- Joined
- Jan 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,069
- Reaction score
- 1,122
- Location
- Oregon
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Conservatism is an empty concept, especially in the US. Basically it means revanchism against all modern progress, and a support for any policies that result in low wages, thus enriching the rich. Besides that, there is no there there. Conservatism is morally and intellectually bankrupt.
I was raised by a traditional conservative.
In Germany, "conservatism" means an entirely different thing anyway... go back before 1945 and even before 1918 to get an idea.
The problem here is meta-ironic in a way probably more familiar to a continental European than a European: conservatism must adapt itself to changing realities under a socioeconomic system based around change, where opponents of that system can remain immobile and inflexible.
Capitalism is almost change incarnate, and 'conserving' capitalism means 'conserving' its changes to the social order of the societies it operates within. Capitalism destroyed slavery in America, not the kindly sentiments of the abolitionists or the political machinations of the Lincoln Administration. Consequently, the conservative in America - with very few, ahistorical exceptions - completely embraces the results of abolition (the complete domination of a wage labor system in America), even if he questions the way it was brought about.
Maybe that's quarelling about semantics, but I've always thought the term "libertarian" applies better to a supporter of capitalism than the term "conservative". As "conservatives" usually want to "conserve"... the old order, tradition, religion, community above individualism. True conservatives value order above everything else.
Even there, though, it does not mean revanchism against all progress.
The conservative claims complete identification with capitalism. Very well, then: capitalism is inherently progressive. It invents new forms of goods - machines without parallel in human experience; new forms of experience itself; new social organizations and hierarchices. In the words of Karl Marx, under capitalism, "everything solid melts into air". It is impossible to identify both with capitalism and against progress. There has never been a more progressive form of organization in the history of man.
Even there, though, it does not mean revanchism against all progress.
The conservative claims complete identification with capitalism. Very well, then: capitalism is inherently progressive. It invents new forms of goods - machines without parallel in human experience; new forms of experience itself; new social organizations and hierarchices. In the words of Karl Marx, under capitalism, "everything solid melts into air". It is impossible to identify both with capitalism and against progress. There has never been a more progressive form of organization in the history of man.
Distributism is the economic mode of a conservative, not capitalism.
Of a certain kind of conservative. But Chestertonians are not very common, and probably have less of a claim to the term 'conservative' than do capitalist-conservatives (at least a capitalist society presently exists). Moreover, there's the quote from Chesterton - who I use as the Marx-figure of distributism - that "the business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."
I *knew* there was something a little bit "off" about you!! :wink:
Conservatism is an empty concept, especially in the US. Basically it means revanchism against all modern progress, and a support for any policies that result in low wages, thus enriching the rich. Besides that, there is no there there. Conservatism is morally and intellectually bankrupt.
I told my congressman, a Republican, just a few days ago, that he needed to watch as many YouTube videos as he possibly could of Barry Goldwater. This was in response to him telling me that he was a "traditional" conservative.
The Republican party needs an infusion of Goldwater conservatism (his latter years) and an exorcism of the "Religious Right."
My oldest son told me just today, that the current Republican leadership wants a smaller government. So small that it fits in your bedroom. And he's a Republican. A true traditional Republican.
These social issues are not what "Conservatism" is about. A Conservative doesn't care what you do in your private life, or who you do it with.
A true Conservative is FOR gay rights... or more accurately is FOR the same rights for EVERYONE.
A true Conservative is FOR free markets... or more accurately is FOR the betterment of all through the fruits of their own labor, even and especially labor. Not unions per say, because in a true free market there's no need for unions because management works with and not against its labor. All work for the betterment of the company and all benefit from it.
A true Conservative worships their God in Church and not in the halls of Congress. Separation of Church and State is critical to free enterprise. Just look at history, or look at what's going on in Egypt and other countries today.
A true Conservative... well you get the point by now. Or maybe not?
I miss the Republican Party I grew up in. I miss the times when my Congressman and my Senators were more concerned with preventing the government from screwing me than worrying about who's doing it to whom in the privacy of their bedroom.
The Tea Party had a chance to bring back true Conservatism. Then it was corrupted and is now a frigging joke.
And the Democrats are no better. They have moved to the polar opposite of what the Democratic Party was when Goldwater was in the Senate as well.
The term Progressive, as has been so eloquently described earlier in this thread, has nothing to do with liberalism, or as it has been co-opted into in some cases, socialism.
We need to look at what makes sense. What makes us all rise together. To each to the best of his/her abilities.
Governments role should be to provide opportunity (education, training, regulations to ensure a level playing field, etc.), not provide programs or regulations or taxes that take away the incentive to succeed.
I'm done for now. I could right a tome but no one would read it. And before anyone tells me that there's more to this than I've written, I know that. This is just Cliff's Notes version.
Ok,I'm calling bullcrap. Romney nor Ryan emphasized social issues. AT ALL. It was the Obama campaign that constantly brought it up. When do you very hear McConnell,Boehner or any prominent conservative talking about same sex marriage,abortion or things like that? It is almost always the left.
Society needs both Conservatism and liberalism to survive. This nation has prospered when it has applied both principles. You cannot have constant change in every little thing and you cannot be stagnant all the time.
Ok,I'm calling bullcrap. Romney nor Ryan emphasized social issues. AT ALL. It was the Obama campaign that constantly brought it up. When do you very hear McConnell,Boehner or any prominent conservative talking about same sex marriage,abortion or things like that? It is almost always the left.
And I'm calling bullcrap on you
The post you responded to doesn't mention Romney or Ryan
And during the republican primaries, both of them spoke about social issues along with all the other candidates
I'm quite happy with legislative action that addresses problems in a prudent and considerate and factual manner; indeed our democracy is structured to do that, since it's relatively hard to get any major legislation through the Senate without bipartisan support.
That said, I don't think conservatives have ever been right on any major issue -- from women's suffrage to worker's rights to integration to the Vietnam War to environmental protection. On each issue, it took a huge progressive majority to go forward as conservatives did their best to prevent progress. Reading back issues of the National Review is like reading a chronicle of stupidity, prejudice and demagoguery.
Where conservatives did prevail -- in the Cold War frenzy, the Bush vanity wars, the Patriot Act -- America was the worse off.
So while I'm not for major legislation without due consideration and debate, I fail to see what conservatives have ever added to the debate except poisoning our political rhetoric.
I also agree that it takes a combined effort of all views to form and enact legislation that has both effectiveness and consideration.
However, there are some inaccuracies, or at the very least misapplication of "blame", in the rest of your post.
It was Kennedy and then Johnson that got us into Vietnam and escalated that war exponentially, respectively. Nixon was the one that got us out.
The Cold War was also started under the Truman Administration, and under his administration was one of the only two times that the Cold War turned HOT (Korea / the other was Vietnam under Kennedy).
There are other historically inaccurate assertions made in your post, but I understand how you or anyone else could fell or think the way you do, given the spin put on historical facts, as well as the current hawk mentality of many on the right.
I'm a veteran, and hate war. I'd go back in heartbeat to serve my country, even though I have also been wounded in combat (I have a pre-op appointment tomorrow as a matter of fact for my fifth knee surgery thanks to a mortar exploding too close to me). I would be completely committed up to and including sacrificing my own life in the service of my country if necessary. That may sound folksy or overly gung ho to some. It isn't. Just a fact.
Primarily what I would like to impart to you is this:
There is a huge difference between being a conservative and being a war hawk, just as there is a huge difference between being a progressive and being an appeasement coward.
We got into Vietnam for a lot of reasons, not the least of which Johnson's New Society was held up by conservatives in the Congress who required him to be a hawk on foreign policy even though he didn't want to. He didn't give a damn about Vietnam and was told it would over in a year or two. That doesn't absolve him of responsibility (and he took it by not running for reelection). But it shows that the situation was complex and once again involved conservative obstructionism.
But in any case, the fact remains that the opposition to Vietnam came exclusively from progressives and the support came from conservatives. There were no conservatives in the anti-war movement, and conservative demagogued the issue shameless. I remember their ugly rhetoric vividly.
The modern conservative party is a walking contradiction to itself.
I was raised by a traditional conservative. A dutch banker... and his father.. an entrepreneur, who learned from his father, all deeply religious. Everything I know about business I know from them. One of the many things drilled into my head was this... Take care of your people and your obligations first, if there's anything left, you can pay yourself something.
They taught me that the DOI meant something. That life is a right. If you hire someone for 40 hours a week, the least you can morally pay them is the minimum a person needs to live. Food, shelter, power, transport, clothing and savings. Pay them any less and you are stealing life from them.
I won't post beyond this as I don't believe this issue is up for debate. In all honesty, all attempts to refute this will be viewed in my humble opinion, as pathetic attempts to reconcile the christian right hypocrisy with justifications... a waste of space and time.
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?