'Conservatism Understood' Another in a series of Midcan's insights into contemporary

[The T]

Another in a series of Midcan's insights into contemporary America.

I have always been fascinated by the modern day American conservative. When I grew up the word had none of the meaning it has today. The reactionary nature of conservative thought and activity is a given, but I am still amazed that an ideology that has no consistent core ideas can have such influence and also hold together so odd an assortment of apostles. It seemed to me for a long time that its only power lay in its oppositional force to change. Without liberalism conservatism would have to stand on its own legs, what would those legs consist of? George W. Bush was a conservative until he became president, then by some conservative magic he ceased to be what he claimed to be. Could it be he was just what he was, and then given power the legs just weren't up to the task? I'm sure he's still a conservative even as his revision goes on in the world of contemporary spin. Soon he will be canonized.

I was listening to Herman Cain at CPAC, and I have to admit seeing a Black man prattle on so vehemently about what we have lost or are in fear of losing just bewilders me. I'm old enough to remember separate facilities and the sixties riots. He didn't look like a spring chicken, but I guess he missed something I failed to miss like extreme prejudice and privilege. Most still miss this one. When 'Dreams' are under attack we're all in trouble. Whose dreams, I wonder? Dreams are hazy things, the CPAC crowd cheered this hazy observation. Picture in your mind that bucolic past we have lost. I'm sure most prefer the modern day. Corey Robin writes, "Onstage, the conservative waxes Byronic, moodily surveying the sum of his losses before an audience of the lovelorn and the starstruck. Offstage, and out of sight, his managers quietly compile the sum of their gains." It is this 'lost' utopia that haunts the conservative today and galvanizes their opposition to any and all change. It is this dream world, that never was, that motivates the apostles of an imaginary past. Conservatives are like children longing for the comfort of some fairy tale world.

"A consideration of this deeper strain of conservatism [a lost world] gives us a clearer sense of what conservatism is about. While conservatism is an ideology of reaction — originally against the French Revolution, more recently against the liberation movements of the sixties and seventies — the nature and dynamics of that reaction have not been well understood." When losing a democratic election brings such great cries of loss, doesn't anyone ever wonder what was lost? Or is loss just a trope?

Corey Robin quotations from: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/files/raritan-essay.pdf

Albert Hirschamn also covered this topic in his brilliant analysis of conservative reactionary politcs. The Rhetoric of Reaction - Albert O. Hirschman - Harvard University Press


"You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can’t say “******” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a by-product of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “******, ******.” Lee Atwater, Republican strategist Quoted in article above. And see my: http://www.usmessageboard.com/race-relations-racism/61091-life-in-a-parallel-universe.html

Midcan? Is that middle Canada or the part of the can at which you consider whether or not to throw any more garbage? It's no secret that the radical left thinks any Black man who is a republican "is not down for the struggle". The radical Black left is still reliving those glory days when Van Jones led an arson and looting rampage. Why does the radical left hang on to the old racist plantation mentality that "blacks get hurt worse than whites"? Because they need to keep the races at each others throats. In their minds Black men are just tools of the old 60's revolution and there is still money and power to be made in the race game.

Democrat/Statists have to keep them on the Plantation.

White guilt and all that bildge...

 

[bripat9643]

I think the founders tried to implement what some call rule by a "natural aristocracy." That is, an aristocracy of merit. They didn't want to extend the franchise to every one who could manage to get himself born. They had no illusions about the ability of the common man to govern himself.

It worked quite well until Lincoln the tyrant abolished it and killed 700,000 Americans in the process.

Meritocracy, yes, that was the point of voters being male landholders. Something worthy of reconsideration, not so much the male part, the landholder part.

Exactly. Keep in mind that when the nation was founded the voting age was 21 and the natural life expectancy was about 40 years of age. If we had an equivalent voting age today, you wouldn't be allowed to vote until you were 40.

If you want to learn about "natural order" and the problem with democracy you can read "Democracy: the god that failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. I guarantee that it will open your eyes.

You can read some of his ideas here:

Hans-Hermann Hoppe: Archives

 

[bripat9643]

So that would portend that what the Founders gave us (a Republic), is a stop-gap go between the two examples you cite? (Just an off the cuff question).

I think the founders tried to implement what some call rule by a "natural aristocracy." That is, an aristocracy of merit. They didn't want to extend the franchise to every one who could manage to get himself born. They had no illusions about the ability of the common man to govern himself.

It worked quite well until Lincoln the tyrant abolished it and killed 700,000 Americans in the process.

So in effect? Lincoln effectively killed the 9th and 10th Amendments? to preserve the Federal Union?

Actually, that's quite accurate. Prior to the Civil War, states often nullified obnoxious federal laws simply by refusing to enforce them. They also threatened to secede on a number of occasions when they thought the federal govenrment was becoming oppressive. These two strategies kept the power of the federal government in check. In this way, the states effectively ruled on the Constitutionality of legislation passed by congress. Without the right of secession and nullification, the 9th and 10th Amendments are unenforceable.

 

[The T]

I think the founders tried to implement what some call rule by a "natural aristocracy." That is, an aristocracy of merit. They didn't want to extend the franchise to every one who could manage to get himself born. They had no illusions about the ability of the common man to govern himself.

It worked quite well until Lincoln the tyrant abolished it and killed 700,000 Americans in the process.

So in effect? Lincoln effectively killed the 9th and 10th Amendments? to preserve the Federal Union?

Maintaining military or sovereign control over a fixed set of borders isn't the same as maintaining or saving a nation.

OK...So in effect Lincoln himself was a tyrant regardless of how he is generally portrayed in the History books?

You do realize that these questions are just that...questions to lay it out?

 

[JWBooth]

So in effect? Lincoln effectively killed the 9th and 10th Amendments? to preserve the Federal Union?

Maintaining military or sovereign control over a fixed set of borders isn't the same as maintaining or saving a nation.

OK...So in effect Lincoln himself was a tyrant regardless of how he is generally portrayed in the History books?

You do realize that these questions are just that...questions to lay it out?

He was exactly that.

 

[bripat9643]

So in effect? Lincoln effectively killed the 9th and 10th Amendments? to preserve the Federal Union?

Maintaining military or sovereign control over a fixed set of borders isn't the same as maintaining or saving a nation.

OK...So in effect Lincoln himself was a tyrant regardless of how he is generally portrayed in the History books?

You do realize that these questions are just that...questions to lay it out?

Lincoln was almost as bad as Stalin. If you want to read about Lincoln's crimes, I suggest "The real Lincoln" by Thomas diLorenzo. You can read some of his articles here at Thomas DiLorenzo: Archives

 

[The T]

I think the founders tried to implement what some call rule by a "natural aristocracy." That is, an aristocracy of merit. They didn't want to extend the franchise to every one who could manage to get himself born. They had no illusions about the ability of the common man to govern himself.

It worked quite well until Lincoln the tyrant abolished it and killed 700,000 Americans in the process.

So in effect? Lincoln effectively killed the 9th and 10th Amendments? to preserve the Federal Union?

Actually, that's quite accurate. Prior to the Civil War, states often nullified obnoxious federal laws simply by refusing to enforce them. They also threatened to secede on a number of occasions when they thought the federal govenrment was becoming oppressive. These two strategies kept the power of the federal government in check. In this way, the states effectively ruled on the Constitutionality of legislation passed by congress. Without the right of secession and nullification, the 9th and 10th Amendments are unenforceable.

And funny? That question still rages on to this day as The FED has become what the Founders feared and tried to avoid.

 

[Avatar4321]

No consistant core ideas?

Seriously, you expect us to take your "analysis" seriously when you cant even see the obvious?

Please enlighten us as to what the "obvious" is that we are not seeing?

I already did. Please read alittle further next time.

 

[Avatar4321]

Another fascinating point of view. 'When a Country Goes Insane'

by Robert Freeman

"This must be what it’s like when a country goes insane, when it falls down a rabbit hole and tries to pretend that everything is normal.

It can’t tell truths from lies. Hucksters pose as upright men, and people imagine they are Solons, avatars of insight come down from the ages. Sleazy operators pass themselves off as statesmen, as thinkers of deep gravitas, and the crowds, unable to distinguish sanctimony from sincerity, bravado from bullshit, lap it up.

Let’s be clear. It was the Republicans who wrecked the economy. Both their people and their policies drove the economy into the ditch. They wrecked the economy not once, but twice in the last eighty years.

So Republicans condescending to instruct Americans about how to fix the economy is like the captain of the Titanic lecturing shipping operators about safe procedures for navigating the north Atlantic. No sane society would tolerate it. But this one does." When a Country Goes Insane | Common Dreams

How I wish there was honesty left in the positions of the far right.

There is no honesty left in them

You wouldn't know honesty if God Himself stood before you and told you.

 

[Avatar4321]

There you have it.

He is an enemy of democracy.

Our Founders were enemies of Democracy too. That's why they established a Republic. Something you still cant seem to tell the difference between.

 

[Truthmatters]

more silly insults in place of facts

 

[Avatar4321]

Very simple, thanks for the reply, now tell me a 'conservative' president who has followed these so called core tenets? And while I don't want to reply till I hear of that conservative, they are a bit too vague for use in the real world as each depends on lots of other facts, including what limits we are willing to set. Or even tell me a time in America when these were followed?

Grover Cleveland has been dead a long time. A few before, none since.
It seems you are using the faulty device of using Conservative and Republican interchangeably.

Indeed. Republican does not or has never suggested Conservative. There are quite a few Repubican Statists out there masquerading as Conservatives.

There are, unfortunately, more than "quite a few".

 

[The T]

Grover Cleveland has been dead a long time. A few before, none since.
It seems you are using the faulty device of using Conservative and Republican interchangeably.

Indeed. Republican does not or has never suggested Conservative. There are quite a few Repubican Statists out there masquerading as Conservatives.

There are, unfortunately, more than "quite a few".

Meh...so I understated the problem...

 

[The T]

There you have it.

He is an enemy of democracy.

Our Founders were enemies of Democracy too. That's why they established a Republic. Something you still cant seem to tell the difference between.

Dead on.

 

[Avatar4321]

more silly insults in place of facts

Sounds like every post you've ever written.

 

[Truthmatters]

There you have it.

He is an enemy of democracy.

Our Founders were enemies of Democracy too. That's why they established a Republic. Something you still cant seem to tell the difference between.

A REPUBLIC is a Democracy.

your fight is not with me but with every dictionary and encyclopedia in the world

 

[Avatar4321]

There you have it.

He is an enemy of democracy.

Our Founders were enemies of Democracy too. That's why they established a Republic. Something you still cant seem to tell the difference between.

A REPUBLIC is a Democracy.

your fight is not with me but with every dictionary and encyclopedia in the world

If they were interchangable there wouldnt be two separate words.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There you have it.

He is an enemy of democracy.

Our Founders were enemies of Democracy too. That's why they established a Republic. Something you still cant seem to tell the difference between.

A REPUBLIC is a Democracy.

your fight is not with me but with every dictionary and encyclopedia in the world

no it isn't how many times must we have to teach you about the difference between the two?

 

[The T]

There you have it.

He is an enemy of democracy.

Our Founders were enemies of Democracy too. That's why they established a Republic. Something you still cant seem to tell the difference between.

A REPUBLIC is a Democracy.

your fight is not with me but with every dictionary and encyclopedia in the world

Keep showing how silly and stupid you are. We won't stop you.

 

[midcan5]

I'm happy to see an old post generating such discussion. Note the wingnuts give blanket statements or ad hominem statements and then leave feeling all righteous and comfortable in their ideological stupor.

If that's the case, then how can you use the behavior of politicians as a yardstick for measuring the consistency of conservative "core tenets?" You just contradicted your own premise.

You prove too well my points. If I had said 'no president can implement policies that are always consistent with their own core values because our system is one of checks and balances' would that have made you happy? Of course not, you'd only reply with some other quibble.

Why do you ideologues feel it necessary to fight against every sentence? Surely you are smart enough to know I am giving examples when I use McCarthy? The funniest thing, and maybe most tragic thing, is you excuse his evil behavior because he is somehow part of your ideological frame? Do you realize that? Have you ever read what that paranoid drunk did and the fears he created during those times? The lives he ruined? What FDR did is equally inexcusable, war aligned with fear is a powerful thing, as Bush proved when he lead a scared nation into an illegal war.

The key thing here is something you wingnuts miss in your revisionist history. Coolidge and Hoover = great depression. Reagan/Bush Jr = great recession. [I include Clinton too as a part of the fault of the GR.] Can you deny that bit of history? Of course you can, it is always someone else's fault. Scapegoats are your favorite tool. It is why I say you know nothing of history. But if scapegoats are your primary excuse, be it fed, gov, libs, etc, then there never has been a time when conservatism has had any impact? You have nothing but an empty bag of finger pointing. Odd huh?

So I return to where I started in trying to understand the whining of the modern American conservative. You cannot counter the history above - well you can with finger pointing - you cannot point to any conservative accomplishment, nor give me a nation founded on conservatism, or give me a time when conservatism did the things FDR accomplished, and what he did lasted sixty years. Social Security is still the greatest thing America does for Americans. History proves your ideology a failure and my next thread will outline it. But thanks for playing.