• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Conservatives need not be afraid of being conservative.

00timh

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
1,318
Reaction score
516
Location
upstate NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
When looking at the history of the U.S. especially the last 100 years, you will find that our greatest times and our greatest leaders all had one thing in common, conservatism. The turn of the century was a conservative period of time and marked a great expansion of wealth and established the U.S. as a dominant country. We continued this until re ran aground and went liberal. The depression lasted a decade. It was only when we were pulled into WWII and FDR was forced into a more conservative mode of his presidency did we regain our power, and shortly after our economy. The 1950's was among the U.S.'s greatest periods of time and it was also a conservative period of time which saw economic expanison, especially from private industry.

The next U.S. president, while a democrat, was also economically conservative and called for tax cuts and industry expansion. His short time in office saw an increase in patriotism and nationalism due to his far reaching dreams of space exploration and his fight against communism. By the end of the decade though, we had slipped back into a liberal mode and saw a lackluster economy, and decreased patriotism and nationalism.

Nixon was Nixon and other than the obvious, not a good torch bearer of conservative poltics or policies. Ford was never able to mount his own stamp of his presidency. Along comes Carter and yet 4 more years of a dismal economy, and along with a weak and ineffective foreign policy led to some of this countries weaker times within the last 100 years with exception to the great depression.

The Reagan revolution quicly righted the U.S. in just a few short years. Once again the leader of the world, and an economy that no other country could come close to matching. Expansion of industry, private enterprise, national defense and space exploration. Conservatism reigned supreme.

But, the next president did not choose to carry the torch of conservatism economically, yielding to tax hikes by liberals. The result was a recession and overall a weak time for the U.S. He was a one term president.

Bill clinton campaigned as a moderate and won election easily, but than conducted the 1st two years of his presidency liberally. Our economy only continued to barely climb out of the recession caused by liberal policies. The people spoke and elected one of the largest take overs in power in this countries history. not only both houses of congress now controlled by republicans, but a majority of governorships and state governments now were republican majorities. And, with Clinton smart enough to head the call to conservatism, went along with much of the conservative agenda. Our country had several years of some of its most impressive expansion.

After the 9-11 shock we quickly regained our footing and continued with more expasion. Then, along comes 2006. Conservatives of the GOP were bailing and those who stayed no longer upheld conservative principles. GW Bush who acted as a conservative for 6 years of his presidency now turned liberal. What followed was the 2nd worst economic downturn this country has ever faced, in the face of liberalism. One which we have yet to be able to dig ourselves out from.

Yet today, the GOP establisment, which no longer upholds conservatism is attempting to push through the most liberal candidate in the primary process. One without a proven track record of success while governor of one of the most liberal states in the union, and he led with liberal big government principles including a foremodel of a national mandated health care plan. Massachussettes does not have one of th better records of health care in this country and is among the most expensive still.

More conservative candidates in the GOP primary have risen up only to be beaten down by the GOP establishment of their chosen liberal. Once again, a more conservative candidate, perhaps not even all that well liked but yet more conservative than the chosen Romney continues to resurface as a frontunner. It should be no surprise that conservative people want a conservative to run the country, not a liberal who is a member of the once conservative party.

Conservatives need not be afraid of conservatism, it has been a staple of all of the finer moments in this country, with most of its greatest leaders being conservative. Even the more succesful democratic presidents have been on the conservative side of their party. I am not attempting to persuade any republican to vote for any one candidate. I am however saying that we conservatives need not be afraid of conservatism, its values and principles. We need to stand tall in the face of the media and numerous activists which tell stories of how conservatism is the cause of our problems when in fact it is the lack of conservatism which is the cause of it. Only when we stop fighting for conservative ideal and principle, and allow liberal corporatists to run the conservative party, making it no longer a conservative party do we founder. Our country can be great once again and in short order if we once again fight for conservatism.
 
In what universe are conservatives afraid to be conservative?
 
1) The United States was not a dominant country at the turn of the century. America did not truly emerge as a world power until after WWII.

2) The Great Depression occurred under Herbert Hoover, who enacted a slew of conservative policies and deregulation on the banking industry, which ultimately caused the collapse of the financial sector. In other world, conservatism (as described by the OP) caused the Great Depression.

3) The New Deal was managed to not only slow the decline, but also facilitated the recovery of the United States. Certainly the industrial boom of WWII allowed the United States to recover completely and emerge as the superpower it is today, but the liberal policies of the New Deal not only created jobs (through programs like the Conservation Corps), but also kept people alive in an era of crushing poverty (though Social Security).

4) The golden age of the 1950s occurred not because of any direct policy by the U.S. government, but because the United States was the only major industrial nation that wasn't ruined by WWII. The United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and Japan were all devastated by the war and left, literally, in ruins. The growth of the '50s wasn't the result of conservative policy; it was the result of not having any major competition.

5) JFK's presidency was overwhelmingly dominated by foreign policy concerns, and his only major impact on the economy was to keep interest rates low in an attempt to facilitate growth. This lead to not only the first national budget over $100 billion, but also to the first non-war, non-recession deficit in American history.

6) I guess you forgot about LBJ, since it seems like you jump straight from JFK into Nixon. Just to further solidify JFK as an economic liberal, many of the programs push through by LBJ's Great Society were based on initiatives originally created by JFK, but tragically never put into action because of his assassination.

6) I find it funny how you're eager to claim JFK as a conservative and discard Nixon as not being conservative, even though Nixon's entire economic policy was to reduce inflation. His main reason for ending the Vietnam War was because it was the easiest way to cut inflation.

7) The energy crisis of the Carter years was primarily caused by the creation of OPEC, and not by any dramatic policy change in the United States. However, one of the major policy changes that was the direct impact of the Carter administration was the deregulation of the airline industry; a very conservative policy change.

8) I'm always amazed by the idolization of Ronald Reagan, especially since the national debt grew from about $3 trillion to $5 trillion in the span on his administration. An ideology that clamors for a balanced budget memorializes the administration that is responsible for the largest accumulation of debt in American history.

9) George H.W. Bush did little except extend the policies that began under Reagan. The only difference is that the accumulated debt caused by Reagan's policies became too much to handle, and in order to combat the (arguable) failures of the Reagan Administration, he felt he had no choice but to raise taxes.

10) Clinton, in the first two years of his presidency, raised taxes on the wealthiest 1% of all Americans, and not only managed to balance the budget, but also began paying off the crushing debt left behind by the Reagan and H.W. Bush Administrations. Even you admit that these policies allowed us to climb out the debt caused by Reagan and H.W. Bush, but try to phrase it as a failure by saying "barely climb out". A continuation of these liberal policies later into Clinton's presidency accounted for the first budget surplus in decades, as well as being the first presidency in recent history to begin paying off part of our national debt.

11) Even before 9/11 George Bush's policies were a miserable failure. In less than a year he had manged to undo the Clinton tax cuts, and with it eliminated the surplus the government had been using to pay off the debt that still lingered from Reagan. The only difference that came in Bush's economic policy was that after 9/11 he brought us into two wars which expanded our debt and our deficit by outrageous amounts, but was allowed to do so in the name of counter-terrorism.

12) I find it interesting that you cite expansion, nationalism, and patriotism as positive changes. These aren't conservative principles; they're totalitarian principles. I don't think Barry Goldwater (who was arguably the last true conservative in the Republican Party) would ever cite expansionism or nationalism as positive things.

So what's my point here? I'm not saying that conservatism is responsible for all of America's economic woes, nor am I saying that liberalism is responsible for all its successes. I'm saying that the truth is not so clear-cut. Reality is not like a comic book. One side is not all good, and the other side is not all bad. The truth is that there have been some conservative policies that have worked, and there have been some liberal policies that have worked. Starting off with a line like "our greatest times and our greatest leaders all had one thing in common, conservatism" reeks of propaganda and ignorance. While I agree that the current Republican party has very little true conservatism left in it, I'm afraid your historical worship of conservative ideology is grossly inaccurate.
 
When looking at the history of the U.S. especially the last 100 years, you will find that our greatest times and our greatest leaders all had one thing in common, conservatism.
When you judge a leader as to how great they are by how conservative they are, of course the greatest are going to be the most conservative. Doesn't make any of it a reality.
 
1) The United States was not a dominant country at the turn of the century. America did not truly emerge as a world power until after WWI

I think you are thinking of superpower. The United States saw itself as the most powerful state in the western hemisphere, the protectorate state long before World War I.
 
The United States saw itself as the most powerful state in the western hemisphere, the protectorate state long before World War I.

That isn't really saying much. While the United States was certainly superior to Mexico or countries in South America, compared to most of Europe the United States was a minor power at best.
 
That isn't really saying much. While the United States was certainly superior to Mexico or countries in South America, compared to most of Europe the United States was a minor power at best.

I don't know if I'd say that, we did manage to take the Phillipines and Puerto Rico from Spain almost 20 years before WWI. What we had was no desire to project that power outside of our neighborhood. The Monroe Doctrine was all well and good, but we certainly had the power to back it up. Especially by the 1890s.
 
I embrace conservatism, it's common sense, it's ideals, and it's ingenuity and independence. Hell, I even commit the sin of PRIDE when it comes to conservatism.
 
I don't know if I'd say that, we did manage to take the Phillipines and Puerto Rico from Spain almost 20 years before WWI. What we had was no desire to project that power outside of our neighborhood. The Monroe Doctrine was all well and good, but we certainly had the power to back it up. Especially by the 1890s.

True, but even then, the Spanish-American War wasn't a matter of America going up against a major power and winning. Spain was already collapsing, and the American victory in the war only showed that the Spanish Empire was a carcass ripe for picking pieces off of.
 
When looking at the history of the U.S. especially the last 100 years, you will find that our greatest times and our greatest leaders all had one thing in common, conservatism. The turn of the century was a conservative period of time and marked a great expansion of wealth and established the U.S. as a dominant country. We continued this until re ran aground and went liberal. The depression lasted a decade. It was only when we were pulled into WWII and FDR was forced into a more conservative mode of his presidency did we regain our power, and shortly after our economy.
Well, I got this far.

I don't know how anyone can claim that the founders were conservative. Conservative and revolutionary don't exactly go together. They believed in localized representation, which is considered conservative/libertarian today, but was a pretty liberal position back then. And in any event, the founders were comprised of both big government and small government individuals. It was their willingness to negotiate and work together that made them brilliant.

The great depression was the end of one of our more conservative eras in this country, not the beginning. In the 80s we got somewhat conservative again.

None of this to say that conservatives should be embarrassed. Conservatism serves an important purpose, as does liberalism. Only the type of conservatives who cling to long outdated views like racism should be embarrassed.
 
Last edited:
That isn't really saying much. While the United States was certainly superior to Mexico or countries in South America, compared to most of Europe the United States was a minor power at best.

It was enough to dissuade them from doing things the US did not appreciate much. I make a distinction between the super powers of Germany, France, and Britain and important powers, but not super powers, like the United States.
 
I embrace conservatism, it's common sense, it's ideals, and it's ingenuity and independence.
Liberalism is cool because it gives you wings, makes you sexually appealing to the opposite sex and allows you to grow really cool facial hair. It's book smarts, it's running fast and it's jumping tall buildings in a single bound.
 
Liberalism is cool because it gives you wings, makes you sexually appealing to the opposite sex and allows you to grow really cool facial hair. It's book smarts, it's running fast and it's jumping tall buildings in a single bound.

In other words... A self centered, narcissistic Red Bull drinker reading a Superman comic? :mrgreen:
 
In other words... A self centered, narcissistic Red Bull drinker reading a Superman comic? :mrgreen:
Well, I think it's kind of ironic for someone that describes their own ideology as being "it's common sense, it's ideals, and it's ingenuity and independence." as though those things are only in the domain of conservatism, to call someone else's view "narcissistic", lol. I'll admit, I put as much thought and seriousness into my answer about liberalism as I think you put into yours about conservatism... ;)
 
Last edited:
I could've penned a similar rant about liberals being afraid to be liberals and electing *****-bitch politicians that constantly cave in to the right...just sayin'.

I guess it's all about perspective.
 
Liberalism is cool because it gives you wings, makes you sexually appealing to the opposite sex and allows you to grow really cool facial hair. It's book smarts, it's running fast and it's jumping tall buildings in a single bound.

Well **** that doesn't help me :(
 
1) The United States was not a dominant country at the turn of the century. America did not truly emerge as a world power until after WWII.

2) The Great Depression occurred under Herbert Hoover, who enacted a slew of conservative policies and deregulation on the banking industry, which ultimately caused the collapse of the financial sector. In other world, conservatism (as described by the OP) caused the Great Depression.

3) The New Deal was managed to not only slow the decline, but also facilitated the recovery of the United States. Certainly the industrial boom of WWII allowed the United States to recover completely and emerge as the superpower it is today, but the liberal policies of the New Deal not only created jobs (through programs like the Conservation Corps), but also kept people alive in an era of crushing poverty (though Social Security).

4) The golden age of the 1950s occurred not because of any direct policy by the U.S. government, but because the United States was the only major industrial nation that wasn't ruined by WWII. The United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and Japan were all devastated by the war and left, literally, in ruins. The growth of the '50s wasn't the result of conservative policy; it was the result of not having any major competition.

5) JFK's presidency was overwhelmingly dominated by foreign policy concerns, and his only major impact on the economy was to keep interest rates low in an attempt to facilitate growth. This lead to not only the first national budget over $100 billion, but also to the first non-war, non-recession deficit in American history.

6) I guess you forgot about LBJ, since it seems like you jump straight from JFK into Nixon. Just to further solidify JFK as an economic liberal, many of the programs push through by LBJ's Great Society were based on initiatives originally created by JFK, but tragically never put into action because of his assassination.

6) I find it funny how you're eager to claim JFK as a conservative and discard Nixon as not being conservative, even though Nixon's entire economic policy was to reduce inflation. His main reason for ending the Vietnam War was because it was the easiest way to cut inflation.

7) The energy crisis of the Carter years was primarily caused by the creation of OPEC, and not by any dramatic policy change in the United States. However, one of the major policy changes that was the direct impact of the Carter administration was the deregulation of the airline industry; a very conservative policy change.

8) I'm always amazed by the idolization of Ronald Reagan, especially since the national debt grew from about $3 trillion to $5 trillion in the span on his administration. An ideology that clamors for a balanced budget memorializes the administration that is responsible for the largest accumulation of debt in American history.

9) George H.W. Bush did little except extend the policies that began under Reagan. The only difference is that the accumulated debt caused by Reagan's policies became too much to handle, and in order to combat the (arguable) failures of the Reagan Administration, he felt he had no choice but to raise taxes.

10) Clinton, in the first two years of his presidency, raised taxes on the wealthiest 1% of all Americans, and not only managed to balance the budget, but also began paying off the crushing debt left behind by the Reagan and H.W. Bush Administrations. Even you admit that these policies allowed us to climb out the debt caused by Reagan and H.W. Bush, but try to phrase it as a failure by saying "barely climb out". A continuation of these liberal policies later into Clinton's presidency accounted for the first budget surplus in decades, as well as being the first presidency in recent history to begin paying off part of our national debt.

11) Even before 9/11 George Bush's policies were a miserable failure. In less than a year he had manged to undo the Clinton tax cuts, and with it eliminated the surplus the government had been using to pay off the debt that still lingered from Reagan. The only difference that came in Bush's economic policy was that after 9/11 he brought us into two wars which expanded our debt and our deficit by outrageous amounts, but was allowed to do so in the name of counter-terrorism.

12) I find it interesting that you cite expansion, nationalism, and patriotism as positive changes. These aren't conservative principles; they're totalitarian principles. I don't think Barry Goldwater (who was arguably the last true conservative in the Republican Party) would ever cite expansionism or nationalism as positive things.

So what's my point here? I'm not saying that conservatism is responsible for all of America's economic woes, nor am I saying that liberalism is responsible for all its successes. I'm saying that the truth is not so clear-cut. Reality is not like a comic book. One side is not all good, and the other side is not all bad. The truth is that there have been some conservative policies that have worked, and there have been some liberal policies that have worked. Starting off with a line like "our greatest times and our greatest leaders all had one thing in common, conservatism" reeks of propaganda and ignorance. While I agree that the current Republican party has very little true conservatism left in it, I'm afraid your historical worship of conservative ideology is grossly inaccurate.

Thanks for posting that. I believe it to be very accurate.

Edit: ...and fair.
 
Last edited:
Well, I got this far.

I don't know how anyone can claim that the founders were conservative. Conservative and revolutionary don't exactly go together. They believed in localized representation, which is considered conservative/libertarian today, but was a pretty liberal position back then. And in any event, the founders were comprised of both big government and small government individuals. It was their willingness to negotiate and work together that made them brilliant.

The great depression was the end of one of our more conservative eras in this country, not the beginning. In the 80s we got somewhat conservative again.

None of this to say that conservatives should be embarrassed. Conservatism serves an important purpose, as does liberalism. Only the type of conservatives who cling to long outdated views like racism should be embarrassed.

And I don't understand why the rightwingers of today think they are "conservative" when they want the country run on a set of principles that were never used to run a nation at any time in human history.
 
Well, I think it's kind of ironic for someone that describes their own ideology as being "it's common sense, it's ideals, and it's ingenuity and independence." as though those things are only in the domain of conservatism, to call someone else's view "narcissistic", lol. I'll admit, I put as much thought and seriousness into my answer about liberalism as I think you put into yours about conservatism... ;)

It's also ironic that his "common sense" didn't tell him your post was meant to be humorous.
 
I could've penned a similar rant about liberals being afraid to be liberals and electing *****-bitch politicians that constantly cave in to the right...just sayin'.

I guess it's all about perspective.
I would agree with that as well. I think both conservatives and liberals are facing a similar situation with the party that is supposed to represent their ideology.
 
Thanks for posting that. I believe it to be very accurate.

Edit: ...and fair.

I'm sorry you think that but Clinton never balanced the budget. If he had, national debt would not have gone up every single year he was in office.

So, to the contrary, I think it's very INaccurate.
 
That isn't really saying much. While the United States was certainly superior to Mexico or countries in South America, compared to most of Europe the United States was a minor power at best.

I wouldn't say minor power....the US was pretty much in the top 4 of every industrial measure of economic strength. I want to say by WWI they had pretty much eclisped the UK in manufactoring. I'm not at my house but I have a book that has the tables for steel/coke production etc as well as industrial indexes.
 
OP offers an incredibly skin-deep analysis of the past hundred years. Its a perfect example of the arrogance that both liberals and conservatives usually show when talking about American history. Besides the world wars, the author ignores all external factors that helped govern how "successful" certain administrations were. There is a basic ignorance about how economic trends, as well as the policies of other governments, set the uneven grounds on which Presidents could push their policies and achieve their goals.

Liberals and conservatives tend to overestimate how much their higher ideological beliefs can change the real world. They think that their ideas, when perfectly applied, have few limitations in the scale and speed in which they can enact change. This is why, without any deeper exploration, the author can present FDR as being a failure. The depression wasn't solved immediately, which gives the OP enough evidence to call it a failure.

At its heart, the OP presents a depiction of history that is steeped in philosophical idealism. Ideas and ideologies are given more importance than material happenings in the world. What then is offered is an extremely abstract conception of conservatism that has the power to lead us into the future. The OP doesn't realize that ideologies are only important in their capacity to actively react to material conditions. That is, actual events in conditions in the world are constantly in motion, and ideologies must try to keep up to that rate of change if they hope to be successful.

A narrative of conservative success can only be built with inconsistency, an extremely abstract vision of conservatism, a shallow examination of real material conditions, and an ignorance of the atrocious effects of U.S imperialism.
 
Back
Top Bottom