Alright, I Don't Understand, What Is It That Conservatives Want?

[Freemason]

A good conservative might believe....

That powers of Congress have been usurped by the President.
That the rights and liberties of American citizens have been violated.
That Regulated monopolies have displaced free enterprise.
That government has destroyed the morale of our people and made them dependent upon government.


Conservative in my opinion would/should

Should strive to maintain the American system of Constitutional and local self government, and to resist all attempts to impair the authority of the Supreme Court of the United States, the final protector of the rights of our citizens against the arbitrary encroachments of the legislative and executive branches of government. There can be no individual liberty without an independent judiciary.

Should fight to preserve the American system of free enterprise, private competition, and equality of opportunity, and to seek its constant betterment in the interests of all.

Removal of restrictions on production. Abandonment of all New Deal policies that raise production costs, increase the cost of living, and thereby restrict buying, reduce volume and prevent reemployment.

Encouragement instead of hindrance to legitimate business.

Withdrawal of government from competition with private payrolls.

Elimination of unnecessary and hampering regulations.

Adoption of such other policies as will furnish a chance for individual enterprise, industrial expansion, and the restoration of jobs.

Should advocate a sound currency to be preserved at all hazards.

We should promote and maintain peace by all honorable means not leading to foreign alliances or political commitments.

We should be obedient to the traditional foreign policy of America and to the repeatedly expressed will of the American people and not intervene in other nation's internal affairs, we should advocate getting out of organizations such as the UN,The World Bank and other organizations and treaties that threaten our sovernity.

Well said and spelled out nicely. What's the new saying "spot on?!"

 

[Sinatra]

All of political correctness is socialized regulation of free expression wherein according to liberals, if you attack conservatism it is responsible expression and if you attack liberalism it is hate speech.

This has been ingrained in our public school system for decades and those seeds are now in full bloom...

 

[Meister]

The Christian Right doesn't want more social regulation, either. In many cases, what the Christian Right is fighting against is the left using the government to change the status quo, which means they're fighting against an increase in social regulation.

You know, I don't know what social regulation that the right is fighting. That is, I'm ignorant of it. I'm not accusing you of lying or dramatizing the subject I really don't know of any.

From my perspective the Right wants MORE social regulation. As in instituting laws that ban or refuse the recognition of consenting adults marrying other consenting adults who love eachother (homosexual marriage). And limiting abortion.

Could you give me some examples of social regulations that the Right are opposed to? Thanks.

Colorado, I think I'm seeing through you I think. Your bullying your own indoctrination by not accepting what the right has been saying to you. Every one of your questions were answered over and over, and yet your own agenda is still what your left with. Your not going to understand because you don't want to. Start another thread, or something but get over it...or just go back and start reading from the beginning of this one. All the questions were answered.
By the way...it's the left that is trying to institute laws for social change...not the right. I think that was simple enough for you to understand...but, I think you have been indoctrinated to not believe that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Christian Right doesn't want more social regulation, either. In many cases, what the Christian Right is fighting against is the left using the government to change the status quo, which means they're fighting against an increase in social regulation.

You know, I don't know what social regulation that the right is fighting. That is, I'm ignorant of it. I'm not accusing you of lying or dramatizing the subject I really don't know of any.

From my perspective the Right wants MORE social regulation. As in instituting laws that ban or refuse the recognition of consenting adults marrying other consenting adults who love eachother (homosexual marriage). And limiting abortion.

Could you give me some examples of social regulations that the Right are opposed to? Thanks.

Roe v. Wade, for one thing, was a massive government intrusion into society. It was the federal government riding in and massively re-engineering the law and the way families work. Since then, we've seen masses of new laws and legal precedents required to deal with the backlash. Yes, in some cases, the Christian Right has had to propose these laws themselves to try to minimize the fallout. But none of it would have been necessary without that first incursion, and a return to the simpler days when the states and their people made the decisions and it wasn't necessary to argue about how far away from a clinic your right to free speech ended, whether or not to notify parents of their children getting medical treatments, whether or not to notify CPS if a minor girl is impregnated by an older man, etc. is what they're really aiming for.

How about homosexual "marriage"? It's not the Christian Right that created this issue and dragged it into the courts and the ballot box. It's not the Christian Right that started demanding new laws and court decisions about this. They were perfectly happy with the law the way it was. They aren't the ones suggesting all these brand-new legal permutations, either. And despite how the media and leftists want to present it, initiatives like Prop 8 aren't "new laws" at all. They're restatements of the laws that already existed.

That's just two. In fact, I can't think of a single issue that the Christian Right is active about that started out with them flooding out of their churches and demanding that the government do something. All of their activism has been in response to someone else demanding new laws.

 

[Care4all]

Isn't the Constitutional Argument against Roe v Wade, the argument that this should have been left up to each State to decide on abortion's legality?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Colorado, I think I'm seeing through you I think. Your bullying your own indoctrination by not accepting what the right has been saying to you. Every one of your questions were answered over and over, and yet your own agenda is still what your left with. Your not going to understand because you don't want to. Start another thread, or something but get over it...or just go back and start reading from the beginning of this one. All the questions were answered.
By the way...it's the left that is trying to institute laws for social change...not the right. I think that was simple enough for you to understand...but, I think you have been indoctrinated to not believe that.

You're not seeing through me or you would understand that I have been sincere in all of my postings.

From my perspective I've gotten similar answer and differing answers on this thread so far.

I think what I perceive as laws to reform societal flaws are laws that conservatives see as social regulations.

And I have been indoctrinated. Hasn't everybody to some degree? What this thread is about is to erase, reform, revise, and un-indoctrinate myself as much as I can. Already I've started really questioning the liberal perspective on Federal government. I am doubting what I was taught to believe. I think that's healthy. I haven't converted to conservatism, but I am at least not trying to be a liberal brainwaished by propaganda, the media, etc.

I'm no expert in all areas of politics, but perhaps I can get some input from conservatives who know more than I, and who see things differently than I.

And here's a question for you: Why are there so many conservatives who assume that I have some ulterior motive to starting this thread? Could it be that I might possibly be sincere? How do conservatives perceive liberals? As dishonest? As weasels with ulterior motives meant to change you into us?

 

[Sinatra]

Isn't the Constitutional Argument against Roe v Wade, the argument that this should have been left up to each State to decide on abortion's legality?

EXACTLY.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Colorado, I think I'm seeing through you I think. Your bullying your own indoctrination by not accepting what the right has been saying to you. Every one of your questions were answered over and over, and yet your own agenda is still what your left with. Your not going to understand because you don't want to. Start another thread, or something but get over it...or just go back and start reading from the beginning of this one. All the questions were answered.
By the way...it's the left that is trying to institute laws for social change...not the right. I think that was simple enough for you to understand...but, I think you have been indoctrinated to not believe that.

You're not seeing through me or you would understand that I have been sincere in all of my postings.

From my perspective I've gotten similar answer and differing answers on this thread so far.

I think what I perceive as laws to reform societal flaws are laws that conservatives see as social regulations.

My question is, why do you think there's a difference? It doesn't matter WHY you're proposing social regulations. They're still regulations.

And by definition, conservatives of any type aren't the sort of people who spend a lot of time proposing things the government can and should do to fix the world. Conservatives are highly suspicious of change (which is why they're called "conservatives"), and even when they DO think a change is necessary, they're more likely to default to some agent other than the federal government.

And I have been indoctrinated. Hasn't everybody to some degree? What this thread is about is to erase, reform, revise, and un-indoctrinate myself as much as I can. Already I've started really questioning the liberal perspective on Federal government. I am doubting what I was taught to believe. I think that's healthy. I haven't converted to conservatism, but I am at least not trying to be a liberal brainwaished by propaganda, the media, etc.

I don't know if I can agree that everyone is indoctrinated. However, some of us are able to see and understand the viewpoints of our opposition. I know what leftists think and why they think it. I think they're misguided, naive, and wrong, but I do understand.

I'm no expert in all areas of politics, but perhaps I can get some input from conservatives who know more than I, and who see things differently than I.

And here's a question for you: Why are there so many conservatives who assume that I have some ulterior motive to starting this thread? Could it be that I might possibly be sincere? How do conservatives perceive liberals? As dishonest? As weasels with ulterior motives meant to change you into us?

I think you're sincere, and I really do think that those occasions when you've been offensive, you didn't intend to be.

But it's a fact that liberals are rarely curious about anything other than their own worldview. Part of the liberal indoctrination, I'm sorry to say, is a belief that they are not only correct, but morally superior, in their views, which inhibits any possibility of honest interest in what other people think. Why listen to them if they're clearly barbarians and possibly evil? After years of dealing with this mindset, I think it's understandable that conservatives are naturally suspicious of any liberal claiming to actually want to hear what we have to say.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Isn't the Constitutional Argument against Roe v Wade, the argument that this should have been left up to each State to decide on abortion's legality?

EXACTLY.

Yup, and since they had already done so, no new legislation or regulation was required. And certainly, there were no accompanying laws needed to negotiate the myriad complications, because there weren't any. No need for parental consent regulations if minor girls aren't able to run out and get serious medical treatments without their parents knowing in the first place. No need for some judge to micromanage at what point your freedom of speech rights are revoked when protesting abortion clinics. No leftists trying to extend the RICO laws to right-to-life groups. And so on.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Yup, and since they had already done so, no new legislation or regulation was required. And certainly, there were no accompanying laws needed to negotiate the myriad complications, because there weren't any. No need for parental consent regulations if minor girls aren't able to run out and get serious medical treatments without their parents knowing in the first place. No need for some judge to micromanage at what point your freedom of speech rights are revoked when protesting abortion clinics. No leftists trying to extend the RICO laws to right-to-life groups. And so on.

Would relegating abortion laws to the states clear up the added complexity that resulted from Roe v. Wade? Is simplifying the legal quandary of abortion better overall, in your opinion, than when abortions were done illegally in this country?

 

[Sinatra]

Yup, and since they had already done so, no new legislation or regulation was required. And certainly, there were no accompanying laws needed to negotiate the myriad complications, because there weren't any. No need for parental consent regulations if minor girls aren't able to run out and get serious medical treatments without their parents knowing in the first place. No need for some judge to micromanage at what point your freedom of speech rights are revoked when protesting abortion clinics. No leftists trying to extend the RICO laws to right-to-life groups. And so on.

Would relegating abortion laws to the states clear up the added complexity that resulted from Roe v. Wade? Is simplifying the legal quandary of abortion better overall, in your opinion, than when abortions were done illegally in this country?

You have a very romantic view of this particular topic that hints at absolute naivete...

 

[Coloradomtnman]

All of political correctness is socialized regulation of free expression wherein according to liberals, if you attack conservatism it is responsible expression and if you attack liberalism it is hate speech.

This has been ingrained in our public school system for decades and those seeds are now in full bloom...

Where are there political correctness laws?

Who has ever been convicted of hate speech for attacking liberalism?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

You have a very romantic view of this particular topic that hints at absolute naivete...

You know, Sinatra, its easy to criticize without putting yourself forward and backing up your opinions. I don't even understand what you mean by "very romantic view" or "absolute naivete" when you criticize my above questions. How do come to that conclusion?

Do you think your judgements are helpful?

 

[KittenKoder]

All of political correctness is socialized regulation of free expression wherein according to liberals, if you attack conservatism it is responsible expression and if you attack liberalism it is hate speech.

This has been ingrained in our public school system for decades and those seeds are now in full bloom...

Where are there political correctness laws?

Who has ever been convicted of hate speech for attacking liberalism?

The FCC ... but they are definitely not liberals.

 

[Sinatra]

All of political correctness is socialized regulation of free expression wherein according to liberals, if you attack conservatism it is responsible expression and if you attack liberalism it is hate speech.

This has been ingrained in our public school system for decades and those seeds are now in full bloom...

Where are there political correctness laws?

Who has ever been convicted of hate speech for attacking liberalism?

I suggest you read nearly every student handbook across this nation, both K-12 and University.

You must learn to educate yourself sir - you espouse views based upon your own version of reality combined with an unwillingness to corroborate those views with actual fact...

 

[editec]

Conservatives are people who vote for people who speak about conservatism, but then who aren't conservative when in public office.

Liberals are people who vote for people who speak about liberalism, but then who aren't liberals when in public office.

Libertarians are people who used to be conservatives or liberals, who now suspect they'll never have anyone they really want to vote for in their lifetimes.

Independents are people who know the three aforementioned types are damned fools for labeling themselves anything at all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yup, and since they had already done so, no new legislation or regulation was required. And certainly, there were no accompanying laws needed to negotiate the myriad complications, because there weren't any. No need for parental consent regulations if minor girls aren't able to run out and get serious medical treatments without their parents knowing in the first place. No need for some judge to micromanage at what point your freedom of speech rights are revoked when protesting abortion clinics. No leftists trying to extend the RICO laws to right-to-life groups. And so on.

Would relegating abortion laws to the states clear up the added complexity that resulted from Roe v. Wade? Is simplifying the legal quandary of abortion better overall, in your opinion, than when abortions were done illegally in this country?

First, your indoctrination is showing again. It's not "relegating" them to the states. This issue rightfully belongs to the states, DID belong to the states from the beginning of the nation, and was only relatively recently illegally taken from them. So overturning Roe v. Wade would be RETURNING the issue to to the states, not "relegating" it to them, as though one is generously allowing underlings to take on some extra responsibility.

Second, it probably would clear up some of it simply by making those laws irrelevant. Some others would need to be repealed/overturned, because it is a stone fact that leftists have made an enormous mess with their meddling and micromanaging into social affairs.

Third, most abortions performed in this country prior to Roe v. Wade were performed legally. In fact, the vast majority were. The leftist bugaboos of women killing themselves with wire coat hangers and back alley butchers with folding tables and a rusty scalpel is so much bullshit urban legend designed to scare people.

I do think overturning it would be better in many regards. There's the fact that it was illegal, the fact that it was a complete joke as far as serious judicial thought, the fact that the issue properly belongs to the states, the fact that it would eventually simplify both the federal legal scene and society in general (do we really NEED this enormous, inflamed boil of an issue on our nation?), and the fact that it would greatly reduce the number of abortions performed every year.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

So, generally speaking, conservatives want more social regulations and less business regulations.

Libertarians want less social and business regulations.

And Liberals want more business regulations and less social regulations.

Is that generally accurate?

Who wants more business and social regulations? Politicians?

Sometimes that's defined as populist, but a better word would be authoritarian as has been stated. An authoritarian would sooner call themselves a Populist or an Independent than an authoritarian, as it sounds all Nazi-ish, but not all populist movements in history have been authoritarian. It's confusing. Lou Dobbs could be called a Populist, though he calls himself an Independent.

Populist:

a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity and voice

Source: (Albertazzi, Daniele and Duncan McDonnell, 2008, Twenty-First Century Populism: The Spectre of Western European Democracy, New York and London: Palgrave Macmillan, p.3).

Otherwise I'd say you're correct on the most commonly used gist of those terms. I and others mentioned other ways in which the word conservative has been used, e.g. the American Constitutionalist who wants to return to following the Constitution as it was written.

Ill some it up with one word: Freedom.

That'd be libertarians.

Not inherently... it's not like libertarians want freedom and conservatives don't... hell, you could say the 'anarchists' want 'freedom' too... but that is not truly an accurate way to sum up their overall stance

Well, it's hard to sum up anything with a single word. And freedom is one of those words that most people have a positive feeling about but has been abused beyond all recognition. It has been said that the greatest freedom is the freedom to oppress others without consequences. That ironic statement was probably meant as a critique of anarchy (but I don't know the source). I wish Agnapostate wasn't banned at the moment though, since he is one of the few people who might try to mount a defense of some form of anarchism (aka libertarian socialism).

So libertarians take a small step back from anarchy, viewing the only role of the government as that of preventing people from oppressing each other.

The liberal will cry that oppression isn't always blatant like somebody breaking into your house. Sometimes there's manipulation and exploitation from other sources of power, like transnational corporations that dwarf the economic power of most countries.

The conservative will agree with the libertarian that government power is much more threatening than corporate power, but very much disagree with the basic principle of libertarian social policy: Everybody should have the freedom to do what they want and the government should have nothing to do with regulating society except when somebody is harmed against their consent.

Conservatives, in the most common sense of the word today, will specifically focus on the word "harm" and say there are many indirect harms to tolerating immoral behavior. Thus they'll spend lots of money trying to fighting things like drugs and prostitution.

Where things get confusing is that the political spectrum moves kind of like a horseshoe, i.e. the fringes find common ground with different justifications. A far leftist might be for social regulation because they view society as a collective. Libertarian socialism, or anarcho socialism, can be thought of as where the left and right actually meet.

All of political correctness is socialized regulation of free expression wherein according to liberals, if you attack conservatism it is responsible expression and if you attack liberalism it is hate speech.

This has been ingrained in our public school system for decades and those seeds are now in full bloom...

Where are there political correctness laws?

Who has ever been convicted of hate speech for attacking liberalism?

I would say hate crime legislation is an example of law based upon political correctness. But a lot of it is informal social norms that can be every bit as powerful as the law. If you say the word, "******" in a public place, and you're not Black, you can bet anybody who hears it directly or hears about it indirectly will treat differently, which can sever social and professional ties that are required to function in modern society.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I suggest you read nearly every student handbook across this nation, both K-12 and University.

You must learn to educate yourself sir - you espouse views based upon your own version of reality combined with an unwillingness to corroborate those views with actual fact...

There are those judgements again. Very constructive, Sir.

I'm sorry, I already graduated from K-12 and read the student handbooks that I received when I was there. Although I read voraciously, I have no intention of traveling across country to read every student handbook. But perhaps you could help me. In what chapters does it say: "Don't criticize liberalism or you'll be accused of hate speech. Remember, the Liberals are right!"

Do you espouse your views based upon someone else's version of reality? What opinions do you hold which are based on fact? Define fact.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

The FCC ... but they are definitely not liberals.

Do they enforce Political correctness or do they enforce Obscenity laws?

I'm liberal and I don't like political correctness. I understand why people would want it, I just don't like it. I'm vulgar and vulgarity is funny to me. Seems like more of a matter of style.

Hate speech actually harms someone. Big difference.