Conservatives Are Standing on the Wrong Side of History

[Brooks]

If you are a liberal, but have a viewpoint or three that don't mesh with today's liberal opinions, that doesn't make you any less of a liberal - it makes you a free thinker...and it means that you aren't trying to be liberal or progressive, but it's the current meaning of those labels that most closely match what you believe.

MAN do I disagree with everything you said up to this point, BUT...........
......you are so right about liberal.

YOU are a liberal, one of the few.
Whenever I hear someone say they are a "committed" liberal I cringe.
A person "committed" to the left, or to any agenda, is not liberal.
Most people who call themselves liberal have no idea what the word actually means.

 

[Brooks]

We KNOW when people are better educated, as compared to when they are less educated. We KNOW when there is less violence, as compared to when there is more violence. There is no question as to which one is better or worse.

Even those things cannot be judged objectively.
I always think of Ken Burns' Civil War documentary when judging better education.
Listen to some of the letters to home they read during the episodes. Some of the writers had three years of school before going back to their farm, but most of them are better written than most posts I've read on these fora. Though I'm sure we've had more education than a 19th century third grader, it's not better.

 

[APACHERAT]

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,

We were at war, it was remembered as the Cold War. The new leaders of the Democrat Party (The New Left) back then surrendered and didn't want to continue fighting the Cold War and wanted to allow communist expansion to spread across the war.

And when the Democrats neglected our military from 76-80 we ended up with a hollow military force. It cost more to rebuild a military than keeping it strong. You watch how many trillions of dollars it's going to cost the taxpayers to repair the damage that Obama has inflicted on our national defense over the past four years.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

We were at war, it was remembered as the Cold War. The new leaders of the Democrat Party (The New Left) back then surrendered and didn't want to continue fighting the Cold War and wanted to allow communist expansion to spread across the war. And when the Democrats neglected our military from 76-80 we ended up with a hollow military force. It cost more to rebuild a military than keeping it strong. You watch how many trillions of dollars it's going to cost the taxpayers to repair the damage that Obama has inflicted on our national defense over the past four years.

Nixon fought 2 wars ... Vietnam and the Cold War ... he did not run the debt like Reagan. Same for LBJ. No, in reality, Reagan was a tax and spend Conservative. He raised taxes 11 times to pay for his spending habits.

 

[APACHERAT]

Nixon fought 2 wars ... Vietnam and the Cold War ... he did not run the debt like Reagan. Same for LBJ. No, in reality, Reagan was a tax and spend Conservative. He raised taxes 11 times to pay for his spending habits.

Reagan took an oath and upheld that oath of office. He had to rebuild a military that the left had almost destroyed. By the time Reagan left office he had rebuilt one of the best armed, best equipped, best trained and highly motivated militaries in America's history. Soon after Reagan left office that military would fight one of the most successful and shortest wars in America's history all bought and paid for during the Reagan administration with some help from the Faud family.

 

[Moot]

Reagan took an oath and upheld that oath of office. He had to rebuild a military that the left had almost destroyed. By the time Reagan left office he had rebuilt one of the best armed, best equipped, best trained and highly motivated militaries in America's history. Soon after Reagan left office that military would fight one of the most successful and shortest wars in America's history all bought and paid for during the Reagan administration with some help from the Faud family.

And now all those troops are or will be retiring and wanting their benefits. I don't think the Saudi's are paying for that....



"....Unlike equipment, personnel is relatively uncorrelated to spending. Because of differences in labor costs, $1 million in the United States will hire fewer soldiers than $1 million in Russia or China....<snip>...

Of the $195 billion in Department of Defense payroll outlays, only $84 billion went to active-duty military pay.

> Retired military pay, which does not directly increase defense capabilities, accounted for nearly 20 percent of total personnel expenditures in 2009.

> The number of personnel employed by the Department of Defense has declined since the 1960s, while personnel costs have risen rapidly, in part due to rising U.S. health-care costs.

> The cost of military pay and allowances and military health care has risen almost 90 percent since FY 2001, while the active-duty personnel count has risen by less than 3 percent.

> Military health care costs have risen from $19 billion in FY 2001 to $49.4 billion in FY 2014.


As noted above, rising spending on defense personnel has not resulted in increasing troop strength.....read.....(and be sure to look at the charts).

Trends in U.S. Military Spending - Council on Foreign Relations

 

[ChezC3]

Here are the years we had a Republican House with a Republican president ... I don't see where they ever cut spending ... ?

2000 1788.95
2001 1862.85
2002 2010.89
2003 2159.90
2004 2292.84
2005 2471.96
2006 2655.05

Seems to me that both parties spend.

that's because they weren't conservative Republicans...they were neocon trash...

 

[ttwtt78640]

Use spellcheck much? Anyway, I didn't say 'anything' is better than no change at all - I said that half a loaf is better than none. Getting insurance for tens of millions of Americans who can't afford insurance today is a heck of a lot better than the system that we had.



So you're taking the money away from the workers - from the people who can least afford it - in order to pay for it. Now most conservatives and libertarians would have no problem with this, but right now we've got a greater income gap than at any time since the days before the crash of 1929. Y'all need to stop coddling the rich and worshiping them as 'job creators'...because what drives an economy is NOT supply, but DEMAND...and when people have less money to spend, there will be less demand. That last sentence is in a nutshell why the first-world democracies are ALL high-tax socialized democracies.



Sounds good for the bean-counters at the insurance companies, huh? But those with pre-existing conditions - like my oldest son - are screwed for yet another year. More people die, more people are driven into poverty...and here's another thing that conservatives and libertarians don't get: when OTHER people are driven into poverty for whatever reason, YOU also pay for it. You either pay higher taxes to help keep people out of poverty, or you pay through a whole host of venues (including taxes) when people are driven into poverty. You WILL pay either way, as long as you live in the country where this happens. So which is better: to pay more to keep people out of poverty, or to pay more for the consequences for more people going into poverty?



You DO realize, of course, that the individual mandate PENALIZES those who try to buy insurance 'as needed', right? If you don't purchase insurance, you will get penalized.

Guy, EVERYBODY needs health care at some point in their lives. If you breathe, you WILL need health care. So seeing as how YOU already pay extra in taxes for those who go to emergency rooms and can't pay for it, YOU already pay extra in taxes because of the families who went into bankruptcy and/or foreclosure because of their lack of health care, it seems to me that YES, it is a strictly conservative idea that everyone should have to pay for something that EVERYONE will use sooner or later. And that's why this whole plan was a conservative idea to begin with!



Do you really know how much the penalty is? Here, check it out - starting in 2016, it ain't that cheap...especially considering that the poorer people who would get penalized would pay MORE than they would if they got the insurance. Why? Because after the government subsidy is included, the lower-cost 'bronze' plans are cheaper than the penalty



I know this may come as a shock to you, but we're not talking about tune-ups and lawn maintenance. We're talking about PEOPLE. I don't know if you personally are 'pro-life' or not, but it's truly ironic that so many self-professed 'pro-lifers' are so hardwired against a program that WILL save lives, that WILL lower the birth mortality rate.



Ah. Do you see the problem with your suggestion? Picture this: you're the breadwinner of the family, and you've got choices to make - you're struggling to pay the rent and put food on the table, not to mention school expenses for the kids...and THEN you're also expected to find money for a 'Medical Savings Account', too? This is the problem that faces the tens of millions of Americans today who don't have - who can't afford - health insurance today. What you're suggesting is not a solution - it's an option, and as such would be ignored by those tens of millions of Americans who are more worried about affording food, shelter, and clothing than they are about putting money into some anomalous savings account.

You are confusing the cost of medical care with the cost of medical care plus 15% to 20% in insurance overhead, and ignore the deductable/out of pocket costs involved with a bronze PPACA exchange plan. Why do you suppose that those "workers" that earn less than the FPL (133% of the FPL in many blue states) were not included in PPACA, but were left in (or added to) the Medcaid system?

You are correct that having insurance could prevent bankruptcy - but if your choice is to either pay the utility bill or to pay the insurance bill you will not choose to pay for insurance, because you are essentially bankrupt already. If you seriously think that someone will be forced by IRS to sell their home or car to pay the new "uninsured tax" then you are kidding yourself - they will be given "amnesty" due to lack of resources or some other such nonsense excuse; Obama will not tolerate headlines like "PPACA forces Joe, Mary and their three children into the street". That is exactly why the PPACA individual (and employer) penalty was phased in after Obama is phased out.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

that's because they weren't conservative Republicans...they were neocon trash...

I love how Conservatives dismiss anything fellow Conservatives do as not Conservative when they disaprove. It's like they think Conservatism is a panacea. :roll: so what politician is conservative? Seems the answer is none since anyone of them will do something you don't like, and suddenly, they're something other than Conservative. :shrug:

 

[ChezC3]

I love how Conservatives dismiss anything fellow Conservatives do as not Conservative when they disaprove. It's like they think Conservatism is a panacea. :roll: so what politician is conservative? Seems the answer is none since anyone of them will do something you don't like, and suddenly, they're something other than Conservative. :shrug:

neocons aren't conservatives. This is just plain fact.

 

[Fiddytree]

neocons aren't conservatives. This is just plain fact.

If it were a fact, there would have been no need for the suffix, nor a need for a similar act done on what you folks consider to be conservative. The fusionists of the 1940s and 1950s, that provided the roots of much of the modern conservative movement, were, in fact, "new" conservatives-different from the old ones.

There are many conservative stripes out there, and a great many more conservative iterations in the past.

 

[Tigger]

This, sir, is why I go with 'better' and 'worse' instead of 'right' and 'wrong'...because 'better' and 'worse' is QUANTIFIABLE. We KNOW when people live longer, healthier lives, as compared to when they live shorter, less healthy. We KNOW when people are better educated, as compared to when they are less educated. We KNOW when there is less violence, as compared to when there is more violence. There is no question as to which one is better or worse.

'Right' and 'wrong' is not quantifiable - everybody's got their own opinion as to what's right and wrong. But 'better' and 'worse' ARE quantifiable. THAT, sir, is what you - and I daresay most conservatives - miss.

Incorrect. If one is to accept that Right and Weong are not quantifiable based on your disagrement with them, then my disagreement with your views on Better and Worse make them equally unquantifiable.

Quality of Life is more important than Quantity of it. Proper education is more important than more of it. Violence is a good and necessary part of society in certain cases.

 

[APACHERAT]

I love how Conservatives dismiss anything fellow Conservatives do as not Conservative when they disaprove. It's like they think Conservatism is a panacea. :roll: so what politician is conservative? Seems the answer is none since anyone of them will do something you don't like, and suddenly, they're something other than Conservative. :shrug:

Your Highness Sheik Yerbuti, (make believe smiley bowing) you seem like so many of the misinformed who confuse neoconservatives with conservatives. The neoconservative movement began when JFK liberals began to leave the Democrat Party when the "New Left" began coming under the Democrat tent and hiding who they really were by hiding behind the liberal label and soon the progressive label.

Those JFK liberals came under the Republican tent. They are not conservatives but patriotic liberals. They spend money like a drunken sailor on liberty just like a true liberal. They believe in nation building like a true liberal. They even believe in rewarding law breakers with amnesty like a true liberal. But they also don't blame America first like those radical leftist who today hide behind the old liberal label.

President Ronald Reagan even surrounded himself with a few neoconservatives like Jean Kirkpatrick as an example.

 

[Fiddytree]

Your Highness Sheik Yerbuti, (make believe smiley bowing) you seem like so many of the misinformed who confuse neoconservatives with conservatives. The neoconservative movement began when JFK liberals began to leave the Democrat Party when the "New Left" began coming under the Democrat tent and hiding who they really were by hiding behind the liberal label and soon the progressive label.

Those JFK liberals came under the Republican tent. They are not conservatives but patriotic liberals. They spend money like a drunken sailor on liberty just like a true liberal. They believe in nation building like a true liberal. They even believe in rewarding law breakers with amnesty like a true liberal. But they also don't blame America first like those radical leftist who today hide behind the old liberal label.

President Ronald Reagan even surrounded himself with a few neoconservatives like Jean Kirkpatrick as an example.

You really need to read more of their books and essays in the public interest journal.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

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.

So - it's all changing, as you put it - but they're always on the wrong side?

LOL - that's just not possible.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So - it's all changing, as you put it - but they're always on the wrong side?

LOL - that's just not possible.

I beg to differ, since Mitt Romney was for all three sides of many an issue, yet somewhat against it too.

 

[APACHERAT]

You really need to read more of their books and essays in the public interest journal.

But I have, I actually was around back then.

1984 Jeane Kirkpatrick

>" Thank you very much for that warm welcome.

Thank you for inviting me.

This is the first Republican Convention I have ever attended.

I am grateful that you should invite me, a lifelong Democrat. On the other hand, I realize that you are inviting many lifelong Democrats to join this common cause.

I want to begin tonight by quoting the speech of the president whom I very greatly admire, Harry Truman, who once said to the Congress:

"The United States has become great because we, as a people, have been able to work together for great objectives even while differing about details."

He continued:

"The elements of our strength are many. They include our democratic government, our economic system, our great natural resources. But, the basic source of our strength is spiritual. We believe in the dignity of man."

That's the way Democratic presidents and presidential candidates used to talk about America.

These were the men who developed NATO, who developed the Marshall Plan, who devised the Alliance for Progress.

They were not afraid to be resolute nor ashamed to speak of America as a great nation. They didn't doubt that we must be strong enough to protect ourselves and to help others

They didn't imagine that America should depend for its very survival on the promises of its adversaries.

They happily assumed the responsibilities of freedom.

I am not alone in noticing that the San Francisco Democrats took a very different approach.

Foreign Affairs... "<

Continue:-> AllPolitics - San Diego Convention - Famous Convention Speeches

 

[Misterveritis]

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

My experience has been the opposite. It is nearly always the liberal, whether socialist, Marxistf, progressive or lean not stated that play that wonderful race card. I do not know any conservatives that believe skin color is anything other than skin color.

 

[Misterveritis]

And now all those troops are or will be retiring and wanting their benefits. I don't think the Saudi's are paying for that....

"....Unlike equipment, personnel is relatively uncorrelated to spending. Because of differences in labor costs, $1 million in the United States will hire fewer soldiers than $1 million in Russia or China....<snip>...

Of the $195 billion in Department of Defense payroll outlays, only $84 billion went to active-duty military pay.

> Retired military pay, which does not directly increase defense capabilities, accounted for nearly 20 percent of total personnel expenditures in 2009.

> The number of personnel employed by the Department of Defense has declined since the 1960s, while personnel costs have risen rapidly, in part due to rising U.S. health-care costs.

> The cost of military pay and allowances and military health care has risen almost 90 percent since FY 2001, while the active-duty personnel count has risen by less than 3 percent.

> Military health care costs have risen from $19 billion in FY 2001 to $49.4 billion in FY 2014.


As noted above, rising spending on defense personnel has not resulted in increasing troop strength.....read.....(and be sure to look at the charts).

Trends in U.S. Military Spending - Council on Foreign Relations

We could return to a draft and reduce pay and allowances to what welfare recipients get. Oh wait, for most soldiers that would mean a pay increase...

 

[Misterveritis]

I love how Conservatives dismiss anything fellow Conservatives do as not Conservative when they disaprove. It's like they think Conservatism is a panacea. :roll: so what politician is conservative? Seems the answer is none since anyone of them will do something you don't like, and suddenly, they're something other than Conservative. :shrug:

My simple test is that a conservative believes that governments must be constrained by written constitutions or charters. If they skirt the Constitution they are not conservative. They are statists. We have had no conservative presidents since Reagan.

 

[Misterveritis]

Problem is, who's determining what's 'right' and what's 'wrong'? THAT, sir, in a nutshell, shows what's wrong with your argument. A 2011 poll found that 46% of Mississippi Republicans STILL think that interracial marriage should be banned.

This is interesting.

It certainly has been an educational week for those of us interesting in polling.

First came the illuminating disclosure that liberal polling company Public Policy Polling sometimes does not release the results of polls with unexpected results.

Then came this interesting article by TNR’s Nate Cohn, showing that PPP’s polling methodology includes a variety of questionable practices such as “random deletion” of respondents.

Then came Nate Silver’s statement that he will continue relying on PPP data even though he thinks PPP’s polls are crap.

Drew Linzer, a Ph.D. political scientist who knows his stuff, likened random deletion to “intuitive ‘shrinkage’ weighting.”​

Polling expert: PPP’s polling practices are in line with the industry norm | Twitchy

How many polls they did before they found a poll to their "liking"? How does PPP determine that the people polled are actually conservatives (other than self identified)? What were the raw numbers among the 400 people asked questions?

How many other polls show the same thing?

It discards hundreds of respondents in an unusual process known as “random deletion.” And because PPP's interviewers rely on lists of registered voters—rather than random digit dialing—and simply ask non-voters to hang up the phone, the firm can’t use census numbers to weight their sample, as many other pollsters do. This forces PPP to make more, and more subjective, judgments...​

There's Something Wrong With America's Premier Liberal Pollster | New Republic

 

[Fiddytree]

But I have, I actually was around back then.

1984 Jeane Kirkpatrick

>" Thank you very much for that warm welcome.

Thank you for inviting me.

This is the first Republican Convention I have ever attended.

I am grateful that you should invite me, a lifelong Democrat. On the other hand, I realize that you are inviting many lifelong Democrats to join this common cause.

I want to begin tonight by quoting the speech of the president whom I very greatly admire, Harry Truman, who once said to the Congress:

"The United States has become great because we, as a people, have been able to work together for great objectives even while differing about details."

He continued:

"The elements of our strength are many. They include our democratic government, our economic system, our great natural resources. But, the basic source of our strength is spiritual. We believe in the dignity of man."

That's the way Democratic presidents and presidential candidates used to talk about America.

These were the men who developed NATO, who developed the Marshall Plan, who devised the Alliance for Progress.

They were not afraid to be resolute nor ashamed to speak of America as a great nation. They didn't doubt that we must be strong enough to protect ourselves and to help others

They didn't imagine that America should depend for its very survival on the promises of its adversaries.

They happily assumed the responsibilities of freedom.

I am not alone in noticing that the San Francisco Democrats took a very different approach.

Foreign Affairs... "<

Continue:-> AllPolitics - San Diego Convention - Famous Convention Speeches

Your description of their domestic policy programs orientation leaves a lot to be desired. That was the first split with liberals. This is why I am saying you should revisit (or visit if you had not before) their books and essays. A good place to start would be Nathan Glazer's The Limits of Social Policy and The Essential Neoconservative Reader edited by Mark Gerson.

 

[opendebate]

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.

I think your positive spin here has spun out of control. Today's conservatives are so white knuckled and wide eyed when it comes to change it is comical in and of itself. Especially when they see that change as a threat to their position and fortune. Think the use of the word oppose is sadly accurate.

 

[APACHERAT]

Your description of their domestic policy programs orientation leaves a lot to be desired. That was the first split with liberals. This is why I am saying you should revisit (or visit if you had not before) their books and essays. A good place to start would be Nathan Glazer's The Limits of Social Policy and The Essential Neoconservative Reader edited by Mark Gerson.

I'm not a neo-con and I have no reason to read anything Bill Kristol or Nathan Glazer wrote. The neoconservatives were welcomed with in the GOP as allies to continue fighting the Cold War and stopping communist expansion. The endgame being, we won, the right was right all along and the left was wrong.

 

[Fiddytree]

I'm not a neo-con and I have no reason to read anything Bill Kristol or Nathan Glazer wrote. The neoconservatives were welcomed with in the GOP as allies to continue fighting the Cold War and stopping communist expansion. The endgame being, we won, the right was right all along and the left was wrong.

Yeah, alright, but they were not just liberals, otherwise there would be no reason for them to be called neoconservatives by Michael Harrington. If you don't want to read it because you aren't a neoconservative, that's fine, but it's an awfully distorted explanation of it.