A Liberal's Attempt to Understand the Conservative Mind

[bill777]

Hey Tech Esquire,
Who the hell do you think you are, Editec?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

What, no conservatives want to talk about this? You guys can't talk about your political ideologies with a liberal?

You bunch of elitists!

There you go with the name calling thing that is so much a part of the "lefty liberal mentality. I'm in the waiting room of my family practice doctor waiting while my wife gets her annual physical exam. I'm on the public computer in his waiting room. If I have the time tonight when I get home I would like to address this post. This is a pretty good post coming from you. It deserves some honest attention. I don't have a lot of time now to explain my stand on the issues you listed but maybe so tonight. I'm a conservative - used to be a Republican but have of late turned towards being an Independent because the Republican Party is in the trash right now. I agree with a lot of what you described but certainly not all of it. I'll try to be more specific tonight.

As distasteful as it might sound to you, I strongly recommend you reading Glenn Beck's book, "Common Sense". Politics today is not necessarily geared towards Dems vs Repubs. That is what the Progressives would like for you to believe because it keeps everything in turmoil. Beck explains it all very well and if you read the book it will open your eyes to a lot of things you took for granted before in your life. Well worth the read if you can read it with an open mind. It's less than $9.00 at Walmart.

Hye, BBD, thanks for the taking the time to read this and I really look forward to your reply as you are a conservative with whom on this board I like communicating.

Also, calling conservatives "elitists" is not the liberal mentality as "elitists" is typically what conservatives call liberals.

As interested as I am in learning what the conservative ideology is, I don't think I could bring myself to read a book written by a man who I can't stand. As an anology, it would be like reading "Main Kampf" or a book written by David Duke. Sorry. If I did read it I doubt I could get through even the first chapters, and I read very quickly.

 

[The Rabbi]

Pot meet Kettle.

Accusing the OP of oversimplifying when you yourself are guilty in the same post makes you a laughing stock.

No, it makes you look like a moron because you can't see that what I've done is exposed the OP for the over-simplification that it is. You can only see the truth from your own shoes.

Anyway, you will find conservatives all over the spectrum on all those issues. Are Libertarians conservatives? Maybe, maybe not. Religious fundamentalists? Maybe, maybe not. Reagan-type conservatives? Maybe maybe not. But each issue demands its own examination of the views and the underlying philosophy supporting them.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Tech_Esq:

I'm a little surprised you responded to the social conservative part of this thread because I was under the assumption that you were more of a fiscal conservative and less a social one. Nevertheless, your answers helped to shed a lot of light on these subjects from a conservative stand-point. I really hope you tackle the fiscal side for me as I think you probably have some valuable things to say there.

A couple of your answers have caused me to have more questions. Just a couple! I'll keep it short:

I meant Christian values when I wrote "Social conservatives think that the government should be better aligned with Christian ideals."

I didn't quite understand your reply to the "Official" language comment. Did you mean that it makes sense to have English as the official language in a fiscal sense?

You're a pagan but you think the founding fathers used Judeo-Christian values as a foundation for the ideals they used to structure the nation? Do you think they meant that as in a "Christian nation" sense or does that just reflect their own values which aligned with Christian values? How does that align with the fact that this country was, supposedly, founded for religious freedoms?

Why do you think so many college professors and administrative staff are liberal?

So neo-cons are not conservatives? I just thought they were like the Gen X of conservatives.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Fiscal Conservatism:

Fiscal conservatives think that the federal government and state governments generally overstep their bounds fiscally.

The state governments are generally better (not that that is saying much) than the federal government because most of them require a balanced budget. But, yes, once instituted, a government seems to find an ever growing list of things that they need to take our money to fund. In general, fiscal conservatives think that the basic governmental functions could get by without most of them.

Fiscal conservatives think that income tax isn't supported by the Constitution.

No, this is to fiscal conservatives like the "birthers" are. It's a fringe position.

Fiscal conservatives believe in a flat tax.

I'm not sure this is a belief question, unless you are purposely trying to color it.

The basic question is: Can you tax the population at a flat rate and get enough revenue to fund appropriate governmental functions? If you can, then the next question is what the impact on the economy is and whether the outcomes are aligned with the type of societal outcomes that are desirable.

The progressive income tax is clearly broken and needs serious reform. Probably on the same order as liberals think about the health care system.

Fiscal conservative believe capitalism is generally the best economic system for all peoples and cultures.

This is a case of where you stand depends on where you sit. We have a very regulated capitalist (kinda) system. In order to grow our economy and provide money and jobs to people who live here, we need trading partners who will not engage in the kind of tariff driven unfair trade practices that countries like China do. To the extent that a capitalist system makes that more likely, then yes.

Fiscal conservatives think there is too much governmental meddling in business and that capitalism works better when its completely unregulated. The market will regulate itself.

It is a fact that the market will regulate itself. It is also a fact that the market will do that when the market is ready to and not before.

To the extent that we wish, as a society, to forego temporary market dislocations that cause pain, then we enact regulation to attempt to moderate it. There is a certain amount of regulation required to make or frame the market, which is a proper governmental function. When government exceeds this and attempts to pick winners and losers in the market, then it exceeds its proper function.

Fiscal conservatives think that large corporations run the American economy with good reason: these are the companies which have succeeded and therefore have a right to do whatever they can to increase the bottom line, as long as it doesn't hurt US citizens.

100% incorrect. This would be a corporatist position, not a conservative one.

Fiscal conservatives want to privatize Social Security or do away with it altogether.

Fiscal conservatives do not want old people dying in the streets. They want social security to be sustainable without requiring anyone to pay 40% of everything they make to the government to do so. (Which, by the way, with cause societal collapse in the US).

There are some privatizing options that have been put forward and there are other non-privatizing options that have been put forward.

Fiscal conservatives want to privatize Medicare/Medicaid or do away with it altogether.

This is a question about how we pay for medical care in the US. The fiscal conservatives do not believe that health care is a right. There is no foundation in American Political Thought for the position that health care is a right anymore than the position that food and shelter is a right. It's a convenient rallying cry of the leftist.

That said, fiscal conservatives do want to make sure that everyone can get the health care they need. There are a variety of proposals including allowing markets across state lines, tax credits, advance tax credits and insurance market reforms that could have great impacts on the ability of people to pay for health insurance and further assisting in creating a rational market for health care instead of what we have now. Until the person who receives the service, pays for the service, there will never be a rational market and you will always have either care rationing or upside distortion.

Do Fiscal conservatives not want health care reform in any form?

The current system is broken, see above.

Fiscal conservatives think there shouldn't be a minimum wage: let the market settle on what the minimum wage should be.

We believe that an artifically high minimum wage (significantly above what the market otherwise would be) will cause employers to employ fewer people or cut back services to rationalize the cost. At the margins, this will cause a net reduction in employment to the detriment of the lowest economically speaking.

So, minimum wage increases teen unemployment especially amongst minorities. It also decreases the opportunity for people who may need two minimum wage jobs to get by.

By contrast, allowing the market to set the wage allows small businesses to employ more people at lower cost, eventually allowing them to get larger and create more employment. When the employment pool in a given area reaches the 5% unemployment level, businesses begin to compete for labor even among unskilled minimum wage jobs. I've seen this competition drive the minimum actual wage to over $9/hr.

Fiscal conservatives think that the economy should be more of a priority than the environment.

Yes, but not in an extreme way.

Fiscal conservatives think welfare should be discontinued.

No, it should only be rational, not discontinued. There should be a safety net, it just shouldn't be a nice place to be. It should leave rope burns that make you never want to be there again and want to get out as soon as possible.

Fiscal conservative think that unemployment insurance should be discontiued.

I've never even heard that before. See above for the general theory.

Do fiscal conservatives think all social program spending should be discontinued on the Federal level and that states should handle it i.e. food stamps, welfare, unemployment insurance, etc., or do fiscal conservatives think that all social programs should be discontinued and let non-profits handle those programs with charitable donations?

Asked in the vacuum, probably the latter. SInce it isn't a vacuum, devolution to the states with the feds acting as an insurance company of last resort for basket cases like Michigan and California where their state governments have been so mismanaged they are hopeless.

Fiscal conservatives want to get rid of Affirmative Action because institutional racism and sexism are things of the past and no longer issues in American business.

Crush the exceptions, but yes in general, that's the idea.

Fiscal conservatives think we should stop our dependence on foreign oil by drilling here instead.

Drill here, drill now. There are huge oil deposits untapped in this country and the lefties are stopping us from getting it. But oil isn't the only solution. We have huge natural gas deposits and nuclear should be developed. If Eestor comes through with the EESU later this year, we can even talk about renewables in as a solution instead of pie in the sky.

" as you are educating this card carrying commie pinko liberal.

It's good to have a clear understanding of who you are. At least you do.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Hey Tech Esquire,
Who the hell do you think you are, Editec?

Edi and I get along quite nicely thanks.....probably for that reason.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

From your fiscal reply, Tech_Esq, I would say, generally speaking, that conservatism is like tough love whereas progressivism is like coddling a lazy child. Both ways have the intent of what's best......

 

[Tech_Esq]

Tech_Esq:

I'm a little surprised you responded to the social conservative part of this thread because I was under the assumption that you were more of a fiscal conservative and less a social one. Nevertheless, your answers helped to shed a lot of light on these subjects from a conservative stand-point. I really hope you tackle the fiscal side for me as I think you probably have some valuable things to say there.

A couple of your answers have caused me to have more questions. Just a couple! I'll keep it short:

I meant Christian values when I wrote "Social conservatives think that the government should be better aligned with Christian ideals."

I didn't quite understand your reply to the "Official" language comment. Did you mean that it makes sense to have English as the official language in a fiscal sense?

You're a pagan but you think the founding fathers used Judeo-Christian values as a foundation for the ideals they used to structure the nation? Do you think they meant that as in a "Christian nation" sense or does that just reflect their own values which aligned with Christian values? How does that align with the fact that this country was, supposedly, founded for religious freedoms?

Why do you think so many college professors and administrative staff are liberal?

So neo-cons are not conservatives? I just thought they were like the Gen X of conservatives.

You are correct. I'm not a social conservative. I'm more socially liberal, but I've been around the conservative movement for over 25 years, so I am at least intimately familiar with the arguments even though I have my problems with some of them and and disagree with the weight given to others of them. In total, I think that socially conservative ideals are overweighted in the conservative movement.

If you are getting at whether social conservatives want a "christian republic of america" like a theocracy with Pat Robertson at the top. LOL.....I think that's a lunitic fringe position. I'm sure somebody thinks that, but not a generally held desire.

But if you mean a recognition of "natual rights" and their importance in the moral argument for the foundation of the US, then yes, most conservatives believe that most heartily. As this essentially plays into your other question, I'll continue. Recognizing the Judeo-Christian foundation is just a recognition of fact, it isn't a judgment about whether that is a correct form of belief. The by and large the founders were christians and were informed philosophically both by their religion and by previous English and French philosophers who were similarly christian. Woven into the founding documents is Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau and informing those, St. Thomas Aquinas.

So, the recognition of the importance of religion to the founders in achieving an ethical and moral society does not mean that they intended to pick a religious winner. It only means that they recognized the importance of religion in general to morality and the importance of morality in the civil society. After all, what is the social contract if one or both sides act immorally?

Why are profs liberal? -- career choice, peer pressure, echo chamber.....hard to say.

I do not believe neo-cons to be real conservatives, no. I don't believe that the fundemental basis for believing what they believe is conservative in nature. Instead, it feels to me quite the opposite.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Pot meet Kettle.

Accusing the OP of oversimplifying when you yourself are guilty in the same post makes you a laughing stock.

No, it makes you look like a moron because you can't see that what I've done is exposed the OP for the over-simplification that it is. You can only see the truth from your own shoes.

Anyway, you will find conservatives all over the spectrum on all those issues. Are Libertarians conservatives? Maybe, maybe not. Religious fundamentalists? Maybe, maybe not. Reagan-type conservatives? Maybe maybe not. But each issue demands its own examination of the views and the underlying philosophy supporting them.

Was your post on Liberal Values sarcasm or not?

If that was a serious post, then yes, you are guilty of the exact crime you accuse the OP of. If anything you are more guilty as the OP seems to be trying to have an honest debate while your list is nothing but right-think tripe.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Pot meet Kettle.

Accusing the OP of oversimplifying when you yourself are guilty in the same post makes you a laughing stock.

No, it makes you look like a moron because you can't see that what I've done is exposed the OP for the over-simplification that it is. You can only see the truth from your own shoes.

Anyway, you will find conservatives all over the spectrum on all those issues. Are Libertarians conservatives? Maybe, maybe not. Religious fundamentalists? Maybe, maybe not. Reagan-type conservatives? Maybe maybe not. But each issue demands its own examination of the views and the underlying philosophy supporting them.

Was your post on Liberal Values sarcasm or not?

If that was a serious post, then yes, you are guilty of the exact crime you accuse the OP of. If anything you are more guilty as the OP seems to be trying to have an honest debate while your list is nothing but right-think tripe.

I'm not even trying to have a debate. I'm just trying to understand conservatism and conservatives. There's no argument in the OP.

 

[The Rabbi]

Pot meet Kettle.

Accusing the OP of oversimplifying when you yourself are guilty in the same post makes you a laughing stock.

No, it makes you look like a moron because you can't see that what I've done is exposed the OP for the over-simplification that it is. You can only see the truth from your own shoes.

Anyway, you will find conservatives all over the spectrum on all those issues. Are Libertarians conservatives? Maybe, maybe not. Religious fundamentalists? Maybe, maybe not. Reagan-type conservatives? Maybe maybe not. But each issue demands its own examination of the views and the underlying philosophy supporting them.

Was your post on Liberal Values sarcasm or not?

If that was a serious post, then yes, you are guilty of the exact crime you accuse the OP of. If anything you are more guilty as the OP seems to be trying to have an honest debate while your list is nothing but right-think tripe.

If you don't know the answer then you probably shouldn't be posting.

The OP laid out some pretty tendentious statements that would take pages to unravel.

 

[MaggieMae]

C-man, IMHO this is too much for one thread.

Well, I guess I can see that. But I didn't know how else to do it. Start fifty threads - one thread for each point?

I hope you know that there are very few conservatives here who really know what they're talking about, and those are the smarter ones who probably don't spend a lot of time here anyway. So you're going to get a bunch of rants about liberals, and nothing about conservatives other than the usual ideological platitudes and Randisms. It's too bad, because it's a worthwhile topic.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

the two ends of the political spectrum

That's all there are? Two?

 

[MaggieMae]

What, no conservatives want to talk about this? You guys can't talk about your political ideologies with a liberal?

You bunch of elitists!

There you go with the name calling thing that is so much a part of the "lefty liberal mentality. I'm in the waiting room of my family practice doctor waiting while my wife gets her annual physical exam. I'm on the public computer in his waiting room. If I have the time tonight when I get home I would like to address this post. This is a pretty good post coming from you. It deserves some honest attention. I don't have a lot of time now to explain my stand on the issues you listed but maybe so tonight. I'm a conservative - used to be a Republican but have of late turned towards being an Independent because the Republican Party is in the trash right now. I agree with a lot of what you described but certainly not all of it. I'll try to be more specific tonight.

As distasteful as it might sound to you, I strongly recommend you reading Glenn Beck's book, "Common Sense". Politics today is not necessarily geared towards Dems vs Repubs. That is what the Progressives would like for you to believe because it keeps everything in turmoil. Beck explains it all very well and if you read the book it will open your eyes to a lot of things you took for granted before in your life. Well worth the read if you can read it with an open mind. It's less than $9.00 at Walmart.

What Glenn Beck says in his book is a far cry from his rants on stage. He's like a Jeckyl and Hyde.

 

[bill777]

Actually, the OP shouldn't be paid any attention to at all as it is just one , big, run on fallacy. The Strawman was prevalent, but there was some ad hominem thrown in there for good measure. Don't waste your time arguing over that piece of crap, it isn't worth it.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's all Bush's fault!

 

[MaggieMae]

C-man, IMHO this is too much for one thread.

Well, I guess I can see that. But I didn't know how else to do it. Start fifty threads - one thread for each point?

Maybe try them one at a time, starting with the one you are most interested in.

I would consider myself a social conservative, so we could start with my feelings on abortion, but those threads seem to go downhill fast.

That's because, believe it or not, most folks understand both sides of the issue. It's a conundrum for which there is no satisfactory answer.

 

[MaggieMae]

I think a good place to start is that many people on both sides have bad intentions.

No they don't. I don't think very many people wake up in the morning and ask themselves how much evil they can spread around today. They simply have differing notions on how an issue affects them on a personal level, and it takes a strong argument to change their minds.

 

[MaggieMae]

No, it makes you look like a moron because you can't see that what I've done is exposed the OP for the over-simplification that it is. You can only see the truth from your own shoes.

Anyway, you will find conservatives all over the spectrum on all those issues. Are Libertarians conservatives? Maybe, maybe not. Religious fundamentalists? Maybe, maybe not. Reagan-type conservatives? Maybe maybe not. But each issue demands its own examination of the views and the underlying philosophy supporting them.

Was your post on Liberal Values sarcasm or not?

If that was a serious post, then yes, you are guilty of the exact crime you accuse the OP of. If anything you are more guilty as the OP seems to be trying to have an honest debate while your list is nothing but right-think tripe.

If you don't know the answer then you probably shouldn't be posting.

The OP laid out some pretty tendentious statements that would take pages to unravel.

Which was the whole purpose, yet you chose in your opening salvo to call it "over-simplification." Make up your mind. If you don't intend to answer any of the questions, then move on.

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you not see the statements as totally separate? It would take 500 pages to sort through all the issues the OP tosses off in a paragraph.