Conservatives Are Standing on the Wrong Side of History

[ChezC3]

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.

People give words new meaning all the time. Take on titles which are self gratifying and idealistic while not being true to their spirit or definition.

 

[Fiddytree]

People give words new meaning all the time. Take on titles which are self gratifying and idealistic while not being true to their spirit or definition.

It's a bit ridiculous to suggest that neoonservatives have no place in the conservative spectrum, and frequently relies on this rigid and ahistorical notion of what conservatism means.

 

[ChezC3]

It's a bit ridiculous to suggest that neoonservatives have no place in the conservative spectrum, and frequently relies on this rigid and ahistorical notion of what conservatism means.

Because certain commonalities are shared, doesn't mean that they become one and the same.

Don't feel too bad, my ideas of what conservative means to me probably don't align up with many other kinds of conservatives either, so...

 

[Fiddytree]

Because certain commonalities are shared, doesn't mean that they become one and the same.

Don't feel too bad, my ideas of what conservative means to me probably don't align up with many other kinds of conservatives either, so...

Sure thing. I don't feel bad in the slightest.

They aren't meant to be one and the same. They can belong underneath an umbrella.

 

[ChezC3]

Sure thing. I don't feel bad in the slightest.

They aren't meant to be one and the same. They can belong underneath an umbrella.

The problem with sharing an umbrella is someone always winds up getting wet...

 

[Jerry]

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.

This is a debate forum, not a political sounding board. What topic did you want debated here?

 

[APACHERAT]

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.

When the liberals started fleeing the Democrat Party back during the late 60's and 70's when the fringe of the political left, mostly socialist and Marxist started to gain control of the Democrat Party I'm well aware that it was radical socialists who coined the term ne-cons or neconservatives so the radical left could claim the label of liberal to hind behind.

I can't figure out why these socialist who call themselves today progressives just not coin the phrase neoprogressives since they aren't definitely aligned with the true progressive movement.

True progressives are nationalistic, militaristic, and to the true and original definition before the word was corrupted by the left were racist. About the only thing in common that these radical leftist who hide behind the progressive label today have in common with the true progressive are their views on capitalism and even today those hiding behind the progressive label are more aligned with socialist.

Who do you think was behind writing America's immigration policies from the early 20th Century until 1964 ? So anyone calling themself a progressive but advocating amnesty for illegal aliens couldn't be a progressive could they ?

 

[Fiddytree]

When the liberals started fleeing the Democrat Party back during the late 60's and 70's when the fringe of the political left, mostly socialist and Marxist started to gain control of the Democrat Party I'm well aware that it was radical socialists who coined the term ne-cons or neconservatives so the radical left could claim the label of liberal to hind behind.

I can't figure out why these socialist who call themselves today progressives just not coin the phrase neoprogressives since they aren't definitely aligned with the true progressive movement.

True progressives are nationalistic, militaristic, and to the true and original definition before the word was corrupted by the left were racist. About the only thing in common that these radical leftist who hide behind the progressive label today have in common with the true progressive are their views on capitalism and even today those hiding behind the progressive label are more aligned with socialist.

Who do you think was behind writing America's immigration policies from the early 20th Century until 1964 ? So anyone calling themself a progressive but advocating amnesty for illegal aliens couldn't be a progressive could they ?

You are taking an important development in the Democratic Party and then applying it beyond its means. What was the driving force behind The Public Interest? Why did Daniel Patrick Moynihan write with skepticism about "the professionalization of reform" and the infamous "The Negro Family: A Case for National Action," about the inability of Housing reforms to work, or the stalemate in African American education attainment described by Nathan Glazer? It was an increasing skepticism about the rather liberal Great Society programs and American liberalism in general. It was not just a reaction against the New Left arriving on the campuses, the Community Action programs, or the Democratic National Conventions.

 

[APACHERAT]

You are taking an important development in the Democratic Party and then applying it beyond its means. What was the driving force behind The Public Interest? Why did Daniel Patrick Moynihan write with skepticism about "the professionalization of reform" and the infamous "The Negro Family: A Case for National Action," about the inability of Housing reforms to work, or the stalemate in African American education attainment described by Nathan Glazer? It was an increasing skepticism about the rather liberal Great Society programs and American liberalism in general. It was not just a reaction against the New Left arriving on the campuses, the Community Action programs, or the Democratic National Conventions.

Explain further without asking questions, please.

 

[Fiddytree]

Explain further without asking questions, please.

Well, are you familiar with the writing I am referring to or not?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

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.

1. Again, this was the third of three choices we had. The solution you presented wasn't a solution at all, and nobody in Washington was proposing anything other than the PPACA, single payer, or doing nothing at all - remember how the GOP's "repeal and replace" never seemed to have a description for exactly what they'd "replace" Obamacare with? That said, do you really think that leaving everything as it was - pre-Obamacare - was a better option than the PPACA? I'd really like to hear your answer on that one.

2. No, they're not essentially bankrupt already - they're living paycheck-to-paycheck, as so many tens of millions of American families do right now. Some do go bankrupt and go through foreclosure (like we did in 2010). Some hang on for years, for decades. Some finally dig themselves out of their financial straits, and become employers themselves (like we did last year). BTW, do you realize that a significant portion of all bankruptcies are due at least in part to health care costs? Not only that, but do you realize that out of all the first-world democracies, we are the ONLY nation where a significant number people go bankrupt due to medical costs at all?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

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.

You disagree with me in your first paragraph...and then you use two bogus claims to try to disprove my point in the first two sentences of your second paragraph. Quantity of life is an essential part (but does not comprise the whole) of quality of life...and quantity of education is an essential part (but does not comprise the whole) of quality of education. All one has to do is to look at the nations that have longer-lived populations AND better-educated populations than we do to see examples of nations with a higher standard of living than we have.

And your last sentence makes no sense at all - I'd surely love to see an example of violence being a 'good and necessary part of society' - because what I'm referring to is a CONSTANT...and I really don't think you mean to say that a 'constant level of violence' is a somehow good and necessary part of society.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

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.

Really? A more correct use of language does not automatically denote a better education. It denotes a likelihood, but nothing more. Besides, there's far more to know nowadays than ever before - yet we're still trying to cram all the additional knowledge we've gained in modern human civilization into a mere twelve years (not counting college). IMO we need to add at least two or three more years to everyone's education - instead of K-12, it should be K-15 or so.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

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

LOL - that's just not possible.

No, I never said that. There are patently conservative positions that I hold - for instance, I strongly support nuclear power - including our stockpile of nuclear weapons. You could say I did learn to stop worrying and love the Bomb.

 

[Jack Hays]

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.

Sorry, but for the last generation the conservatives have been the party of change. Tax reform, education reform, social security reform, immigration reform, and even health care reform were all conservative initiatives. Add to that an activist foreign policy committed (overcommitted?) to promoting democracy, and you have a pretty robust change dynamic. eace

 

[ttwtt78640]

1. Again, this was the third of three choices we had. The solution you presented wasn't a solution at all, and nobody in Washington was proposing anything other than the PPACA, single payer, or doing nothing at all - remember how the GOP's "repeal and replace" never seemed to have a description for exactly what they'd "replace" Obamacare with? That said, do you really think that leaving everything as it was - pre-Obamacare - was a better option than the PPACA? I'd really like to hear your answer on that one.

First of all you act like you (or anyone else), even now, know what PPACA will do and will really cost. Second what we had before PPACA was a state by state patchwork of laws that made poratbility impossible (that still exists under PPACA), allowed "first dollar" tax breaks for medical care expenses available only to employers (that still exists under PPACA) and allowed lawyers to reap huge profits from honest mistakes (manily in diagnosis) made by medical care providers (that still exists under PPACA). Here are some alternatives for medical care reform:

Repeal and Replace the Job-Destroying Health Care Law - A Pledge to America - GOP.gov

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/GOPHealthPlan_061709.pdf

http://www.speaker.gov/sites/speake...f_Republican_Alternative_Health_Care_plan.pdf

http://blackburn.house.gov/uploadedfiles/gop_alternative.pdf

2. No, they're not essentially bankrupt already - they're living paycheck-to-paycheck, as so many tens of millions of American families do right now. Some do go bankrupt and go through foreclosure (like we did in 2010). Some hang on for years, for decades. Some finally dig themselves out of their financial straits, and become employers themselves (like we did last year). BTW, do you realize that a significant portion of all bankruptcies are due at least in part to health care costs? Not only that, but do you realize that out of all the first-world democracies, we are the ONLY nation where a significant number people go bankrupt due to medical costs at all?

Under PPACA regardless of the plan that you choose, as it stands now, your maximum annual out of pocket cost for health care, aside from your insurance premiums, will be the federal limits for high deductible healthcare plans (HDHP). In 2014, the limit will be $6,350 for singles and $12,700 for families. Let's say that you have a very sick family member that requires care for 3 years (with bad timing that could be for care in as little as 16 months) so you are on the hook for $38,100 in addition to all other normal expenses - is that not likely to make you go bankrupt with that debt alone being at 50% of the median household asset value and well over 50% of median annual houehold income?

While you are quite correct that bankruptcy does result from medical expenses, that is not generally from lack of insurance.

The No-Nonsense Truth About Medical Bankruptcy - GiveForward

10 Leading Causes of Bankruptcy
Percentages represent reasons an individual files bankruptcy. Sources were combined to average top reasons Americans filed.

Medical Expenses (42%)
Recent studies have shown that 42% of all personal bankruptcies are a result of medical expenses. The study also reveals that 78% of those who filed had insurance.

Job Loss (22%)
Millions of Americans are unemployed, which makes them much more likely to file for bankruptcy. Unemployed individuals often pay for insurance out-of-pocket.

Uncontrolled Spending (15%)
Credit card bills, large mortgages, and expensive car payments contribute to bankruptcy. Uncontrolled spending habits can put Americans on a path to filing.

Divorce (8%)
Legal fees, child support, alimony and the burden of providing for a household on one income can result in ample financial stress. Divorce rates are nearly 50% in America.

Unexpected Disaster (7%)
Unexpected disasters such as earthquakes, floods, or hurricanes can be nearly impossible to prepare for. If a homeowner is without insurance, this can possibly lead to bankruptcy.

Avoiding Foreclosure (1.5%)
An individual can spend a life time preparing to purchase a home. Just to avoid foreclosure, some Americans will file for bankruptcy to re-organize debt.

Poor Financial Planning (1.5%)
Not having a sound financial plan can lead to bankruptcy. Financial experts recommend establishing savings for expenses that could lead to debt.

Preventing Loss of Utilities (1%)
Along with home foreclosure is the risk of losing utilities. Keeping lights on and a house warm can be a factor for someone to file.

Student Loans (1%)
Student loans won't be eliminated like other unsecured debt, but it may be possible to consolidate student loans with a bankruptcy.

Preventing Repossession (1%)
If a creditor repossessed your vehicle, filing bankruptcy may force them to return the car, and any other personal property that may have been repossessed.

10 Leading Causes of Bankruptcy - What Causes Bankruptcy?

 

[TurtleDude]

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...

I use the term reactionary parasitic statists-their answer to everything is more government, more taxation and more using the money of some to buy the votes of others

 

[Jerry]

1. Again, this was the third of three choices we had. The solution you presented wasn't a solution at all, and nobody in Washington was proposing anything other than the PPACA, single payer, or doing nothing at all - remember how the GOP's "repeal and replace" never seemed to have a description for exactly what they'd "replace" Obamacare with? That said, do you really think that leaving everything as it was - pre-Obamacare - was a better option than the PPACA? I'd really like to hear your answer on that one.

2. No, they're not essentially bankrupt already - they're living paycheck-to-paycheck, as so many tens of millions of American families do right now. Some do go bankrupt and go through foreclosure (like we did in 2010). Some hang on for years, for decades. Some finally dig themselves out of their financial straits, and become employers themselves (like we did last year). BTW, do you realize that a significant portion of all bankruptcies are due at least in part to health care costs? Not only that, but do you realize that out of all the first-world democracies, we are the ONLY nation where a significant number people go bankrupt due to medical costs at all?

Healthcare is easy to solve: go buy a policy.

Maybe remove the ban against buying across state lines.

That's it. Problem = solved.

Oh but that means you don't get your bloated nanny-state. Damn.

 

[American]

So tell me - given the same choice that we had then, what should we have done. We could not get the single-payer health care that most liberals certainly wanted, that is better for the population as a whole for far less than what we were paying. It would have been insane to allow our health care 'system' to continue as it was. The PPACA was a third choice in which, even though there will be millions who still won't have health insurance, millions more will - including my oldest son who, under the old system, would likely have been denied due to having a serious pre-existing condition.

The way I see it, we couldn't get what we wanted, because the Right - and a few blue-dog Democrats - deemed it too 'socialist'. We couldn't get single-payer passed. But it would have been the height of stupidity to allow our health care 'system' continue on as it was, with nearly fifty million Americans uninsured, many millions more underinsured, and many, many of those who were insured were denied coverage for procedures for a whole host of excuses by the oh-so-patriotic health insurance industry.

So instead of trying to get what we couldn't get, and instead of sticking with what was the worst excuse for a health care system in the industrialized world, we decided to give the REPUBLICAN plan a try - the half loaf of the PPACA was better than no loaf at all. But thanks to politics, especially from the Right which (since they dared not agree to ANYTHING Obama would ever do) could not agree to their OWN f**king program, the one designed by the Heritage Foundation and put into place in Massachusetts by the guy who was their friggin' standard-bearer.

Those were our three choices, guy - one that couldn't get passed, one that was unsustainable and unacceptable, and one that was half-measures on a grand scale. But at least the last option allows tens of millions of Americans to have health insurance they couldn't get before, and the ones who did have health insurance could no longer be denied.

If you've got a better idea, I'd LOVE to hear it!

You haven't presented any idea at all, so you have a lot if nerve asking for one. You wanted to pass that socialist POS, and you couldn't. Stop blaming republicans for all your woes.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Sorry, but for the last generation the conservatives have been the party of change. Tax reform, education reform, social security reform, immigration reform, and even health care reform were all conservative initiatives. Add to that an activist foreign policy committed (overcommitted?) to promoting democracy, and you have a pretty robust change dynamic. eace

'overcommitted' - understatement of the year - and not in a good way....

I would agree that much reform has been done since 1980 by the conservatives...and we'd argue till the cows come home as to whether they were good or not. But to claim health care reform as a conservative effort, well, if you'll check, regardless of whose idea it was, it was the liberals who made it happen, over the howls (and 41 subsequent attempts to repeal Obamacare) of the conservatives.

 

[Jack Hays]

'overcommitted' - understatement of the year - and not in a good way....

I would agree that much reform has been done since 1980 by the conservatives...and we'd argue till the cows come home as to whether they were good or not. But to claim health care reform as a conservative effort, well, if you'll check, regardless of whose idea it was, it was the liberals who made it happen, over the howls (and 41 subsequent attempts to repeal Obamacare) of the conservatives.

The health care reform that was eventually passed is an incoherent mishmash that merited opposition. eace

 

[ChezC3]

I use the term reactionary parasitic statists-their answer to everything is more government, more taxation and more using the money of some to buy the votes of others

Ah, you're using their technical name...

 

[polgara]

The health care reform that was eventually passed is an incoherent mishmash that merited opposition. eace

A large majority of the people in this Country agree with your statement! :thumbs:

Good morning, Jack. :2wave:

 

[Tigger]

You disagree with me in your first paragraph...and then you use two bogus claims to try to disprove my point in the first two sentences of your second paragraph. Quantity of life is an essential part (but does not comprise the whole) of quality of life...and quantity of education is an essential part (but does not comprise the whole) of quality of education. All one has to do is to look at the nations that have longer-lived populations AND better-educated populations than we do to see examples of nations with a higher standard of living than we have.

Neither claim is bogus. A proper life of 14 years is infinitely better than an improper or immoral life that lasts for a century. We horribly over-educate massive portions if this population, women and the disinterested especially. I guarantee we would disagree what qualifies as a higher standard of living.

And your last sentence makes no sense at all - I'd surely love to see an example of violence being a 'good and necessary part of society' - because what I'm referring to is a CONSTANT...and I really don't think you mean to say that a 'constant level of violence' is a somehow good and necessary part of society.

That is EXACTLY what I mean. A certain level of violence is necessary in society to ensure that it continues operatin properly. Even if its noting more than the corporal punishment of children and the execution of every violent felon.

 

[code1211]

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

Oprah Winfrey is a conservative?