Conservatives used to care about community. What happened?

[Old Rocks]

When have liberals cared about community, I love how republicans are selfish, based on what? Wow you socialist retards dont know jack. Look at liberal communities, like Detroit...awesome!!!!!! EJ Dionne is a joke, he reminds me of Gargemel from the Smurfs. When did he think conservatives were good? He never has.

republicans give more money to charity, they promote more freedom for the individual. I mean do all of you think your life would be this good in a socialist setting? Which socialist country do you think runs it right?

So what is your goal? Every person has the same amount of money?

Exactly...according to you and your cronies liberal equals socialism.
No middle ground, no chance of discussion.
People like you are the real reason for the mess.

Great, another Foreigner coming here talking about what is and isn't socialism in America

Well now, let's discuss what socialism in America is.

Our greatest and most successful socialistic program, National Parks. Saving the very best and most unique for all Americans, not just for those that can afford to buy the property.

Social Security. Designed to protect the average working American from the vagaries of the market in their old age. Not a comfortable retirement, but they don't starve to death, either.

MediCare. Now one is not given to the choice after they are to old to work, to either not get sick, or die. Of course, we know the 'Conservative' view on this. "Let him die, let him die".

Military.

Forest Service. Keeping the lands that we depend on for water, recreation, and wood products as healthy as possible.

Local police and fire departments. Obviously socialistic. Public employees, and supported by taxes.

Water and sewage. Again, in most municipalities, supported by taxes and user fees.

Yes, socialism is alive and well in the US as is capitalism. Each is a tool. We work with both, and see what works best in differant applications. But to the radical ideologues of either the right or the left, one or the other is an anthema, no matter how well it works or enhances the lives of our citizens. Radicals would rather people suffer, than see anything done in any other way than what they believe "the way things ought to be".

 

[Old Rocks]

I remember when the Democrat Party had people like JKF and Zel Miller in it, now they have Hugo Chavez and Vlad Putin. What happened?

Infiltration in acedemia.

What the fuck would you know about that, Tard?

 

[Old Rocks]

They never cared about community.

Conservativism is the philosophy of "me, mine, and myself".

Maybe that has been your experience, but not mine. I'm 65, and I don't ever remember Conservatives being so hateful, radical and selfish as they are today. That's why I truly identify with the OP.

Hmm I still say this is the result of the end of the fairness doctrine and the corresponding rise of Rush Limbugh types and talk radio.
Hours of daily fear and hatred programming programmed them.

Old enough to remember reading some of Westbrook Pegler's nonsense. Problem is today that he would be considered mainstream in the modern GOP. William Buckley would tear these 'Conservatives' a very erudite new asshole were he writing today.

 

[Oldstyle]

By E.J. Dionne Jr.

To secure his standing as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney has disowned every sliver of moderation in his record. He’s moved to the right on tax cuts and twisted himself into a pretzel over the health-care plan he championed in Massachusetts — because conservatives are no longer allowed to acknowledge that government can improve citizens’ lives.

Romney is simply following the lead of Republicans in Congress who have abandoned American conservatism’s most attractive features: prudence, caution and a sense that change should be gradual. But most important, conservatism used to care passionately about fostering community, and it no longer does. This commitment now lies buried beneath slogans that lift up the heroic and disconnected individual — or the “job creator” — with little concern for the rest.

Today’s conservatism is about low taxes, fewer regulations, less government — and little else. Anyone who dares to define it differently faces political extinction. Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana was considered a solid conservative, until conservatives decided that anyone who seeks bipartisan consensus on anything is a sellout. Even Orrin Hatch of Utah, one of the longest-serving Republican senators, is facing a primary challenge. His flaw? He occasionally collaborated with the late Democratic senator Edward M. Kennedy on providing health insurance coverage for children and encouraging young Americans to join national service programs. In the eyes of Hatch’s onetime allies, these commitments make him an ultra-leftist.

I have long admired the conservative tradition and for years have written about it with great respect. But the new conservatism, for all its claims of representing the values that inspired our founders, breaks with the country’s deepest traditions. The United States rose to power and wealth on the basis of a balance between the public and the private spheres, between government and the marketplace, and between our love of individualism and our quest for community.

Conservatism today places individualism on a pedestal, but it originally arose in revolt against that idea. As the conservative thinker Robert A. Nisbet noted in 1968, conservatism represented a “reaction to the individualistic Enlightenment.” It “stressed the small social groups of society” and regarded such clusters of humanity — not individuals — as society’s “irreducible unit.”

True, conservatives continue to preach the importance of the family as a communal unit. But for Nisbet and many other conservatives of his era, the movement was about something larger. It “insisted upon the primacy of society to the individual — historically, logically and ethically.”

Because of the depth of our commitment to individual liberty, Americans never fully adopted this all-encompassing view of community. But we never fully rejected it, either. And therein lies the genius of the American tradition: We were born with a divided political heart. From the beginning, we have been torn by a deep but healthy tension between individualism and community. We are communitarian individualists or individualistic communitarians, but we have rarely been comfortable with being all one or all the other.

Much More: Conservatives used to care about community. What happened? - The Washington Post

Ah yes...the liberal "clarion call"...we care about people but you don't!

What's laughable about this whole premise is that many of the things that liberals have done during the past forty years to supposedly "help" people have actually made their lives worse.

Affirmative Action was supposed to correct a wrong in theory but in reality it simply wronged others while making the accomplishments of minorities suspect by reducing the standards by which they were judged.

A welfare system that supposedly was there to protect the unfortunate has instead resulted in generations of poor that don't even understand the concept of self reliance and become totally dependent on handouts to survive. Has institutionalizing poverty REALLY improved the lot in life of those caught up in the welfare trap?

Did the notion that EVERYONE should be able to buy their own home regardless of the state of their credit really help the people who bought their dream house only to see it taken away from them through foreclosure or was there a good reason why lenders used to seek 20% down on a house and a good credit history?

Did the notion that everyone should be able to go to college and that we would make that dream happen by loaning them huge sums of money to attend the school of their dreams really result in happiness for the graduate holding a degree...a massive student loan balance...and no job prospects?

The bottom line is this...just as you KNOW that you can't live far beyond your means in your own life...you instinctively know that your government can't live far beyond IT'S means without repercussions. Conservatives asking that government learn to control itself are not doing so because they "hate" people...they are doing so because they "like" people and want to see them succeed. Liberals who tell you that you can have your cake...eat it too...and then have someone else pick up the tab for that cake...are essentially being dishonest with you. An "entitlement society" eventually slows down and grinds to a halt because the people who contribute to that society become overwhelmed by those taking from that society.

 

[WillowTree]

By E.J. Dionne Jr.

To secure his standing as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney has disowned every sliver of moderation in his record. He’s moved to the right on tax cuts and twisted himself into a pretzel over the health-care plan he championed in Massachusetts — because conservatives are no longer allowed to acknowledge that government can improve citizens’ lives.

Romney is simply following the lead of Republicans in Congress who have abandoned American conservatism’s most attractive features: prudence, caution and a sense that change should be gradual. But most important, conservatism used to care passionately about fostering community, and it no longer does. This commitment now lies buried beneath slogans that lift up the heroic and disconnected individual — or the “job creator” — with little concern for the rest.

Today’s conservatism is about low taxes, fewer regulations, less government — and little else. Anyone who dares to define it differently faces political extinction. Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana was considered a solid conservative, until conservatives decided that anyone who seeks bipartisan consensus on anything is a sellout. Even Orrin Hatch of Utah, one of the longest-serving Republican senators, is facing a primary challenge. His flaw? He occasionally collaborated with the late Democratic senator Edward M. Kennedy on providing health insurance coverage for children and encouraging young Americans to join national service programs. In the eyes of Hatch’s onetime allies, these commitments make him an ultra-leftist.

I have long admired the conservative tradition and for years have written about it with great respect. But the new conservatism, for all its claims of representing the values that inspired our founders, breaks with the country’s deepest traditions. The United States rose to power and wealth on the basis of a balance between the public and the private spheres, between government and the marketplace, and between our love of individualism and our quest for community.

Conservatism today places individualism on a pedestal, but it originally arose in revolt against that idea. As the conservative thinker Robert A. Nisbet noted in 1968, conservatism represented a “reaction to the individualistic Enlightenment.” It “stressed the small social groups of society” and regarded such clusters of humanity — not individuals — as society’s “irreducible unit.”

True, conservatives continue to preach the importance of the family as a communal unit. But for Nisbet and many other conservatives of his era, the movement was about something larger. It “insisted upon the primacy of society to the individual — historically, logically and ethically.”

Because of the depth of our commitment to individual liberty, Americans never fully adopted this all-encompassing view of community. But we never fully rejected it, either. And therein lies the genius of the American tradition: We were born with a divided political heart. From the beginning, we have been torn by a deep but healthy tension between individualism and community. We are communitarian individualists or individualistic communitarians, but we have rarely been comfortable with being all one or all the other.

Much More: Conservatives used to care about community. What happened? - The Washington Post

They never cared about community.

Conservativism is the philosophy of "me, mine, and myself".

They only care about communities in other countries. In this country, they call that "socialism".

They never cared about community.

Conservativism is the philosophy of "me, mine, and myself".

Maybe that has been your experience, but not mine. I'm 65, and I don't ever remember Conservatives being so hateful, radical and selfish as they are today. That's why I truly identify with the OP.

I have long admired the conservative tradition and for years have written about it with great respect. But the new conservatism, for all its claims of representing the values that inspired our founders, breaks with the country’s deepest traditions. The United States rose to power and wealth on the basis of a balance between the public and the private spheres, between government and the marketplace, and between our love of individualism and our quest for community.

This of course is the sad consequence of conservatives abandoning these values and replacing them instead with the political expediency of social conservatism, religious fundamentalism, and rightwing extremism.

Conservatives once played an important role in American political society, as a counterbalance to the left’s idealism, lost now to the radicalism of the partisan right.

Amen!

Why care when all liberals will do is have the government regulate what you worked hard for and try to come and take it by means of a tax. And then when they finally control it fuck it up and blame you for it.

Rather than attempting to deflect, respond to the issue in the OP.

Why care when all liberals will do is have the government regulate what you worked hard for and try to come and take it by means of a tax. And then when they finally control it fuck it up and blame you for it.

Taxes? Taxes are the lowest they've been in about 50 years. Regulations? How are regulations hurting you? Do you trust corporations to self-regulate?

Why care when all liberals will do is have the government regulate what you worked hard for and try to come and take it by means of a tax. And then when they finally control it fuck it up and blame you for it.

Rather than attempting to deflect, respond to the issue in the OP.

Thank you. I agree.

There are lots of pieces to this puzzle. It is sort of funny but my mom would always tell us not to complain for she lived through the great depression and her woes then far surpassed ours now. Today the sense that the person lives in a world in which forces are outside their control has been lost, and now the privileged look down on everyone else. The success of the politics of sharing (from the thirties) instead of creating sharers created the greedy self centered citizens who believe they created this reality of comfort out of nothing.

"In 2004, the antitax activist Grover Norquist told a Spanish newspaper that one of the reasons the political equation in America was changing was that people who remembered the Depression were dying off. “The age cohort that is most Democratic and most pro-statist,” declared Norquist, “are those people who turned twentyone years of age between 1932 and 1952—Great Depression, New Deal, World War II, Social Security, the draft—all that stuff. That age cohort is now between the ages of seventy and ninety years old, and every year 2 million of them die.” The commonly held views of that group, he continued, were “very un-‘American.’ Very unusual for America."" *

This is from an editorial by Thomas Frank in the March 2012 Harper's Magazine. Now the question is why does the easy life make so many not care. Add revisionist historians and big money buying the ideas that come to be reality, and you get a sense why conservatives today are who they are.


"Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them." Tony Judt in 'Ill Fares the Land'

The libtards whined so much, so loud for so long we had to say,, fuck the community we're outta here.. fend for yer own damnself.

 

[Old Rocks]

I remember when the Democrat Party had people like JKF and Zel Miller in it, now they have Hugo Chavez and Vlad Putin. What happened?

Frankie Boy, I haven't seen either Chavez or Putins name on any ballot.

But I do remember when the GOP had people like Governor Tom McCall of Oregon, and President Eisenhower in it.

 

[Stephanie]

I remember when the Democrat Party had people like JKF and Zel Miller in it, now they have Hugo Chavez and Vlad Putin. What happened?

Frankie Boy, I haven't seen either Chavez or Putins name on any ballot.

But I do remember when the GOP had people like Governor Tom McCall of Oregon, and President Eisenhower in it.

and the Democrat party had a member of the KKK..and hasn't gotten any better since then

 

[The T]

By E.J. Dionne Jr.

To secure his standing as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney has disowned every sliver of moderation in his record. He’s moved to the right on tax cuts and twisted himself into a pretzel over the health-care plan he championed in Massachusetts — because conservatives are no longer allowed to acknowledge that government can improve citizens’ lives.

Romney is simply following the lead of Republicans in Congress who have abandoned American conservatism’s most attractive features: prudence, caution and a sense that change should be gradual. But most important, conservatism used to care passionately about fostering community, and it no longer does. This commitment now lies buried beneath slogans that lift up the heroic and disconnected individual — or the “job creator” — with little concern for the rest.

Today’s conservatism is about low taxes, fewer regulations, less government — and little else. Anyone who dares to define it differently faces political extinction. Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana was considered a solid conservative, until conservatives decided that anyone who seeks bipartisan consensus on anything is a sellout. Even Orrin Hatch of Utah, one of the longest-serving Republican senators, is facing a primary challenge. His flaw? He occasionally collaborated with the late Democratic senator Edward M. Kennedy on providing health insurance coverage for children and encouraging young Americans to join national service programs. In the eyes of Hatch’s onetime allies, these commitments make him an ultra-leftist.

I have long admired the conservative tradition and for years have written about it with great respect. But the new conservatism, for all its claims of representing the values that inspired our founders, breaks with the country’s deepest traditions. The United States rose to power and wealth on the basis of a balance between the public and the private spheres, between government and the marketplace, and between our love of individualism and our quest for community.

Conservatism today places individualism on a pedestal, but it originally arose in revolt against that idea. As the conservative thinker Robert A. Nisbet noted in 1968, conservatism represented a “reaction to the individualistic Enlightenment.” It “stressed the small social groups of society” and regarded such clusters of humanity — not individuals — as society’s “irreducible unit.”

True, conservatives continue to preach the importance of the family as a communal unit. But for Nisbet and many other conservatives of his era, the movement was about something larger. It “insisted upon the primacy of society to the individual — historically, logically and ethically.”

Because of the depth of our commitment to individual liberty, Americans never fully adopted this all-encompassing view of community. But we never fully rejected it, either. And therein lies the genius of the American tradition: We were born with a divided political heart. From the beginning, we have been torn by a deep but healthy tension between individualism and community. We are communitarian individualists or individualistic communitarians, but we have rarely been comfortable with being all one or all the other.

Much More: Conservatives used to care about community. What happened? - The Washington Post

Thank you. I agree.

There are lots of pieces to this puzzle. It is sort of funny but my mom would always tell us not to complain for she lived through the great depression and her woes then far surpassed ours now. Today the sense that the person lives in a world in which forces are outside their control has been lost, and now the privileged look down on everyone else. The success of the politics of sharing (from the thirties) instead of creating sharers created the greedy self centered citizens who believe they created this reality of comfort out of nothing.

"In 2004, the antitax activist Grover Norquist told a Spanish newspaper that one of the reasons the political equation in America was changing was that people who remembered the Depression were dying off. “The age cohort that is most Democratic and most pro-statist,” declared Norquist, “are those people who turned twentyone years of age between 1932 and 1952—Great Depression, New Deal, World War II, Social Security, the draft—all that stuff. That age cohort is now between the ages of seventy and ninety years old, and every year 2 million of them die.” The commonly held views of that group, he continued, were “very un-‘American.’ Very unusual for America."" *

This is from an editorial by Thomas Frank in the March 2012 Harper's Magazine. Now the question is why does the easy life make so many not care. Add revisionist historians and big money buying the ideas that come to be reality, and you get a sense why conservatives today are who they are.


"Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them." Tony Judt in 'Ill Fares the Land'

The libtards whined so much, so loud for so long we had to say,, fuck the community we're outta here.. fend for yer own damnself.

Thier mistake is allowing Government to provide solutions in the first place.

 

[peach174]

Why are we a nation in decline?

Because of Government promises that can not be met.
Entitlements that add up to 119 Trillion dollars than can never be fulfilled.
The more Government expands it takes from individuals and companies and then there is less growth.

What part of SSI and Medicare and Medicaid is going broke, does many in this country refuse to understand?
Government can take 100% from all of us and SSI, Medicare,Medicaid and all other goodies, will go broke.Nevermind all the other expenses.
We either cut these expenditures or we go broke.
No matter how you look at it, the programs are not going to be there unless we do cuts and reforms.
So how is that caring for the community?
Dem's want this country to go broke
Then nobody has anything.

All I see Dem's doing is the blame game and not offering anything worthy of reforms, cuts or balances.

 

[Stephanie]

The OP is a troll..

post one inflammatory opinion from some nut job on Republicans or conservatives after another..

then crows about how OTHERS are just so hateful..

 

[peach174]

We are a nation in decline. As prosperity fades, people tend to think more about self-preservation than they do about the common good.

They will until there is no Fire Department to put out their house or a cop to respond to their call or a teacher to teach their children.

Fire, Cop's and Teacher's are State Government. Not Federal Government.

 

[Old Rocks]

The OP is a troll..

post one inflammatory opinion from some nut job on Republicans or conservatives after another..

then crows about how OTHERS are just so hateful..

Ah yes, others are just so hateful. But your avatar is innocent of hate?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Exactly...according to you and your cronies liberal equals socialism.
No middle ground, no chance of discussion.
People like you are the real reason for the mess.

Great, another Foreigner coming here talking about what is and isn't socialism in America

Well now, let's discuss what socialism in America is.

Our greatest and most successful socialistic program, National Parks. Saving the very best and most unique for all Americans, not just for those that can afford to buy the property.

Social Security. Designed to protect the average working American from the vagaries of the market in their old age. Not a comfortable retirement, but they don't starve to death, either.

MediCare. Now one is not given to the choice after they are to old to work, to either not get sick, or die. Of course, we know the 'Conservative' view on this. "Let him die, let him die".

Military.

Forest Service. Keeping the lands that we depend on for water, recreation, and wood products as healthy as possible.

Local police and fire departments. Obviously socialistic. Public employees, and supported by taxes.

Water and sewage. Again, in most municipalities, supported by taxes and user fees.

Yes, socialism is alive and well in the US as is capitalism. Each is a tool. We work with both, and see what works best in differant applications. But to the radical ideologues of either the right or the left, one or the other is an anthema, no matter how well it works or enhances the lives of our citizens. Radicals would rather people suffer, than see anything done in any other way than what they believe "the way things ought to be".

What a fucking tool. Military and municipalities as "Socialism" What an ignorant tool

SocSec = broke

Medicare =more broke

That's Social and it's 100% Fail at work

 

[Stephanie]

The OP is a troll..

post one inflammatory opinion from some nut job on Republicans or conservatives after another..

then crows about how OTHERS are just so hateful..

Ah yes, others are just so hateful. But your avatar is innocent of hate?:usa whistle:

wtf? you're kidding right?

 

[WillowTree]

Why care when all liberals will do is have the government regulate what you worked hard for and try to come and take it by means of a tax. And then when they finally control it fuck it up and blame you for it.

Rather than attempting to deflect, respond to the issue in the OP.

He did respond to the issue in the op you dumbass. You need to learn to LISTEN.

 

[Old Rocks]

We are a nation in decline. As prosperity fades, people tend to think more about self-preservation than they do about the common good.

They will until there is no Fire Department to put out their house or a cop to respond to their call or a teacher to teach their children.

Fire, Cop's and Teacher's are State Government. Not Federal Government.

Peach, if this is so, then why doesn't Missouri spend the $500,000,000 they have in their disaster fund for helping the people in Joplin? Instead, they are depending on the federal government because the spending of that fund would institute an automatic state tax increase. So they depend on us in the blue states to fund their disaster.

Same with Texas. The US Government spent many millions of dollars helping them fight their fires, only to have Texans scream about how they don't want federal people doing anything in thier state.

Right now, when it comes to fiscal issues, the conservatives and 'Conservatives' all seem to be rather hypocritical.

 

[WillowTree]

The OP is a troll..

post one inflammatory opinion from some nut job on Republicans or conservatives after another..

then crows about how OTHERS are just so hateful..

well in a way that makes a good point. Since I've been on this forum and paying attention to politics, liberals here and in Washington DC have called Republicans every vile name in the book, accused them of all kinds of evil things, accused them of starting a war on just about everything and everybody and then they post some tripe like this wondering why we can't be a community? Liberals can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I remember when the Democrat Party had people like JKF and Zel Miller in it, now they have Hugo Chavez and Vlad Putin. What happened?

Frankie Boy, I haven't seen either Chavez or Putins name on any ballot.

But I do remember when the GOP had people like Governor Tom McCall of Oregon, and President Eisenhower in it.

Chavez is a fan of Obama and Obama said he's going to give Vlad a Special BJ after his last election

Pay attention to current event, DeclineHider

 

[bripat9643]

They never cared about community.

Conservativism is the philosophy of "me, mine, and myself".

"Community" is a liberal euphemism meaning "sending money to parasites."

 

[Katzndogz]

When I see most of our communities I see communities divided up into warring fractions with each side preying upon the others. Petty and serious crime, mobs of feral children. These communities don't heed help, they need to be mercifully put down.

For communities that work, you have to go into conservative areas like the places in Mississippi where entire towns worked together to rescue and provide for the victims of Katrina when the federal government largely abandoned them to take care of the government dependents in New Orleans.