CDZ Five Types of Conservative; The Reflective, the Reflexive, the New, The Real and the Classic

[Fair&Balanced]

"Five Types of Conservative; The Reflective, the Reflexive, the New, The Real and the Classic"

And each equally wrong on the issues.

That sure seems like flame bait and nothing but flame bait, more deserving of the kiddie pool than any serious discussion.

 

[320 Years of History]

Capitalism gave America the most prosperous economy on the planet in record time. Europe and Asia were all far older and had far more natural resources but their systems of government and economics strangled prosperity.

Socialism blows and only leads to progressively greater poverty and misery until to get to Flint where they can't figure out safe drinking water or Venezuela where there's no toilet paper.

Red (and related sentence):
Factual inaccuracy combined with an absurd comparison:

• America is a country; Europe is not. Neither is Asia.
• America has more natural resources than every other country on the planet except Russia. The quest for resources was very much a driver behind the Age of Exploration.

Surely you don't think the leaders of the Western European nations of that era weren't aware of their relative dearth of resources in comparison to Russia?

We have the same geography as Mexico and Canada, yet we became the most prosperous nation on the planet. Why do you suppose that is?

So why did Russia become an economic basket case that collapsed? Any guesses?

Red:
I don't need to suppose or guess. The answers to your questions will be found in any number of history texts. I suggest you read them rather than ask me. I have grown weary of merely sharing on this forum what amounts to high school history, history that I fully expected everyone else here -- except minors -- to be well aware of, or at least to have studied/read.

Did it even cross your mind that all of Europe was capitalist in the years prior to the Bolshevik Revolution? Every one of the major European powers was a capitalist monarchy and not at all socialist.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Capitalism gave America the most prosperous economy on the planet in record time. Europe and Asia were all far older and had far more natural resources but their systems of government and economics strangled prosperity.

Socialism blows and only leads to progressively greater poverty and misery until to get to Flint where they can't figure out safe drinking water or Venezuela where there's no toilet paper.

Red (and related sentence):
Factual inaccuracy combined with an absurd comparison:

• America is a country; Europe is not. Neither is Asia.
• America has more natural resources than every other country on the planet except Russia. The quest for resources was very much a driver behind the Age of Exploration.

Surely you don't think the leaders of the Western European nations of that era weren't aware of their relative dearth of resources in comparison to Russia?

We have the same geography as Mexico and Canada, yet we became the most prosperous nation on the planet. Why do you suppose that is?

So why did Russia become an economic basket case that collapsed? Any guesses?

Red:
I don't need to suppose or guess. The answers to your questions will be found in any number of history texts. I suggest you read them rather than ask me. I have grown weary of merely sharing on this forum what amounts to high school history, history that I fully expected everyone else here -- except minors -- to be well aware of, or at least to have studied/read.

Did it even cross your mind that all of Europe was capitalist in the years prior to the Bolshevik Revolution? Every one of the major European powers was a capitalist monarchy and not at all socialist.

Capitalism Rules, Socialism Sucks

 

[320 Years of History]

Capitalism gave America the most prosperous economy on the planet in record time. Europe and Asia were all far older and had far more natural resources but their systems of government and economics strangled prosperity.

Socialism blows and only leads to progressively greater poverty and misery until to get to Flint where they can't figure out safe drinking water or Venezuela where there's no toilet paper.

Red (and related sentence):
Factual inaccuracy combined with an absurd comparison:

• America is a country; Europe is not. Neither is Asia.
• America has more natural resources than every other country on the planet except Russia. The quest for resources was very much a driver behind the Age of Exploration.

Surely you don't think the leaders of the Western European nations of that era weren't aware of their relative dearth of resources in comparison to Russia?

We have the same geography as Mexico and Canada, yet we became the most prosperous nation on the planet. Why do you suppose that is?

So why did Russia become an economic basket case that collapsed? Any guesses?

Red:
I don't need to suppose or guess. The answers to your questions will be found in any number of history texts. I suggest you read them rather than ask me. I have grown weary of merely sharing on this forum what amounts to high school history, history that I fully expected everyone else here -- except minors -- to be well aware of, or at least to have studied/read.

Did it even cross your mind that all of Europe was capitalist in the years prior to the Bolshevik Revolution? Every one of the major European powers was a capitalist monarchy and not at all socialist.

Capitalism Rules, Socialism Sucks

Those two things are neither mutually exclusive nor binary in nature.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Capitalism gave America the most prosperous economy on the planet in record time. Europe and Asia were all far older and had far more natural resources but their systems of government and economics strangled prosperity.

Socialism blows and only leads to progressively greater poverty and misery until to get to Flint where they can't figure out safe drinking water or Venezuela where there's no toilet paper.

Red (and related sentence):
Factual inaccuracy combined with an absurd comparison:

• America is a country; Europe is not. Neither is Asia.
• America has more natural resources than every other country on the planet except Russia. The quest for resources was very much a driver behind the Age of Exploration.

Surely you don't think the leaders of the Western European nations of that era weren't aware of their relative dearth of resources in comparison to Russia?

We have the same geography as Mexico and Canada, yet we became the most prosperous nation on the planet. Why do you suppose that is?

So why did Russia become an economic basket case that collapsed? Any guesses?

Red:
I don't need to suppose or guess. The answers to your questions will be found in any number of history texts. I suggest you read them rather than ask me. I have grown weary of merely sharing on this forum what amounts to high school history, history that I fully expected everyone else here -- except minors -- to be well aware of, or at least to have studied/read.

Did it even cross your mind that all of Europe was capitalist in the years prior to the Bolshevik Revolution? Every one of the major European powers was a capitalist monarchy and not at all socialist.

Capitalism Rules, Socialism Sucks

Those two things are neither mutually exclusive nor binary in nature.

To today's electorate they are. That's just the way people seem to think any more . Either you are Completely against something or you are completely for it, etc etc.

 

[justoffal]

Lots of talk about what conservatives are in this election, so I thought I would toss a couple of thoughts in here.

A Reflective Conservative is an ideologue most often in the mold of William F. Buckley Jr, or at least they think they are. More of them are Libertarians these days, but Buckley was not a libertarian because as a Catholic, he abhorred the notion that the poor should go unhelped. He simply felt that the government was not the best helper for the poor if it gave them fish, and he advocated the government teaching the poor how to fish instead. The conservative principles of prudence, prescription, institutional variety, freedom being linked to property rights, etc are detailed here, but most conservatives are not familiar with them any more and more quickly speak of Ayn Rand, who is not a conservative.

The critique of reflective Conservatism is that it is only half of the apple, and there has long existed a flip side to conservatism, Liberalism, and the two worked quite well together, but both spiral into wreckage when separated and unlinked. Reflective Conservatism and Liberalism are two broad perspectives on Judeo-Christian society and norms over the centuries, and while liberals have brought many changes to Western Civilization, that these institutions have endured at all till 1970 testifies to its effectiveness as well. Liberals like to see what can be done to right wrongs and perfect our society and Reflective Conservatives are the tapping brake, saying 'Not so fast; let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater.'

The Reflexive Conservative is far more common than the Reflective sort. It is typically the liberal youth who sees everything to be going to hell in a hand basket in his old age. He sees many of the flawed assumptions of Liberal change and reflexively denounces it for unnecessary change of things he is familiar with and loves. Where the Liberal sees evil segregation, the Reflexive Conservative sees people having the freedom to live in the kind of neighborhoods they want to. Where the Liberal sees churches that need to be denounced and attacked for opposing social change, the Reflexive Conservative sees ancient institutions that harbor Eternal Truths that bubble Gum philosophers cant even comprehend, let alone validate. The Reflexive Conservative is at eternal war with change in society which he tends to see as another manifestation of Entropy rather than evolution. And he has no use for Liberalism in any of its forms, the Destroyer of the way of life the Reflexive Conservative has come to love and hold dear. Many of the Reflexive conservatives of today are reformed liberals of 20 years ago and are identifiable by what year they thought things were best and want things to be restored to.

The 'new conservatives' or Neocons are ideological refugees from the Democratic Party, the Scoop Jackson wing, that fled, with their money and connections, to the Republican Party. Welcomed as allies by the long standing conservatives, the neocons first befriended them and then betrayed them by buying out the conservative publications then purging them of their old Conservative authors like Schlafley, Roberts, Sobran and Novak. They are strong central statists who value religion and tradition for their roles in strengthening the state, and see no genuine independent Truth to any of it. They believe that Truth is merely a lie well told, and consider the previous two types of conservatives as useful relics, but nonetheless still relics of a bygone age of Enlightenment thinking. They are only concerned with attaining and using power to advance their Pax Americana as the last hope of saving Planet Earth from the Marxism that surrounds us all, and so they undermine all other resistance to Marxism as not ideologically pure enough. They are a form of what I think of as 'Fascism Light', having a strong central government regulating the economy instead of outright Socialism, Nationalistic, Militaristic, Amoral and Elitist.

The 'Real Conservative' is a figure of speech, and nothing more. He is what a speakers opponents are not. Undefined, ambiguous and malleable to the need of the moment, 'Real Conservatism' implies that there is only one way to be a conservative, which has to be the biggest crock of bullshit since Das Kapital.

Then, finally, there is the Classic Conservative who wants to preserve eternal values and Truths, independent of local and transitional ideology. He is both Liberal and Conservative by today's jargon. He wants to feed the poor and evaluate our root assumptions and knows that every nation is only here for a moment, while at the same time he deeply loves the variety of humanity and beliefs, loves our institutions that he has seen so much good come from and that in his heart he knows but One thing; the Creator will weigh and measure his life and how he spent it. He is the Timeless Conservative who tries to take the Heavenly perspective and is not going to trade any of it for temporal political advantage.

He is the Defender of Judeo-Christian Western Civilization.

excellent again!

 

[AvgGuyIA]

"Five Types of Conservative; The Reflective, the Reflexive, the New, The Real and the Classic"

And each equally wrong on the issues.

Wow. Your brain belongs in a museum. Such deep thought.

 

[320 Years of History]

"Five Types of Conservative; The Reflective, the Reflexive, the New, The Real and the Classic"

And each equally wrong on the issues.

ROTFL

I'm not laughing at you or the five kinds of conservatives. I just genuinely found your remark to be funny.

Frankly, I think most conservatives are right about some aspects of "the issues." It's just that often the insignificant aspects they get right.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Lots of talk about what conservatives are in this election, so I thought I would toss a couple of thoughts in here.

A Reflective Conservative is an ideologue most often in the mold of William F. Buckley Jr, or at least they think they are. More of them are Libertarians these days, but Buckley was not a libertarian because as a Catholic, he abhorred the notion that the poor should go unhelped. He simply felt that the government was not the best helper for the poor if it gave them fish, and he advocated the government teaching the poor how to fish instead. The conservative principles of prudence, prescription, institutional variety, freedom being linked to property rights, etc are detailed here, but most conservatives are not familiar with them any more and more quickly speak of Ayn Rand, who is not a conservative.

The critique of reflective Conservatism is that it is only half of the apple, and there has long existed a flip side to conservatism, Liberalism, and the two worked quite well together, but both spiral into wreckage when separated and unlinked. Reflective Conservatism and Liberalism are two broad perspectives on Judeo-Christian society and norms over the centuries, and while liberals have brought many changes to Western Civilization, that these institutions have endured at all till 1970 testifies to its effectiveness as well. Liberals like to see what can be done to right wrongs and perfect our society and Reflective Conservatives are the tapping brake, saying 'Not so fast; let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater.'

The Reflexive Conservative is far more common than the Reflective sort. It is typically the liberal youth who sees everything to be going to hell in a hand basket in his old age. He sees many of the flawed assumptions of Liberal change and reflexively denounces it for unnecessary change of things he is familiar with and loves. Where the Liberal sees evil segregation, the Reflexive Conservative sees people having the freedom to live in the kind of neighborhoods they want to. Where the Liberal sees churches that need to be denounced and attacked for opposing social change, the Reflexive Conservative sees ancient institutions that harbor Eternal Truths that bubble Gum philosophers cant even comprehend, let alone validate. The Reflexive Conservative is at eternal war with change in society which he tends to see as another manifestation of Entropy rather than evolution. And he has no use for Liberalism in any of its forms, the Destroyer of the way of life the Reflexive Conservative has come to love and hold dear. Many of the Reflexive conservatives of today are reformed liberals of 20 years ago and are identifiable by what year they thought things were best and want things to be restored to.

The 'new conservatives' or Neocons are ideological refugees from the Democratic Party, the Scoop Jackson wing, that fled, with their money and connections, to the Republican Party. Welcomed as allies by the long standing conservatives, the neocons first befriended them and then betrayed them by buying out the conservative publications then purging them of their old Conservative authors like Schlafley, Roberts, Sobran and Novak. They are strong central statists who value religion and tradition for their roles in strengthening the state, and see no genuine independent Truth to any of it. They believe that Truth is merely a lie well told, and consider the previous two types of conservatives as useful relics, but nonetheless still relics of a bygone age of Enlightenment thinking. They are only concerned with attaining and using power to advance their Pax Americana as the last hope of saving Planet Earth from the Marxism that surrounds us all, and so they undermine all other resistance to Marxism as not ideologically pure enough. They are a form of what I think of as 'Fascism Light', having a strong central government regulating the economy instead of outright Socialism, Nationalistic, Militaristic, Amoral and Elitist.

The 'Real Conservative' is a figure of speech, and nothing more. He is what a speakers opponents are not. Undefined, ambiguous and malleable to the need of the moment, 'Real Conservatism' implies that there is only one way to be a conservative, which has to be the biggest crock of bullshit since Das Kapital.

Then, finally, there is the Classic Conservative who wants to preserve eternal values and Truths, independent of local and transitional ideology. He is both Liberal and Conservative by today's jargon. He wants to feed the poor and evaluate our root assumptions and knows that every nation is only here for a moment, while at the same time he deeply loves the variety of humanity and beliefs, loves our institutions that he has seen so much good come from and that in his heart he knows but One thing; the Creator will weigh and measure his life and how he spent it. He is the Timeless Conservative who tries to take the Heavenly perspective and is not going to trade any of it for temporal political advantage.

He is the Defender of Judeo-Christian Western Civilization.

Gee, this is what was meant by the Big Tent Republicans, one which holds lots of Conservative WASP's. Thanks for clearing up that talking point.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

"Five Types of Conservative; The Reflective, the Reflexive, the New, The Real and the Classic"

And each equally wrong on the issues.

because they dont agree with you?
isnt the change that the left is looking for dependent on an open mind and the willingness to reevaluate ones own values?
When all is said or done, who is to say who's values are the right ones?

 

[JimBowie1958]

And each equally wrong on the issues.

Wow. Your brain belongs in a museum. Such deep thought.

lol, tell me about it.

I am left wondering if "Talking Points" liberals have much left to say of any real meaning or worth any more.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Gee, this is what was meant by the Big Tent Republicans, one which holds lots of Conservative WASP's. Thanks for clearing up that talking point.

That wasnt a talking Point.

Sorry to over-tax your gray matter so harshly, old boy.

 

[JimBowie1958]

To today's electorate they are. That's just the way people seem to think any more .

I agree with that observation, but here is another; Reality doesnt work that way; it is most certainly not binary at all.

 

[JimBowie1958]

isnt the change that the left is looking for dependent on an open mind and the willingness to reevaluate ones own values?
When all is said or done, who is to say who's values are the right ones?

Each person is responsible for their own behavior and outcomes, unless you are a liberal when it is all a community effort with no winners or losers.

 

[martybegan]

"Five Types of Conservative; The Reflective, the Reflexive, the New, The Real and the Classic"

And each equally wrong on the issues.

As usual, you add nothing to the conversation.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And each equally wrong on the issues.

As usual, you add nothing to the conversation.

AKA, normal liberal behavior today.