Let's get down to it: Define Conservative!

[rtwngAvngr]

Whereas there is an ideal set of attributes, the reality is: the concept is fractionated in accordance with the reasons one takes up this political identity. You may be a one-issue religious conservative or more broadly, a social conservative, or a neoconservative, or a libertarian or economic conservative. You may also be a traditional type conservative: low taxes, small government being your preference, although we haven't seen this kind of conservatism implemented since Eisenhower, perhaps. Realities are: there are many things that define a conservative, but there is no monolithic type except idealistically.

As seen by many attempts at this definition, some conservatives may simply define themselves as being against liberal ideals.

No. My definition is pretty much right on.

 

[Gunny]

Whereas there is an ideal set of attributes, the reality is: the concept is fractionated in accordance with the reasons one takes up this political identity. You may be a one-issue religious conservative or more broadly, a social conservative, or a neoconservative, or a libertarian or economic conservative. You may also be a traditional type conservative: low taxes, small government being your preference, although we haven't seen this kind of conservatism implemented since Eisenhower, perhaps. Realities are: there are many things that define a conservative, but there is no monolithic type except idealistically.

As seen by many attempts at this definition, some conservatives may simply define themselves as being against liberal ideals.

And there you have it .......

To be "against," one must be "for" something.

 

[SweetBoy]

Conservatives believe in the values that have made societies strong and cohesive throughout history, including industriousness, identity, morality and purpose. Libs believe in handouts, confusion of identity, immorality, and purposelessness.

A idealistic definition of conservatism, based on a denigrating extremist stereotype of liberal-socialism, just doesn't serve any purpose. For example, the majority of people, liberals and conservatives alike, support social security, which is not a handout, except that it does support persons who may never have paid in such as the physically disabled, the chronically mentally ill, and the developmentally disabled, who cannot work. Many do. But no conservative is going to tell the latter groups of Americans to eat cake. If the opposite is your idea of conservatism, I don't know of many who would support you.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

A idealistic definition of conservatism, based on a denigrating extremist stereotype of liberal-socialism, just doesn't serve any purpose. For example, the majority of people, liberals and conservatives alike, support social security, which is not a handout, except that it does support persons who may never have paid in such as the physically disabled, the chronically mentally ill, and the developmentally disabled, who cannot work. Many do. But no conservative is going to tell the latter groups of Americans to eat cake. If the opposite is your idea of conservatism, I don't know of many who would support you.

All the values I mentioned contribute to the survivability of a group. It's not idealistic. Liberal socialism deserves to be denigrated as it rots a society from the inside out. To the degree that republicans support social security, they are not conservatives. Because people stray from a standard, does not change the standard, or mean the standard is invalidated.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

If Jeff's definition is the definition of conservative, I am a conservative.

What are the big government, pro-deficit, tax and spend, socially intrusive, religiously motivated, nation building, social engineering, gerrymandering Republicans of today called then?

I kind of like "right-wing socialists". Although neo-con is a shorter way to put it.

 

[SweetBoy]

All the values I mentioned contribute to the survivability of a group. It's not idealistic. Liberal socialism deserves to be denigrated as it rots a society from the inside out. To the degree that republicans support social security, they are not conservatives. Because people stray from a standard, does not change the standard, or mean the standard is invalidated.

I know conservatives who are on social security. But from a personal standpoint, I can't imagine what my parents would have done in retirement without it. My father was an average working man, my mother a homemaker. They are now deceased, but none of their children could have afforded to support them. I also have two neighbors, or I should say had two neighbors, both of whom died within the last four years of severe emphysema. Yes heavy smokers. One said he would vomit before voting for a Democrat. Their wives are still well and living on social security, just as both of them did when they were alive. I think one of them, who was in and out of hospitals before he died, had to get Medicaid. Social security is not a handout. It's an insurance plan you pay for throughout your life.

So tell me. What is your plan for these old and sick people or disabled people who can't work. Extremism is one thing, but whatever your answer it is not likely to be something that would come out of the mouth of President Bush.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

I know conservatives who are on social security. But from a personal standpoint, I can't imagine what my parents would have done in retirement without it. My father was an average working man, my mother a homemaker. They are now deceased, but none of their children could have afforded to support them. I also have two neighbors, or I should say had two neighbors, both of whom died within the last four years of severe emphysema. Yes heavy smokers. One said he would vomit before voting for a Democrat. Their wives are still well and living on social security, just as both of them did when they were alive. I think one of them, who was in and out of hospitals before he died, had to get Medicaid. Social security is not a handout. It's an insurance plan you pay for throughout your life.

So tell me. What is your plan for these old and sick people or disabled people who can't work. Extremism is one thing, but whatever your answer it is not likely to be something that would come out of the mouth of President Bush.

Drawing SS after you've paid in for 4 decades isn't exactly supporting SS per se. You're just trying to get some of your money back. What would your parents have done without it? They probably would have had a much, much nicer retirement--due to lower payroll taxes and the ability to save more throughout their lives. (Not to mention the effect on the economy, if everyone actually got to truly invest their money) If I could keep my SS "contributions" to myself and invest them, even in very safe/conservative investments...good lord, that's too depressing to even contemplate. I could probably retire in my 50's instead of my 60's.

The best way to take care of the old and sick is through charity groups. A great book on this is The Tradgedy of American Compassion. People are taught in public schools that before the New Deal, why the indigent just got thrown out into the street. That's a fantastic whopper of a lie, of course. Private charities work better, especially if the government isn't devouring half the GNP, so that people can afford to donate.

 

[SweetBoy]

Drawing SS after you've paid in for 4 decades isn't exactly supporting SS per se. You're just trying to get some of your money back. What would your parents have done without it? They probably would have had a much, much nicer retirement--due to lower payroll taxes and the ability to save more throughout their lives. (Not to mention the effect on the economy, if everyone actually got to truly invest their money) If I could keep my SS "contributions" to myself and invest them, even in very safe/conservative investments...good lord, that's too depressing to even contemplate. I could probably retire in my 50's instead of my 60's.

The best way to take care of the old and sick is through charity groups. A great book on this is The Tradgedy of American Compassion. People are taught in public schools that before the New Deal, why the indigent just got thrown out into the street. That's a fantastic whopper of a lie, of course. Private charities work better, especially if the government isn't devouring half the GNP, so that people can afford to donate.

I seriously doubt that charity groups could conceivably take care of the growing millions of people who are considered old and retired, and certainly not the millions who are mentally or physically disabled. If an old person confronts a serious medical illness, and that is inevitable for most, without Medicare, it would wipe out any retirement savings that might have had to live on. What would they do with a 100K medical bill from a hospital? Send it to some charity? Even with Social Security, many old people today have to choose between eating and medicating themselves. For most, changing Social Security is too risky psychologically. Most of those entirely dependent on it are probably not college educated people making good salaries and have knowledge of the workings of the stock market. For those who have the money and knowledge, there are 401Ks and IRAs that serve the same purpose as putting a portion of your contribution into stocks. Not that I disagree with you in principle, but there are just too many unknowns for even you to predict.

And no, I believe that there was something called the Depression and that many people lost their homes and farms and were indigent as a result of it.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I know conservatives who are on social security. But from a personal standpoint, I can't imagine what my parents would have done in retirement without it. My father was an average working man, my mother a homemaker. They are now deceased, but none of their children could have afforded to support them. I also have two neighbors, or I should say had two neighbors, both of whom died within the last four years of severe emphysema. Yes heavy smokers. One said he would vomit before voting for a Democrat. Their wives are still well and living on social security, just as both of them did when they were alive. I think one of them, who was in and out of hospitals before he died, had to get Medicaid. Social security is not a handout. It's an insurance plan you pay for throughout your life.

So tell me. What is your plan for these old and sick people or disabled people who can't work. Extremism is one thing, but whatever your answer it is not likely to be something that would come out of the mouth of President Bush.

Regardless, my definition of conservative is right on.

 

[Annie]

I seriously doubt that charity groups could conceivably take care of the growing millions of people who are considered old and retired, and certainly not the millions who are mentally or physically disabled. If an old person confronts a serious medical illness, and that is inevitable for most, without Medicare, it would wipe out any retirement savings that might have had to live on. What would they do with a 100K medical bill from a hospital? Send it to some charity? Even with Social Security, many old people today have to choose between eating and medicating themselves. For most, changing Social Security is too risky psychologically. Most of those entirely dependent on it are probably not college educated people making good salaries and have knowledge of the workings of the stock market. For those who have the money and knowledge, there are 401Ks and IRAs that serve the same purpose as putting a portion of your contribution into stocks. Not that I disagree with you in principle, but there are just too many unknowns for even you to predict.

And no, I believe that there was something called the Depression and that many people lost their homes and farms and were indigent as a result of it.

Let's put it this way, if the people in the past had been able to use their own money for investment, they probably wouldn't be eating cat food and doing without medicine now.

The young (>40) would be in a better place for helping their own parents in the future, if they weren't being taxed to death now. It's going to get much, much worse with the baby boom retiring. Face reality.

 

[SweetBoy]

Let's put it this way, if the people in the past had been able to use their own money for investment, they probably wouldn't be eating cat food and doing without medicine now.

The young (>40) would be in a better place for helping their own parents in the future, if they weren't being taxed to death now. It's going to get much, much worse with the baby boom retiring. Face reality.

Well, there is no way we can go back. But the other side of the problem of social security is the future. With this no one can disagree, as you suggest. While there is disagreement over solutions, something has to be done to shore it up. Still, and this is just an opinion, social security is now the third rail of politics, and I have no doubt, whether it is McCain there in 2008 or someone else, the first thing you will hear: I will not sign into law any legislation that changes social security. Then you will hear a lot of proposals about what to do with it and debate after debate. This would be pulling a Clinton: stealing the issue from the other side.

 

[Nuc]

Let's put it this way, if the people in the past had been able to use their own money for investment, they probably wouldn't be eating cat food and doing without medicine now.

The young (>40) would be in a better place for helping their own parents in the future, if they weren't being taxed to death now. It's going to get much, much worse with the baby boom retiring. Face reality.

If a country has gigantic taxes, then it should really take care of the citizens a la Scandinavia.

If on the other hand we are expected to fend for ourselves then the taxes should be as minimal as possible.

We have the worst of both worlds in this country.

 

[Annie]

Well, there is no way we can go back. But the other side of the problem of social security is the future. With this no one can disagree, as you suggest. While there is disagreement over solutions, something has to be done to shore it up. Still, and this is just an opinion, social security is now the third rail of politics, and I have no doubt, whether it is McCain there in 2008 or someone else, the first thing you will hear: I will not sign into law any legislation that changes social security. Then you will hear a lot of proposals about what to do with it and debate after debate. This would be pulling a Clinton: stealing the issue from the other side.

There has been no 'disagreement'. The administration put forward their plan, asking for input. None was forthcoming. At the SOTU address, the Dems got up and applauded their nonaction.

Anyone that says 'I'll not sign into law any legislation that changes social security' should lose. Period. End. of. story.

 

[SweetBoy]

If a country has gigantic taxes, then it should really take care of the citizens a la Scandinavia.

If on the other hand we are expected to fend for ourselves then the taxes should be as minimal as possible.

We have the worst of both worlds in this country.

That's an interesting comment, which is making me think. I recall this interesting comparison from the OECD: in the USA, our taxes, all of it, is about 25% of GDP, while in Sweden, it is around 50% of GDP. Now to figure out what it means, vis a vis your comment.

 

[Nuc]

That's an interesting comment, which is making me think. I recall this interesting comparison from the OECD: in the USA, our taxes, all of it, is about 25% of GDP, while in Sweden, it is around 50% of GDP. Now to figure out what it means, vis a vis your comment.

It means we have high taxes and poor social services. A country with taxes this high should have universal health care for example. My personal preference would be very low taxes and minimal social services. But if I have to pay 25% (I believe mine is higher) I want incredibly good social services and a safe environment. We have neither. America borders on third world far too often but we are paying massive taxes (those of us who work hard anyway).

 

[SweetBoy]

It means we have high taxes and poor social services. A country with taxes this high should have universal health care for example. My personal preference would be very low taxes and minimal social services. But if I have to pay 25% (I believe mine is higher) I want incredibly good social services and a safe environment. We have neither. America borders on third world far too often but we are paying massive taxes (those of us who work hard anyway).

I should have made clear that the reference is to all taxes paid as a percent of Gross Domestic Product, GDP. It's a massive amount. Ours is about half of what it is in Sweden. The other modern countries fall in between. Based on that measure, we already have the lowest tax burden (but don't repeat that). It just seems like a lot every April 15 when we tally it up. What we have to pay for after that is medical care and higher education and other things that we don't get from the government, that they do. We seem to have chosen this partial New Deal system, which costs less, but as you say it probably leads to poor social services, like lousy schools. Not everyone would agree with you that we should just go one way or the other. We are trying to fix things whatever that means, removing others, and keeping other intact (I like social security). Well, I guess you didn't say that exactly.

 

[Nuc]

OK, but the countries who are "dog eat dog" tend to have very low taxes and the countries who are "cradle to grave" have high taxes.

From the looks of homeless rates, no health care system, low minimum wage, terrible education system, etc. we are much closer to "dog eat dog". The tax rates should reflect that. They should be almost nonexistant.

This country should make up its mind whether it's socialist or not and stick with its decision consistently and in regards to all policy decisions.

 

[kgoodwin10]

1) A liberal believes that government is best to solve problems, conservatives people are best to solve problems.

2) A liberal believes government knows best, Conservative believes people know best.

3) A liberal believes all people should have equality of wealth, Conservatives know that hard work, education, and competition build wealth.

4) Liberals want to impugn success, conservatives inspire success.

5) Liberals carrying the weak, conservatives want to make the weak strong.

6) Liberals first reaction is to blame America, Conservatives first reaction is to hold people accountable for their own actions.

7) Liberals see the Constitution as a work in process, Conservatives see the Constitution the basis of our society.

8) Liberals believe our country is too strong and dominate in the world, Conservatives want us to remain strong and dominate.

9) Liberals minimize the importance of social values, Conservative believe social values are fundamental to our society.

10) Liberals would allow two gay people to marry, Conservatives believe a marriage is between one women and one man.

11) Liberals call killing a child a women's right to choose, Conservatives believe killing a child murder.

12) Liberals ask us to understand why we were attacked on 9/11, Conservatives believe they who attacked us should be killed.

12) Liberals believe we shouldn't protect our sovereign rights, Conservatives believe that our protection is our sovereign right.

13) Liberals believe we should be governed by the UN, Conservatives believe we should be governed by our own leaders.

14) Liberals believe a successful education is indocternation, Conservatives believe that an education is fundamental to compete in this economy and add value to society.

15) Liberals view the courts as a means to impose socialization, Conservatives view the courts as a means to enforce the constitution.

16) Liberals think that "one nation under God" and "in God we Trust" are offensive statements, Conservations believe that God inspired men/women to build the strongest nation in the history of this planet.

I could do more, but I'll ask that someone else add to or disagree with my list.