Conservatives Are Standing on the Wrong Side of History

[Glen Contrarian]

Forget 'Republican'. Forget 'Democrat'. Forget 'Libertarian' and 'Progressive' and all the other political labels, for their meanings change over time. At one time Republicans were the liberals and the Democrats were the conservatives, and the Progressives were the ones who under Teddy Roosevelt believed in empire-building.

What is more accurate are the mindsets of 'conservative' and 'liberal'. In American history, Conservatives have historically opposed societal change, and fought for a return to what they feel were the 'good old days'. Liberals, on the other hand, have been eager to embrace societal change, that the good old days weren't so good. Of course there are many nuances, but above any such nuances are the conservative opposition to change, and the eager liberal embracing of change.

While not all societal change is for the good, and not all resistance to societal change is bad, conservatives have more often than not stood on the wrong side of history, as Pulitzer Prize-winning political cartoonist David Horsey makes clear:



The 'good old days' weren't so good...and "that's the way it's always been" is never an acceptable excuse to resist the changes that can make it better. This is why I reject American conservatism and look forward to the better days ahead for everyone, whether rich or poor, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference.

 

[TheNextEra]

Forget 'Republican'. Forget 'Democrat'. Forget 'Libertarian' and 'Progressive' and all the other political labels, for their meanings change over time. At one time Republicans were the liberals and the Democrats were the conservatives, and the Progressives were the ones who under Teddy Roosevelt believed in empire-building.

What is more accurate are the mindsets of 'conservative' and 'liberal'. In American history, Conservatives have historically opposed societal change, and fought for a return to what they feel were the 'good old days'. Liberals, on the other hand, have been eager to embrace societal change, that the good old days weren't so good. Of course there are many nuances, but above any such nuances are the conservative opposition to change, and the eager liberal embracing of change.

While not all societal change is for the good, and not all resistance to societal change is bad, conservatives have more often than not stood on the wrong side of history, as Pulitzer Prize-winning political cartoonist David Horsey makes clear:

The 'good old days' weren't so good...and "that's the way it's always been" is never an acceptable excuse to resist the changes that can make it better. This is why I reject American conservatism and look forward to the better days ahead for everyone, whether rich or poor, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference.

While I believe there are many conservatives on the wrong side of history on social issues, there are liberals who are on the wrong side of spending. We have a HUGE debt in this country and the spending liberally needs to stop and a welfare state that needs serious reforms that liberals are not working on either.

 

[ChezC3]

Actually, the current political polarization is Libertarian vs. Authoritarian.

Conservatives, real one's, lean toward libertarian while progressives, regardless of their authenticity, are simple Authoritarians...

 

[ChezC3]

Oh, and there is a new group of conservatives who don't care if you imply or even call them racists. It's nothing but a pathetic attempt to stifle and prevent a discussion of issues. Since most progressive issues can't be one on merit, they use attacks like calling people racist, or slavery advocates, or some other silly, childish ramblings they come up with...

It's not what you're called but what you answer to. So that little tool in your kit isn't going to work much longer...

 

[ttwtt78640]

Forget 'Republican'. Forget 'Democrat'. Forget 'Libertarian' and 'Progressive' and all the other political labels, for their meanings change over time. At one time Republicans were the liberals and the Democrats were the conservatives, and the Progressives were the ones who under Teddy Roosevelt believed in empire-building.

What is more accurate are the mindsets of 'conservative' and 'liberal'. In American history, Conservatives have historically opposed societal change, and fought for a return to what they feel were the 'good old days'. Liberals, on the other hand, have been eager to embrace societal change, that the good old days weren't so good. Of course there are many nuances, but above any such nuances are the conservative opposition to change, and the eager liberal embracing of change.

While not all societal change is for the good, and not all resistance to societal change is bad, conservatives have more often than not stood on the wrong side of history, as Pulitzer Prize-winning political cartoonist David Horsey makes clear:

View attachment 67153432

The 'good old days' weren't so good...and "that's the way it's always been" is never an acceptable excuse to resist the changes that can make it better. This is why I reject American conservatism and look forward to the better days ahead for everyone, whether rich or poor, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference.

You are mistaking progrm intent with its opperational reality. PPACA is not UHC, to pretend otherwise is simply insane. The intent of income redistribution, or social "safety net" programs, is indeed good - the actual implmentation, however, is not good as it amounts to a reward for HS dropouts having out of wedlock children. If one needs $X, to comfortably survive, then why should they care what proportion of $X is earned from their own labor and how much is added via income redistribution?

 

[Samhain]

We've broken political leans down into embracing/rejecting "societal change"?

Does that mean that tomorrow if someone rails against pants, only "progressives" will embrace it?

 

[BMCM]

Actually, the current political polarization is Libertarian vs. Authoritarian.

Conservatives, real one's, lean toward libertarian while progressives, regardless of their authenticity, are simple Authoritarians...

There are no real conservatives

 

[ChezC3]

There are no real conservatives

Certainly there are, there might not be many if any holding national office, but they're out there.

 

[BMCM]

Oh, and there is a new group of conservatives who don't care if you imply or even call them racists. It's nothing but a pathetic attempt to stifle and prevent a discussion of issues. Since most progressive issues can't be one on merit, they use attacks like calling people racist, or slavery advocates, or some other silly, childish ramblings they come up with...

It's not what you're called but what you answer to. So that little tool in your kit isn't going to work much longer...

Funny thing is, about the only people that constantly use the race card are the so called conservatives

 

[ChezC3]

Funny thing is, about the only people that constantly use the race card are the so called conservatives

Well, that's not true...

:lamo

It was funny though...

 

[Moot]

While I believe there are many conservatives on the wrong side of history on social issues, there are liberals who are on the wrong side of spending. We have a HUGE debt in this country and the spending liberally needs to stop and a welfare state that needs serious reforms that liberals are not working on either.

Apparently you didn't get the memo.....

"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney


Reagan was the first president to turn this country from a creditor nation into a debtor nation. Then came GWBush whose military spending under the guise of "appropiations" nearly bankrupted the country. Hey, remember those truck loads of cash sent to Iraq and then just disappearing? I don't think democrats spend anywhere near what republicans do. Not even close.

 

[ChezC3]

Apparently you didn't get the memo.....

"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney


Reagan was the first president to turn this country from a creditor nation into a debtor nation.

Actually that was FDR...

 

[Harshaw]

Reagan was the first president to turn this country from a creditor nation into a debtor nation.

That is as (in)accurate as most of your sweeping historical pronouncements.

 

[Brooks]

1. What is more accurate are the mindsets of 'conservative' and 'liberal'. In American history, Conservatives have historically opposed societal change, and fought for a return to what they feel were the 'good old days'. Liberals, on the other hand, have been eager to embrace societal change, that the good old days weren't so good. Of course there are many nuances, but above any such nuances are the conservative opposition to change, and the eager liberal embracing of change.

2. While not all societal change is for the good, and not all resistance to societal change is bad, conservatives have more often than not stood on the wrong side of history, as Pulitzer Prize-winning political cartoonist David Horsey makes clear.

3. The 'good old days' weren't so good...and "that's the way it's always been" is never an acceptable excuse to resist the changes that can make it better. This is why I reject American conservatism and look forward to the better days ahead for everyone, whether rich or poor, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference.

1. Not arguing your points, just the sneaky bias.
Oppose is such a negative word and embrace is a positive one.
It's not that conservatives oppose change, they prefer more balance and caution.
I might have worded your paragraph thus: Liberals are opposed to slow, thoughtful change while conservatives embrace it.
It's really saying the same thing but with a hidden opposite agenda.

2. I like your take on this difficult topic even though I don't agree.
But I don't think a four panel cartoon "makes clear" anything this complex.

3. There are better days ahead and there are also worse ones.

 

[Moot]

Actually that was FDR...

No, it was Reagan.


U.S. TURNS INTO DEBTOR NATION - NYTimes.com

As it becomes a debtor, US loses global clout and protectionism grows - CSMonitor.com

 

[Brooks]

Oh, and there is a new group of conservatives who don't care if you imply or even call them racists. It's nothing but a pathetic attempt to stifle and prevent a discussion of issues. Since most progressive issues can't be one on merit, they use attacks like calling people racist, or slavery advocates, or some other silly, childish ramblings they come up with...

It's not what you're called but what you answer to. So that little tool in your kit isn't going to work much longer...

Bingo.
The word racist has already been rendered meaningless.

 

[Moot]

That is as (in)accurate as most of your sweeping historical pronouncements.

Apparently, you don't read your own posts.

 

[ChezC3]

No, it was Reagan.


U.S. TURNS INTO DEBTOR NATION - NYTimes.com

As it becomes a debtor, US loses global clout and protectionism grows - CSMonitor.com

My original point aside, look at the first paragraph

The United States has become a debtor nation for the first time since World War I, owing foreigners more than they owe it, a Commerce Department report indicated today.

Now, what did you say?

Reagan was the first president to turn this country from a creditor nation into a debtor nation.

Do you see the pickle you're in?

 

[ChezC3]

Apparently you didn't get the memo.....

"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney


Reagan was the first president to turn this country from a creditor nation into a debtor nation.

No, it was Reagan. ]

Now, when looking at this can you see where it looked like you were referring to deficit spending being the catalyst which causes one to be a debtor nation and any terminology could be construed in that context?

That's where FDR comes in.

 

[Harshaw]

Apparently, you don't read your own posts.

That . . . does not make sense.

 

[Harshaw]

Do you see the pickle you're in?

She never does.

 

[Moot]

My original point aside, look at the first paragraph



Now, what did you say?



Do you see the pickle you're in?

Reagan was the first president to run up the debt when the country wasn't at war. Is that better?


Reagan significantly increased public expenditures, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure); most of those years military spending was about 6% of GDP, exceeding this number in 4 different years. All these numbers had not been seen since the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1973.[14] In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the highest income earners, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%.[15] The federal deficit under Reagan peaked at 6% of GDP in 1983, falling to 3.2% of GDP in 1987[16] and to 3.1% of GDP in his final budget.[17] The inflation-adjusted rate of growth in federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan; however, federal deficit as percent of GDP was up throughout the Reagan presidency from 2.7% at the end of (and throughout) the Carter administration.[2][17] As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation and lower nominal interest rates, the U.S. borrowed both domestically and abroad to cover the Federal budget deficits, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.[18] This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[19] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.[20]
Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The fiscal shift in the Reagan years was staggering. In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion, the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was $208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those eight years, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation....
Reagan Policies Gave Green Light to Red Ink (washingtonpost.com)


Reagan was the first "peacetime" president to run up the debt and turn this country from a creditor nation into a debtor nation. The country has never fully recovered from voo doo reaganomics.

 

[Moot]

She never does.

I suggest you keep your comments to the topic and stop making personal attacks, Harshaw.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Reagan was the first president to run up the debt when the country wasn't at war. Is that better?


Reagan significantly increased public expenditures, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure); most of those years military spending was about 6% of GDP, exceeding this number in 4 different years. All these numbers had not been seen since the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1973.[14] In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the highest income earners, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%.[15] The federal deficit under Reagan peaked at 6% of GDP in 1983, falling to 3.2% of GDP in 1987[16] and to 3.1% of GDP in his final budget.[17] The inflation-adjusted rate of growth in federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan; however, federal deficit as percent of GDP was up throughout the Reagan presidency from 2.7% at the end of (and throughout) the Carter administration.[2][17] As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation and lower nominal interest rates, the U.S. borrowed both domestically and abroad to cover the Federal budget deficits, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.[18] This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[19] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.[20]
Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The fiscal shift in the Reagan years was staggering. In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion, the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was $208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those eight years, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation....
Reagan Policies Gave Green Light to Red Ink (washingtonpost.com)


Reagan was the first "peacetime" president to run up the debt and turn this country from a creditor nation into a debtor nation. The country has never fully recovered from voo doo reaganomics.

Actually we were at war, a cold war with the Soviet Union and much of Reagans spending was fighting and winning that war. Give the man some credit Moot.

 

[ChezC3]

The country has never fully recovered from voo doo reaganomics.

THIS I agree with...