00timh
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 1,318
- Reaction score
- 516
- Location
- upstate NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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.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.
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
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.
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.
Well, I got this far.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.
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.
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.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.
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...In other words... A self centered, narcissistic Red Bull drinker reading a Superman comic? :mrgreen:
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.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.
Thanks for posting that. I believe it to be very accurate.
Edit: ...and fair.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?