?
Romney, Kasich, Weld, Sanford, Amash, Flake, Kristol, etc.
-
It's a more honest assessment of what Reagan was trying to say.
This is where the Conservatives and the Libertarians part ways on social issues:
Oppose the death penalty. (May 2016)
Support restitution; and maintain constitutional safeguards. (Nov 2014)
Three Strikes approach is illusory & dangerous. (Nov 2000)
Omnibus Crime Bill, including death penalty, has failed. (Nov 2000)
Encourage private efforts to fight crime. (Jul 2000)
Allow drugs, alcohol, prostitution, gambling, and suicide. (Jul 2000)
Strengthen, not reduce, the rights of the accused. (Jul 2000)
Hate crimes are used to punish blacks. (Feb 2000)
De-fund war on drugs, and end violent drug cartels. (Jan 2015)
Repeal all drug laws creating “crimes†without victims. (May 2008)
The war on drugs threatens individual liberties. (Jul 2000)
No gender identity restrictions on child custody or adoption. (May 2016)
Eliminate all restrictions on immigration. (Jul 2000)
https://www.ontheissues.org/Libertarian_Party.htm (https://www.ontheissues.org/Libertarian_Party.htm)
Those are the big social issues where the Libertarian party sounds more like the Progressives in the Democrat party today. Then there's the ideological split when it comes to military and foreign policy as well. And we won't even get into some of the more radical ideas about finance like returning tot he Gold Standard.
You are citing to the Libertarian Party, which is not the same thing as being libertarian. It's like looking at the Democratic Party as the authority for what constitutes democracy.
-
My number one conservative principle, is winning.
Then you don't understand what conservative principles are if that's your #1 "principle".
As Rush is apt to say "Conservatism wins every time it's tried." The last time Conservatism and Conservative beliefs were front and center we got the best president of the modern era in Ronald Reagan.
Conservatism as the center piece of the GOP hasn't been front and center since and we've gotten a collection of failed candidates and Moderates/RINO's.
If Trump (or another) fall short of one hundred percent perfect "conservatism," I readily accept that, knowing the alternative is not good.
Trump is a Populist. He's not even 50% Conservative. And despite all of that if he came out tomorrow and declared he was returning to his NY (Liberal) Values you'd still accept him and try and justify why the rest of us were wrong for being upset at the announcement.
If yourr one hundred percent pure conservative can't get nominated, and elected, what good is he?
Channel the ghost of Ronal Reagan and ask him that question. Once he stopped laughing at you he'd probably give you the answer you don't want to hear.
Romney, Kasich, Weld, Sanford, Amash, Flake, Kristol, etc.
All Republican...none of them Conservative. All Big Government Republicans.
-
You are citing to the Libertarian Party, which is not the same thing as being libertarian.
That sounds an awful lot like hair splitting.
It's like looking at the Democratic Party as the authority for what constitutes democracy.
No it's not. Again you're hair splitting in an attempt to distance yourself from the more Liberal/Progressive aspects of your party.
-
While we all navel gaze constitutionalists are being named to the bench, regulations are being reduced, the rule of law re established, the rat party disassembled, etc etc.
Who cares about it which definition is more accurate?
-
While we all navel gaze constitutionalists are being named to the bench, regulations are being reduced, the rule of law re established, the rat party disassembled, etc etc.
We won't know how much of the Constitution these judges being appointed will adhere to until we start getting rulings from them. Just because they say they are Constitutionalists...doesn't mean they are. We've been burned on that before.
And even Gorsuch has voted with the Liberal justices on the SCOTUS bench since he's ben there.
Who cares about it which definition is more accurate?
It means a lot when you stop and think about it.
-
I've never thought of either President Bush or Senator Romney as Conservative. They are mainline establishment "Rockerfeller Republicans".
Trump isn't a Conservative...he's not a Libertarian...he's a Populist.
Interesting assessment that you have of Trump. I have used this website (link below) in the past; not necessarily in agreement, but to see what candidates have stated where they stand on specific issues -- and quotes/votes/actions to back up where they stand. They have compiled a very broad assessment of Trump -- larger than I have ever seen on anyone and he has been determined to be a "Hard Core Conservative" based on the issues that they use to judge one's political philosophy.
He is a populist in the sense that he appeals to the average Joe and is seen as anti-establishment but I would say that the majority of his base leans more conservative than they do to the center or to the left.
https://www.ontheissues.org/donald_trump.htm (https://www.ontheissues.org/donald_trump.htm)
-
Interesting assessment that you have of Trump. I have used this website (link below) in the past; not necessarily in agreement, but to see what candidates have stated where they stand on specific issues -- and quotes/votes/actions to back up where they stand. They have compiled a very broad assessment of Trump -- larger than I have ever seen on anyone and he has been determined to be a "Hard Core Conservative" based on the issues that they use to judge one's political philosophy.
He is a populist in the sense that he appeals to the average Joe and is seen as anti-establishment but I would say that the majority of his base leans more conservative than they do to the center or to the left.
https://www.ontheissues.org/donald_trump.htm (https://www.ontheissues.org/donald_trump.htm)
He said what he knew would get a lot of people fired up to vote and that's it. He does his own version of class warfare and it appeals to a certain segment of the population.
That's the very definition of populism.
There's a myriad of things he's done that we've all hashed out here before that prove he's marginal at best on any Conservative values he may hold.
-
He said what he knew would get a lot of people fired up to vote and that's it. He does his own version of class warfare and it appeals to a certain segment of the population.
That's the very definition of populism.
There's a myriad of things he's done that we've all hashed out here before that prove he's marginal at best on any Conservative values he may hold.
Based on the issues of abortion, the second amendment, the EPA, pathway to citizenship, the military, green energy and American exceptionalism, I'd say he has proven to lean conservative.
-
Based on the issues of abortion,
It's still federally funded
the second amendment,
Bump stock ban ring a bell? Support for Red Flag Laws and universal background checks
the EPA,
He hasn't done squat with the EPA. Hasnt' even talked about (rightfully) doing away with it.
pathway to citizenship,
That's a sop to the left.
the military,
Except for one decent pay raise this year what has he done for us?
green energy
What about it?
and American exceptionalism,
that has nothing to do with Conservatism.
I'd say he has proven to lean conservative.
Trade tariffs that are to the left of Bernie Sanders...Federal Family Leave Act (guaranteed paid leave)...the national debt over 21 trillion dollars now thanks to the budgets he signed...Current U-6 Unemployment Rate (the true measure of unemployment in the U.S.) is 7.7% up from 6.7%...his repeated calls for a $1 Trillion dollar infrastructure plan...and here's one I bet you didn't hear about...he suspended the federal debt ceiling and funding the government for three months in Hurricane Harvey aid package.
That's not even close to being someone who will "lean conservative".
-
Where would I find the agreed upon definition, of "True Conservatism in America?"
Haamurabi? Mesopotamia?
Ancient Greece?
Magna Carta?
The Enlightenment?
Under which of Reagan's "Principles," woul we position the 1986 Amnesty?
And the huge Deficits?
As a soldier, certainly you would recognize the vital importance of winning, as per Reagan's push to end the Cold War, fortunately by WINNING it.
-
Under which of Reagan's "Principles," woul we position the 1986 Amnesty?
Like with his original stance on abortion as Governor of California...he admitted it was a mistake.
And the huge Deficits?
You mean the ones under the Democrat controlled House? Shall we talk about the nearly two decade long economic wave of prosperity that Regan's policies created despite Tip O'Neill and company?
The $2 trillion increase in GDP during his tenure.
The decline in the poverty level
The 69% increase in fiscal year Federal receipts when he was in office?
You sound just like Trump did when he was an invited speak on behalf of the House Democrats when he trashed Reagan's tax cuts and compared his policies to those of Russia.
As a soldier, certainly you would recognize the vital importance of winning, as per Reagan's push to end the Cold War, fortunately by WINNING it.
Reagan won it by increasing the size of the military and investing in MilTech that forced the USSR into bankruptcy. One of his first acts as Commander in Chief was to across the board raise our wages to the equivalent of our civilian counterparts and made sure we were paid well (by 1980's standards).
The 600 ship Navy (real count: 594 by 1987).
Congress right now has rejected 3 times this Administration's effort to mothball a carrier 25 years early. We've gotten legit raise in the last three years...no increase to the size of any of the branches of the Armed Forces meanwhile we've got a very modernized Russian military taking over huge chunks of their former SSR's encouraged by Trump's repeated threats to pull out of NATO.
China is executing a takeover of the entire South China Sea with a 500 mile exclusion zone and we're watching it happen and doing nothing about it.
Reagan won because he didn't just talk about winning he executed and implemented polices and plans to ensure we won the Cold War.
We're in Cold War 2.0 right now and all we're responding with is hot air and bluster.
I recognize the vital importance...I'm not sure if you do. It takes more than just saying "winning" to actually do just that.
As for the first part of your question...I suggest you read the Constitution, The Bill of Rights and the Declaration if Independence.
If that kind of reading is too heavy for you...pull up youTube and watch "A Time For Choosing". Or maybe read some William F. Buckley or study Barry Goldwater.
-
While we all navel gaze constitutionalists are being named to the bench, regulations are being reduced, the rule of law re established, the rat party disassembled, etc etc.
Who cares about it which definition is more accurate?
It's nice to have an objective, a goal when your opponents are is disarray, so you can meaningfully exploit that advantage.
I look for a government which governs least, in the sense that the Fed is confined to and complying with it's Constitutional Limitations and duties, respectively. That would make for smaller, cheaper government focused on National Defense, infrastructure (post roads), and maintaining standards for trade. WHile I can't agree with all that is going on in the several states, let those be the test beds for policy, that those States will prosper or decline based on how well they conduct themselves.
And above all, keep Government out of my rights, except to uphold them.
-
Like with his original stance on abortion as Governor of California...he admitted it was a mistake.
You mean the ones under the Democrat controlled House? Shall we talk about the nearly two decade long economic wave of prosperity that Regan's policies created despite Tip O'Neill and company?
The $2 trillion increase in GDP during his tenure.
The decline in the poverty level
The 69% increase in fiscal year Federal receipts when he was in office?
You sound just like Trump did when he was an invited speak on behalf of the House Democrats when he trashed Reagan's tax cuts and compared his policies to those of Russia.
Reagan won it by increasing the size of the military and investing in MilTech that forced the USSR into bankruptcy. One of his first acts as Commander in Chief was to across the board raise our wages to the equivalent of our civilian counterparts and made sure we were paid well (by 1980's standards).
The 600 ship Navy (real count: 594 by 1987).
Congress right now has rejected 3 times this Administration's effort to mothball a carrier 25 years early. We've gotten legit raise in the last three years...no increase to the size of any of the branches of the Armed Forces meanwhile we've got a very modernized Russian military taking over huge chunks of their former SSR's encouraged by Trump's repeated threats to pull out of NATO.
China is executing a takeover of the entire South China Sea with a 500 mile exclusion zone and we're watching it happen and doing nothing about it.
Reagan won because he didn't just talk about winning he executed and implemented polices and plans to ensure we won the Cold War.
We're in Cold War 2.0 right now and all we're responding with is hot air and bluster.
I recognize the vital importance...I'm not sure if you do. It takes more than just saying "winning" to actually do just that.
As for the first part of your question...I suggest you read the Constitution, The Bill of Rights and the Declaration if Independence.
If that kind of reading is too heavy for you...pull up youTube and watch "A Time For Choosing". Or maybe read some William F. Buckley or study Barry Goldwater.
---------------------------
We'll done, radioguy!!!
-
My number one conservative principle, is winning.
If you fail with that, all the volumes of words and claims, and debates are not very much good.
If Trump (or another) fall short of one hundred percent perfect "conservatism," I readily accept that, knowing the alternative is not good.
If your one hundred percent pure conservative can't get nominated, and elected, what good is he?
Romney, Kasich, Weld, Sanford, Amash, Flake, Kristol, etc.
-----------------------
Politics and winning have absolutely NOTHING to do w/principled conservatism.
The former are the obsession of assorted hustlers and those addicted to gambling.
-
On TBR all are entitled to their opinion yet that does not include the freedom to define
established concepts as one pleases.
For example, the great religions of Judaism and Roman Catholicism were defined at their
creation by their creed, doctrine, faith, practices, belief system; among many attributes.
So too were the economic systems of capitalism and socialism so defined and differentiated.
Yet on this topic, poster after poster implies that they are free to define conservatism or
libertarianism or liberalism, by what they perceive or understand these terms to mean.
THAT IS ARRANT NONSENSE AND UTTER HORSE MANURE!!!!!!
These terms have been defined by their creators thousands of years ago and that is the basis
for any debate or disagreement, not some hair brained notion someone heard on tee-vee!!!
-
What's with the antipathy towards "ism"? Isn't "conservatism" an "ism"? Isn't capitalism an "ism"?
Maybe the discussion is more about Burkean conservatism versus the libertarian strain of conservatism that Reagan generally supported. Because though there is overlap, they aren't quite the same thing. Because if you're talking the conservatism of someone like Edmund Burke, then that's something a bit different, and does involve social values rather than just our view of government. It places a lot more emphasis on tradition, stability, values, and "manners".
The Bushes and Romney are Burkean conservatives. Trump very much is not, and that probably comes closest to explaining the fault line between those self-described conservatives who support him, and those who don't.
Not quite right @Maj. Bill Martin .
The Bushes are from the moderate wing, and Romney from the liberal wing of the Republican party
None are conservative at all.
Conservatives come from the right wing of the Republican party. The Goldwater/Reagan wing, which is also decidedly libertarian.If one does not believe in basic libertarianism, I find it hard to claim political Conservatism at all, because that is the very core set of values.
I would also submit that Reaganism would be a better couch for Burkean Conservatism to sit upon, as the major difference between Goldwater and Reagan is the addition of the social right and their principles to Goldwater libertarianism. Not a perfect fit perhaps, but the moral social context is there.
-
That sounds an awful lot like hair splitting.
No it's not. Again you're hair splitting in an attempt to distance yourself from the more Liberal/Progressive aspects of your party.
No @txradioguy , that ain't right. Political Conservatism ala Goldwater is conservative libertarianism, somewhat referred to as civil-libertarianism, to provide a distinction between the libertarians on the Right and the Big 'L' libertarian party.
@Maj. Bill Martin is correct. It is unfortunate that the moderate republicans have become so successful in shearing libertarianism from conservatism by a false concatenation between Goldwater and the Libertarian party. Because it used to be that the Libertarian Party would often vote with and for Conservatives because for them, Goldwater was good enough.
American Conservatism is at its core a blending of libertarianism and classic liberalism - Classic Liberalism largely became libertarianism to draw a distinction when modern liberalism took over the name. And then, when the Libertarian party bastardized libertarianism, doctrinal libertarians moved over to Goldwater Conservatism.
-
On TBF all are entitled to their opinion yet that does not include the freedom to define
established concepts as one pleases.
For example, the great religions of Judaism and Roman Catholicism were defined at their
creation by their creed, doctrine, faith, practices, belief system; among many attributes.
So too were the economic systems of capitalism and socialism so defined and differentiated.
Yet on this topic, poster after poster implies that they are free to define conservatism or
libertarianism or liberalism, by what they perceive or understand these terms to mean.
THAT IS ARRANT NONSENSE AND UTTER HORSE MANURE!!!!!!
These terms have been defined by their creators thousands of years ago and that is the basis
for any debate or disagreement, not some hair brained notion someone heard on tee-vee!!!
:beer:
The problem @Absalom is in the purposeful confusion of terms and the intentional attempts to redefine conservatism with this current lot trying to win the Conservative mantle by redefinition into a populist pragmatism, which Conservatism of any stripe definitely is not.
-
:beer:
The problem @Absalom is in the purposeful confusion of terms and the intentional attempts to redefine conservatism with this current lot trying to win the Conservative mantle by redefinition into a populist pragmatism, which Conservatism of any stripe definitely is not.
--------------------------
Thanks for the click.
As you well know, all this verbal sophistry further confuses and muddles,
as it subtracts from our knowledge/understanding of Principled Conservatism.
-
Bkmk
Some great stuff here!
-
No @txradioguy , that ain't right. Political Conservatism ala Goldwater is conservative libertarianism, somewhat referred to as civil-libertarianism, to provide a distinction between the libertarians on the Right and the Big 'L' libertarian party.
@Maj. Bill Martin is correct. It is unfortunate that the moderate republicans have become so successful in shearing libertarianism from conservatism by a false concatenation between Goldwater and the Libertarian party. Because it used to be that the Libertarian Party would often vote with and for Conservatives because for them, Goldwater was good enough.
American Conservatism is at its core a blending of libertarianism and classic liberalism - Classic Liberalism largely became libertarianism to draw a distinction when modern liberalism took over the name. And then, when the Libertarian party bastardized libertarianism, doctrinal libertarians moved over to Goldwater Conservatism.
@roamer_1
:yowsa:
-
Not quite right @Maj. Bill Martin .
The Bushes are from the moderate wing, and Romney from the liberal wing of the Republican party
None are conservative at all.
They are Burkean conservatives -- interested above all else in preserving tradition and stability, believing that manners and not giving offense are of high importance, etc... Edmund Burke used to be called the father of conservatism, and at the time, he was. To him, radicalism and conservatism were polar opposites. And he was more or less right.
The problem is that the meaning of conservatism in the Burkean sense changes as the status quo changes. If the country has moved significantly to the left, and you are still defending stability, tradition, and decorum, you are no longer defending classical liberal values. You end up defending leftist values because they have become the new status quo, and you end up preserving/defending values that are inconsistent with classical liberalism.
So when the company has drifted (or perhaps moved rapidly) leftward, "stability" and "tradition" and "respect for dominant values" are no longer good things. What you need is more radicalism. And that is where the Bushes and Romneys have split from those who now support Trump. They are still locked in the mindset of Burkean conservatives who think manners, etc., are so very important. Well, there comes a time when you have to drop the manners, and start getting more ornery. And they just are temperamentally not suited to doing that.
@roamer_1
-
They are Burkean conservatives -- interested above all else in preserving tradition and stability, believing that manners and not giving offense are of high importance, etc... Edmund Burke used to be called the father of conservatism, and at the time, he was. To him, radicalism and conservatism were polar opposites. And he was more or less right.
The problem is that the meaning of conservatism in the Burkean sense changes as the status quo changes. If the country has moved significantly to the left, and you are still defending stability, tradition, and decorum, you are no longer defending classical liberal values. You end up defending leftist values because they have become the new status quo, and you end up preserving/defending values that are inconsistent with classical liberalism.
So when the company has drifted (or perhaps moved rapidly) leftward, "stability" and "tradition" and "respect for dominant values" are no longer good things. What you need is more radicalism. And that is where the Bushes and Romneys have split from those who now support Trump. They are still locked in the mindset of Burkean conservatives who think manners, etc., are so very important. Well, there comes a time when you have to drop the manners, and start getting more ornery. And they just are temperamentally not suited to doing that.
@roamer_1
I will have to flatly disagree @Maj. Bill Martin ... Your portrayal of tradition is far too fluid to suit me.
I do not see Burke's sense of 'dominant values' changing critically with whatever society determines to be the norm - Quite the opposite. I see tradition as established in Burkean Conservatism as being anchored by history - By a vast run of history, proving the efficacy of those traditional mores.
I can see in Burke the adoption of Christian values as permissible in comparison to ages-old Celtic mores as contained in Natural law - Largely because they are compatible in the first place, recognizing in one the continuance of the other... That is a far different thing than blithely accepting the so-called 'post-Christian' modernity as expressed in a societal change developed in a decade or two. If tradition were to be thought that malleable it would be of no value at all.
Likewise your sense that radicalism cannot be contained within a gentleman's conduct - Simply false.
A proper gentleman is a gentleman by choosing. Restraint implies - nay, demands - that it is in fact a choice, and that choosing requires the ability to do otherwise. A gentleman is not incapable - Rather, spring steel, tightly wound. And in that, even in battle, comes a constant self-monitoring. The ability to cease, to grant mercy, to abhor torture, to kill quickly. To conduct oneself and acquit oneself accordingly in all things as a form, as an example, of justice.
That is not what is demonstrated in the Bush moderates, nor in Romney's liberals...What is found there is compliance with the overturning of tradition. The subversion of justice. That is just as abhorrent as the boorishness of Tump - One kind the way of a coward, the other the way of an oaf.
In that I must reject your portrayal of things wholesale, with no offense intended.
-
No @txradioguy , that ain't right. Political Conservatism ala Goldwater is conservative libertarianism, somewhat referred to as civil-libertarianism, to provide a distinction between the libertarians on the Right and the Big 'L' libertarian party.
But if it weren't for traditionalist conservatism as espoused by Bill Buckley Goldwater and Reagan after him wouldn't have been the major figures in Conservatism that they were IMHO.
He laid the groundwork for both of them and there's more classic liberalism (not the modern version) than there was Libertarian in him when he espoused his political views.
@Maj. Bill Martin is correct. It is unfortunate that the moderate republicans have become so successful in shearing libertarianism from conservatism by a false concatenation between Goldwater and the Libertarian party. Because it used to be that the Libertarian Party would often vote with and for Conservatives because for them, Goldwater was good enough.
No what's done more to "shear Libertarianism from conservatism" as you put it has been the likes of Lyndon LaRouche and Ron Paul and to a small extend Rand Paul.
You ask most people today who they think of when they think if Libertarianism...those are the three names you get. And the absolutely loony positions of Ron Paul that he espoused during his last presidential run did the Libertarians no favors either.
American Conservatism is at its core a blending of libertarianism and classic liberalism - Classic Liberalism largely became libertarianism to draw a distinction when modern liberalism took over the name. And then, when the Libertarian party bastardized libertarianism, doctrinal libertarians moved over to Goldwater Conservatism.
Disagree to a point. "Doctrinal" Libertarians are still...from what I can tell...anti war...open borders and pro drug. That's not anywhere near being what a Goldwater or even a Reagan conservative would have stood for.
-
Disagree to a point. "Doctrinal" Libertarians are still...from what I can tell...anti war...open borders and pro drug. That's not anywhere near being what a Goldwater or even a Reagan conservative would have stood for.
Not exactly true. Goldwater libertarians, and I know a few, may not be pro drug, but they ARE against the drug war, pointing directly there as a big reason for the authoritarian fed, and I have to agree. TWoD turned a lot of em off, and I am getting turned off too. Turns out they were right. It has lost us a lot of liberty, and didn't work to boot.
Perhaps we should have listened to those libertarians who were screaming, "Federalism!" at the top of their lungs. They are the purists when it comes to the Constitution.
-
Not exactly true. Goldwater libertarians, and I know a few, may not be pro drug, but they ARE against the drug war, pointing directly there as a big reason for the authoritarian fed, and I have to agree. TWoD turned a lot of em off, and I am getting turned off too. Turns out they were right. It has lost us a lot of liberty, and didn't work to boot.
Perhaps we should have listened to those libertarians who were screaming, "Federalism!" at the top of their lungs. They are the purists when it comes to the Constitution.
IF the 'drug war' had started with securing the borders, the alleged need to trash the 4th and other Amendments would never have arisen.
The key to that is securing the borders, stopping the influx. Domestic operations can be taken down from there, but with literally tons of that stuff coming in from all over, it's like pissing on a house fire. Some people stay employed, stuff gets taken, opportunities for corruption are rampant, and like you said, the whole WoD is ineffective overall, despite all the seizures.
In the meantime, you can't get the good cold medicine, and ffs don't buy organic solvents in bulk, even if you have a legitimate use for them or you are going to be shook down at some level.
-
ROFL!
Some of you guys here have been waiting 5 years for this article.
Pathetic....if this were a Schlichter column, it would have been locked by now.
-
IF the 'drug war' had started with securing the borders, the alleged need to trash the 4th and other Amendments would never have arisen.
The key to that is securing the borders, stopping the influx. Domestic operations can be taken down from there, but with literally tons of that stuff coming in from all over, it's like pissing on a house fire. Some people stay employed, stuff gets taken, opportunities for corruption are rampant, and like you said, the whole WoD is ineffective overall, despite all the seizures.
In the meantime, you can't get the good cold medicine, and ffs don't buy organic solvents in bulk, even if you have a legitimate use for them or you are going to be shook down at some level.
And now the seizures drive the deal... What is left of justice when you can be arrested and hauled to jail, and your property seized and sold before you are even convicted. And we all know Columbian grease in DC is what keeps that southern border open. Nobody's going to give up something that lucrative. And that in the end is what the WoD has given us.