Conservatism Is Dead

[midcan5]

I've thought this often as one after another of its policies and its actions fail. But the power of its echo chamber of institutions and media outlets hangs on, spinning any news into myth. Some time ago I wrote that when media gets lost in an attempt at fairness rather than a truthful telling of the situation, it dilutes reality so that alternative views gain credence, not because they are right, but just because they are repeated. Is cold hearted social Darwinist conservatism finally dead? I mean no insult to Charles on his birthday. We can only hope.

'An intellectual autopsy of the movement' by Sam Tanenhaus

"...After George W. Bush's two terms, conservatives must reckon with the consequences of a presidency that failed, in large part, because of its fervent commitment to movement ideology: the aggressively unilateralist foreign policy; the blind faith in a deregulated, Wall Street-centric market; the harshly punitive "culture war" waged against liberal "elites." That these precepts should have found their final, hapless defender in John McCain, who had resisted them for most of his long career, only confirms that movement doctrine retains an inflexible and suffocating grip on the GOP."

Conservatism Is Dead

http://www.usmessageboard.com/writing/50779-end-of-democracy.html

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How many weeks will you wait before you post this again Midcan? It wasn't true before and it isn't true now.

 

[DiamondDave]

Repeating partisan crapola and lies does not suddenly make them true

 

[michiganFats]

Conservatism isn't dead, but it has a serious problem. Neo-Conservatives have co-opted the conservative identity in much the same way that the word Liberal was co-opted by a group of people who were/are anything but Liberal. As long as those Neo-Con clowns are able to fool people into believing that their brand of national socialism is "conservative", the real conservatives will find it impossible to be an effective political force.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I've thought this often as one after another of its policies and its actions fail.

To which SPECIFIC POLICIES are you referring? (There will be no forthcoming SPECIFICS, as this position can only survive in the ethereal vaguery inherent in 'implication.' The INSTANT this argument is carried into the gravitational influence of 'Specificity,' the truth begins to tear it apart...)

But the power of its echo chamber of institutions and media outlets hangs on, spinning any news into myth.

One of my favorite traits of the left is how they try to REFLECT their OWN fatally flawed traits onto their opposition... In this case, the concept of the 'Echo-Chamber' is a prideful resource of the ideological left... Numerous RADICAL LEFTIST forums boast that their sites are designed to be "Progressive Echo-Chambers;" and this is due to the left being incapable of surviving outside of it's OWN artificial environment... Sites such as:

The Progressive Echo Chamber - The Progressive Echo Chamber
The Echo Chamber Project - Progressive Media Reform Conference | Echo Chamber Project
Alternet.org - About: The Case For AlterNet | AlterNet - In this link they tell us about themselves boasting: "AlterNet is an award-winning news magazine and online community that creates original journalism and amplifies the best of hundreds of other independent media sources. AlterNet's aim is to inspire action and advocacy on the environment, human rights and civil liberties, social justice, media, health care issues, and more. ... AlterNet is a key player in the echo chamber of progressive ideas and vision.

More of the same can be seen on the Democratic Underground, The Daily KOS and dozens of other left-think crank sites. THEY NEED THESE SITES TO GO WHERE THEY CAN SPOUT THIS DRIVEL WITHOUT CONTEST!

Just look around this board and see the left's EPIC failure, thread after thread. And this is one of the FEW boards on the internet, where an effective contest of the ideological left will not inevitably get you BANNED.

Now the thing to look for is the change. In going back to the sites where the phrase "Progressive Echo-Chamber" is pridefully used... I noted that Common Dreams is no longer boasting such in describing themselves. This was the FIRST SITE where I came upon the term "Progressive Echo Chamber" some years ago... it is now nowhere to be found on that site. And I take some pride in that, as several of the sites I've frequented over the years were LOADED with 'Common Dreamers' and I've beaten them severely about the rhetorical head and eyes over the prideful boasts of their parent site, belittling their inherent need to here their own views reflected back to them as some twisted source which they use to erroneously conclude validity... It's all a function of ad populum fallacy... the logical appeal to popularity... the left THRIVES ON IT! They can't exist WITHOUT IT. "Everyone Knows..." And their constant refering to polls and the chronic explanations which exclaim on perception of a 'majority' who holds this or that view is ALL WRAPPED UP ON THIS SPURIOUS reasoning.

You CAN HOWEVER now find innumerable rants on Common Dreams, delcaring a "Right wing Echo-chamber' as this idiot is claiming; all which serves to CONCLUSIVELY prove my point. This site is a popular intellectual flop for the Progressive Media and what you find on Common Dreams you'll find being splattered around the MSM... Which explains the coordinated shift, from their failed declarations of their sites being safe havens for left-think... 'Echo-chambers' are NOW 'what the right does....' It's a lie...

Progressives NEED the echo-chamber... their entire political viability DEPENDS UPON IT... without the means to touch rhetorical-peters and celebrating their own perceived genius amongst themselves, the left's ideas are exposed to ready refutation... and sudden death. Thus they presume that their opposition also needs the Echo-Chamber and because they have finally begun to sense how this vulnerability effects THEM, they've run to project it onto their opposition, which serves reason... as it is precisely what one expects the idiots to do.

Check out those sites and file thier self descriptions of "The Progressive ECHO-CHAMBER" away and, when at some point in the fairly near future you find that the relevant self descriptions are GONE... the whole ugly truth will be solidified... when at that point, they will have saddled their opposition with the fatally flawed reasoning which originally lead them to saddle THEMSELVES with it.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Conservatism isn't dead, but it has a serious problem. Neo-Conservatives have co-opted the conservative identity in much the same way that the word Liberal was co-opted by a group of people who were/are anything but Liberal. As long as those Neo-Con clowns are able to fool people into believing that their brand of national socialism is "conservative", the real conservatives will find it impossible to be an effective political force.

There is no such thing as a "Neo-Con." This is a myth designed to undermine Americans... One is either Conservative or one is NOT.

Nationalism is NOT a trait which stands at odds with conservatism... SOCIALISM is...

A Socialist who also happens to be a NATIONALIST is vastly preferred to a SOCIALIST who rejects or fails to respect national sovereignty... but their nationalism does NOT make them a CONSERVATIVE.

Other than that I agree with you...

 

[michiganFats]

There is no such thing as a "Neo-Con." This is a myth designed to undermine Americans... One is either Conservative or one is NOT.

Get the point much?

 

[KGB]

Conservatism isn't dead, but it has a serious problem. Neo-Conservatives have co-opted the conservative identity in much the same way that the word Liberal was co-opted by a group of people who were/are anything but Liberal. As long as those Neo-Con clowns are able to fool people into believing that their brand of national socialism is "conservative", the real conservatives will find it impossible to be an effective political force.

neo-conservatism is dead, but not conservatism....you should have stated that up front...

 

[Andrew2382]

the 59 million people who voted for the other guiy would disagree

 

[michiganFats]

Conservatism isn't dead, but it has a serious problem. Neo-Conservatives have co-opted the conservative identity in much the same way that the word Liberal was co-opted by a group of people who were/are anything but Liberal. As long as those Neo-Con clowns are able to fool people into believing that their brand of national socialism is "conservative", the real conservatives will find it impossible to be an effective political force.

neo-conservatism is dead, but not conservatism....you should have stated that up front...

Why would I state that when I don't believe that? The problem for true conservatives is that Neo-Conservatives aren't dead, I believe they actually run the GOP. That's why I think the real conservatives have to figure out a way to differentiate themselves from the neo-con clowns.

 

[xsited1]

I've thought this often as one after another of its policies and its actions fail. But the power of its echo chamber of institutions and media outlets hangs on, spinning any news into myth. Some time ago I wrote that when media gets lost in an attempt at fairness rather than a truthful telling of the situation, it dilutes reality so that alternative views gain credence, not because they are right, but just because they are repeated. Is cold hearted social Darwinist conservatism finally dead? I mean no insult to Charles on his birthday. We can only hope.

'An intellectual autopsy of the movement' by Sam Tanenhaus

"...After George W. Bush's two terms, conservatives must reckon with the consequences of a presidency that failed, in large part, because of its fervent commitment to movement ideology: the aggressively unilateralist foreign policy; the blind faith in a deregulated, Wall Street-centric market; the harshly punitive "culture war" waged against liberal "elites." That these precepts should have found their final, hapless defender in John McCain, who had resisted them for most of his long career, only confirms that movement doctrine retains an inflexible and suffocating grip on the GOP."

Conservatism Is Dead

http://www.usmessageboard.com/writing/50779-end-of-democracy.html

Let me guess... Midcan5 is a Public School graduate?

Some people cannot be educated. I'm guessing Midcan5 is still riding the short bus to school. I hope for his sake he's just a troll, because the only other explanation for his posts is stupidity.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Conservatism isn't dead, but it has a serious problem. Neo-Conservatives have co-opted the conservative identity in much the same way that the word Liberal was co-opted by a group of people who were/are anything but Liberal. As long as those Neo-Con clowns are able to fool people into believing that their brand of national socialism is "conservative", the real conservatives will find it impossible to be an effective political force.

neo-conservatism is dead, but not conservatism....you should have stated that up front...

Why would I state that when I don't believe that? The problem for true conservatives is that Neo-Conservatives aren't dead, I believe they actually run the GOP. That's why I think the real conservatives have to figure out a way to differentiate themselves from the neo-con clowns.

The problem is YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT. And you don't BELIEVE it BECAUSE YOU BUY IT. You believe that Neo-Cons ARE CONSERVATIVEs... thus your use of the term.

What they are, IS LEFTISTS... They're fascists and FASCISTS ARE LEFTISTS...

They're NOT CONSERVATIVES and when you assign "Conservative" TO THEM, IT ONLY SERVES TO UNDERMINE CONSERVATISM...

 

[michiganFats]

The problem is YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT. And you don't BELIEVE it BECAUSE YOU BUY IT. You believe that Neo-Cons ARE CONSERVATIVEs... thus your use of the term.

What they are, IS LEFTISTS... They're fascists and FASCISTS ARE LEFTISTS...

They're NOT CONSERVATIVES and when you assign "Conservative" TO THEM, IT ONLY SERVES TO UNDERMINE CONSERVATISM...

Are you as dense as you appear to be? The main point of my post was exactly what you are saying, that the term Neo-conservative is deliberately intended to confuse people as to their ideological beliefs. If you want to criticize someone who agrees with you because you don't like colloquial definitions being used for the sake of communication and expediency, then all I can say is good luck to you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Liberalism, that is true liberalism, where liberty is revered is just as dead.

Liberty:

1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

when so called liberals call for government ownership of confidential medical records, or when government calls for tracking chips to be put on vehicles of private citizens, or when government attempts to control behaviors as basic as choice of food and drink and how warm or cool you keep your home, or when government calls for a larger and larger share of one's income, i think it is safe to say Liberalism is dead.

 

[DavidS]

I wonder if the conservatives are going to don military fatigues and ak-47's and call themselves rebels like the tamil tigers... they've already compared themselves to the Taliban and their insurgency.. which wasn't exactly the group responsible for the insurgency in Iraq, but you know, details, details.

 

[Red Dawn]

the 59 million people who voted for the other guiy would disagree

You cons said McCain wasn't conservative, he wasn't one of you. You're making midcan's argument for him.

 

[Andrew2382]

the 59 million people who voted for the other guiy would disagree

You cons said McCain wasn't conservative, he wasn't one of you. You're making midcan's argument for him.

wrong...because McCain wasn't conservative and still 59 million voted for him just for the fact at how liberal Obama is

 

[Red Dawn]

the 59 million people who voted for the other guiy would disagree

You cons said McCain wasn't conservative, he wasn't one of you. You're making midcan's argument for him.

wrong...because McCain wasn't conservative and still 59 million voted for him just for the fact at how liberal Obama is

The conservatives couldn't win the GOP primary. Republican voters gave it to the most "liberal" guy in the field.

You're still making midcan's point for him.

 

[editec]

when media gets lost in an attempt at fairness rather than a truthful telling of the situation, it dilutes reality so that alternative views gain credence, not because they are right, but just because they are repeated.

Yes...the purpose of the media is not to be UNBIASED.

The point of having a free media is to GET IT RIGHT.

But since the media is a tool of those in power, we can pretty much forget about all that.

 

[Andrew2382]

You cons said McCain wasn't conservative, he wasn't one of you. You're making midcan's argument for him.

wrong...because McCain wasn't conservative and still 59 million voted for him just for the fact at how liberal Obama is

The conservatives couldn't win the GOP primary. Republican voters gave it to the most "liberal" guy in the field.

You're still making midcan's point for him.

please point to me who the true conservatives in the primary