Social or Fiscal Conservative?

[Madeline]

What is the inherent danger of Obama's policies as you see it, gautama?

The EXPOSED MONUMENTAL FRAUD OBAMBO IS A MARXIST.

That is going to be CRYSTAL CLEAR if Obambo gets re-elected. Presently OBAMBO is a "STEALTH MARXIST". A significant number of Americans STILL do not believe OBAMBO is a stone cold COMMIE because Obambo feels it's not the correct time to admit it.....even though his policies are exuding the unmistakabke stench of MARXISM.

The other danger of MARXIST OBAMBO is given in my signature statement where his record of an ongoing binge of destroying America is not exactly a secret. It's just that Obamarrhoidal LIEBturds like you seem to approve of his perfidious agenda.

gautama, I dun think you really understand what a "Marxist" believes. They think people can be "encouraged" to cooperate and once they have the hang of it, government can be dissolved as it is no longer needed. In short a Marxist sees the ideal government as none at all -- he is an anarchist.

Obama is just a socialist capitalist. He's more interested in the poor and middle class than the rich, but apart from that, every US President since WW II has also believed in socialist capitalism, to one degree or another. It means nothing more than government should control the rich and Big Business -- to one degree or another -- in order to protect the country at large.

 

[Madeline]

Read Christopher Lasch, the brilliant right wing commentator (who published "The Culture of Narcissism" in the 80s, a scathing critique of the permissive liberal social movements which hurt the backbone of our culture, the family, and eroded our moral fiber).

As a social conservative, Lasch believed that the market, in its omnivorous drive for cheap labor, destroyed the high wages of the postwar years. This economic factor, along with feminism, not only forced woman into the workplace, but also required more work from the working class father. Consequently, there was less time to raise the children and focus on the family, leaving children to be reared by MTV and other corrupting elements. For these reasons, Lasch almost comes off as a reactionary, with his attempts to prioritize tradition over unregulated profit seeking. Lasch also has a problem with greed and endless consumption because he thinks these things are not virtuous, and they lead one down the path of sin and moral confusion. He thinks capitalism profits from change and endless novelty, which sometimes take people away from the "values of the old world". He wants the political economy to reward and exemplify good Christian behavior and strong families; therefore, he would place more controls on Hollywood smut peddlers, for example. The measure of a product's value should not only be its profitability, but whether or not it is...[well] good. Ultimately, Lasch echoes Teddy Roosevelt's fear over "the great malefactors of wealth". (Jesus anyone?)

Lasch's feeling are somewhat echoed in the book of another famous conservative, Daniel Bell: "The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism". This book discusses what happens when the drive for profits results in sinful outcomes, like the relentless marketing of sex and violence. Free market logic holds that if selling outlaw RAP is profitable, than the Government should get out of the way and defer to the freedom of buyers and sellers. Bell thinks this creates problems for a class of old time conservatives who place certain values higher than profit.

Is there a contradiction between the market and culture? -profit and values? Consider: as a California businessman you might benefit from cheap illegal labor (see profit!), but as a Conservative you might want to close the border in order to protect the primacy of your culture and language. As a result, the businessman is caught in a contradiction between profit and something "higher" aka non-market values (i.e., values the Libertarian is less likely to recognize or care about).

Bell argues that libertarianism has actually made the current crop of conservatives incapable of imagining that there is a higher value than short term "profit seeking", which itself is so foundational that all else flows from it. He says the New Right uses the word "freedom" with such strategic vagueness that nobody sees the potential value conflicts that it is designed to conceal. Bell thinks the cultural contradictions of capitalism are no longer a problem for the Right because the movement has drained the base of the requisite analytical rigor to see the contradictions. They live at the level of pre-programmed slogans, not realizing the contradiction between open markets and closed borders. Capital has won the war over "higher values", which "higher values" are now only used as manufactured wedge issues to fool voters into supporting the anti-conservative march of neoliberalism and globalization.

Other people evaluating my conduct and labeling it "sinful" completely creep me out. "Sin" is not a class of behavior I recognize. To me, there is lawful and unlawful, tortious and not tortious.

Everything beyond that is just one person (or a mob of them) with control issues and boundary definition failures trying to reach into my private life and shove his values down my throat.

IMO, not much should be illegal that cannot frighten horses in the street. If it doesn't meet that standard, for the most part, my view is government has no business trying to suppress the conduct.

 

[Madeline]

Read Christopher Lasch, the brilliant right wing commentator (who published "The Culture of Narcissism" in the 80s, a scathing critique of the permissive liberal social movements which hurt the backbone of our culture, the family, and eroded our moral fiber).

As a social conservative, Lasch believed that the market, in its omnivorous drive for cheap labor, destroyed the high wages of the postwar years. This economic factor, along with feminism, not only forced woman into the workplace, but also required more work from the working class father. Consequently, there was less time to raise the children and focus on the family, leaving children to be reared by MTV and other corrupting elements. For these reasons, Lasch almost comes off as a reactionary, with his attempts to prioritize tradition over unregulated profit seeking. Lasch also has a problem with greed and endless consumption because he thinks these things are not virtuous, and they lead one down the path of sin and moral confusion. He thinks capitalism profits from change and endless novelty, which sometimes take people away from the "values of the old world". He wants the political economy to reward and exemplify good Christian behavior and strong families; therefore, he would place more controls on Hollywood smut peddlers, for example. The measure of a product's value should not only be its profitability, but whether or not it is...[well] good. Ultimately, Lasch echoes Teddy Roosevelt's fear over "the great malefactors of wealth". (Jesus anyone?)

Lasch's feeling are somewhat echoed in the book of another famous conservative, Daniel Bell: "The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism". This book discusses what happens when the drive for profits results in sinful outcomes, like the relentless marketing of sex and violence. Free market logic holds that if selling outlaw RAP is profitable, than the Government should get out of the way and defer to the freedom of buyers and sellers. Bell thinks this creates problems for a class of old time conservatives who place certain values higher than profit.

Is there a contradiction between the market and culture? -profit and values? Consider: as a California businessman you might benefit from cheap illegal labor (see profit!), but as a Conservative you might want to close the border in order to protect the primacy of your culture and language. As a result, the businessman is caught in a contradiction between profit and something "higher" aka non-market values (i.e., values the Libertarian is less likely to recognize or care about).

Bell argues that libertarianism has actually made the current crop of conservatives incapable of imagining that there is a higher value than short term "profit seeking", which itself is so foundational that all else flows from it. He says the New Right uses the word "freedom" with such strategic vagueness that nobody sees the potential value conflicts that it is designed to conceal. Bell thinks the cultural contradictions of capitalism are no longer a problem for the Right because the movement has drained the base of the requisite analytical rigor to see the contradictions. They live at the level of pre-programmed slogans, not realizing the contradiction between open markets and closed borders. Capital has won the war over "higher values", which "higher values" are now only used as manufactured wedge issues to fool voters into supporting the anti-conservative march of neoliberalism and globalization.

And all of this misses the point of GOVERNMENT and CAPITALISM. They are not the same thing. The government's role is to protect the people and their way of life and in this regard, has NOTHING to do with business other than protecting the people from exploitation. It can do this with simple things like requiring companies to be truthful and not allowing slave labor as well as the grater needs like the military. Capitalism is another thing all together that deals with how our economic system works. They are separate entities. Also, the idea that the government should be legislating your values is rather repulsive to me. If companies want to market with sex and people are willing to swallow the swill and fund it, it is the right of those to do so and is not a government matter to deal with. The border that is cited is the opposite of this because that is a security and stability issue. As such, business should have no influence in the control of the border and government should not be taking the 'cheap' labor into account when designing border law. Our current system is corrupted by the relationship business, special interests and unions have within government and the little that they actually represent the people anymore. Hopeful that will change but I do not see that happening. Even with this corruption that does not mean the answer is to become a veritable theocracy that makes sure that your values are reflected and enforced throughout law. The only values that need to be made law are those that make this country grate and the needs to limit your freedoms that are infringing on mine.

hmmm, might be getting off on a tangent here but I am always incensed when someone puts a case forward that my freedom needs to be limited by some others vaunted 'values' and forgets the value that I hold most dear, freedom.

 

[Jeremy]

Fuck all that reading shit. I just want free burritos.....

 

[Madeline]

Fuck all that reading shit. I just want free burritos.....

 

[code1211]

I once talked to a man who said he was a "fiscal conserevative, but a social liberal."

"Oh," I said. "A hypocrite."

"WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?" He demanded.

"Simple," I responded. "You want to make money, you just don't want anyone else to."

To which he had no good reply, and that's what I think of the fiscal conservative/social liberal.

I, too, consider myself to be a fiscal Conservative and a social Liberal. At least by today's terms. By social Liberal, I mean that I don't care what anyone else does as long as it does nobody harm and they pay for it themself. By fiscal Copnservative, I mean that taxes should be as low as possible and every expenditure by government should be carefully considered and temporary in nature.

If you had said exactly the same thing to me, I would have had no idea why you thought that what you said had any connection, no matter how slight to what I said. I presume that your friend was suffering the same confusion.

Why do you think that this combination of beliefs adds up to me not wanting anyone else to make money? To me this is not a logical step in thinking.

 

[Missourian]

I noticed how you selected the first statement and not the second, how convenient. As a matter of fact, I am not referring to you pro-life stance nut to the general religious and 'moral' laws that the conservative right want to push on the people. You may disagree on whether those are conservative social values or not but I see that the general conservative individual that is a social conservative sees blue laws as good things, prayer in schools as a must and in general wants the government MORE involved in our lives in social and moral aspects. I find this in STARK contrast to the conservative fiscal beliefs where we want fewer government and less intrusion. I have never understood how the average republican is able to reconcile those two ideas. OTOH, liberals are the EXACT opposite wanting the government completely out of our morals and values but wanting it to control virtually all other aspects of our lives.

I selected the first and not the second simply because continuing the status quo by definition obviously cannot grow government.

As for the rest of your post, there seems to be some confusion...the two points I outlined consist of the entirety of my social conservatism. I don't want prayer in schools or blue laws or any of the rest of that. You choose how you are going to live your life and I'll choose how I want to live mine.

Abortion ends the life of a human being who has no voice. Society has determine as a whole that innocent life is worthy of protection. That does not conflict with fiscal conservatism.

Gay marriage should be left up to the states...my state has spoken with a constitutional amendment...enough said.

If that is how you stand then I would say that social conservative is an inaccurate term as there are FAR more social issues that the conservatives wish to impose on people other than pro life.

No, I am personally socially conservative, I simply find no benefit in forcing people to live moral lives.

Free will means everyone has a right to live as they see fit.

 

[Charles_Main]

Not one person chose only socially conservative. odd

 

[Missourian]

Yep, only one so far. I cannot reconcile how someone could be fiscally conservative wanting a smaller government and then go socially conservative that requires a larger government and restrictions on freedoms. Don't worry though, there are a few other social cons here too, you're not alone

I don't see how opposing killing the unborn grows government...do 100% fiscal conservatives oppose government protection of the right to live?

On a personal level, I find this to be reprehensible. From a social view point, I am not personally willing to raise the unwanted child from an unwanted pregnancy of someone that I never met and I suspect that there are many who would not step up even after demanding that the pregnancy be brought to term.

What is your solution to this on a societal level?

All forms of contraception should be sold over the counter including the "morning after" pill.

This in itself should eliminate the need for abortion.

Those unwanted that are so irresponsible that they cannot be bothered to take a morning after pill after unprotected sex can be adopted.

I expect that will be a very low number.

 

[code1211]

I don't see how opposing killing the unborn grows government...do 100% fiscal conservatives oppose government protection of the right to live?

On a personal level, I find this to be reprehensible. From a social view point, I am not personally willing to raise the unwanted child from an unwanted pregnancy of someone that I never met and I suspect that there are many who would not step up even after demanding that the pregnancy be brought to term.

What is your solution to this on a societal level?

All forms of contraception should be sold over the counter including the "morning after" pill.

This in itself should eliminate the need for abortion.

Those unwanted that are so irresponsible that they cannot be bothered to take a morning after pill after unprotected sex can be adopted.

I expect that will be a very low number.

And how many of that low number are you willing to personally care for?

 

[blu]

social cons are democrats and should switch parties to where they belong

 

[Missourian]

On a personal level, I find this to be reprehensible. From a social view point, I am not personally willing to raise the unwanted child from an unwanted pregnancy of someone that I never met and I suspect that there are many who would not step up even after demanding that the pregnancy be brought to term.

What is your solution to this on a societal level?

All forms of contraception should be sold over the counter including the "morning after" pill.

This in itself should eliminate the need for abortion.

Those unwanted that are so irresponsible that they cannot be bothered to take a morning after pill after unprotected sex can be adopted.

I expect that will be a very low number.

And how many of that low number are you willing to personally care for?

All of them.

 

[Madeline]

Not one person chose only socially conservative. odd

I'd love to hear these "social conservatives" explain how we can expand government's intrusion into our private lives and shrink its size at the same time. Methinks it'll be nothing but a plan to cease regulating business.

Holy cow, talk about veniality -- you may never harm your neighbor, but the BP Oil Company will kill you both and destroy your land, your occupations and your local culture.

Yes, yes, yes...by all means, stop regulating!

Then we really can become a third world nation in one decade.

 

[Madeline]

Missourian wrote:

All of them.

You know this is a bullshit answer. I dun mean to argue abortion on this thread again, but Holy Cow, can we hear more than silly platitudes?

Where's the money going to come from to care for millions of unwanted and probably disabled children until adulthood (or all their lives, in some cases?

 

[Charles_Main]

social cons are democrats and should switch parties to where they belong

Social Conservatives are Democrats? Really. So Abolishing Abortion, Ending Gay Rights, and All the other Fair right Christian BS are Democrats beliefs?

I assume what you meant is Social Liberals are Democrats. You would be half right. I used to be a Democrat. However Fiscal Responsibility, A strong National Defense, And Limited Constitutional Government are important to me as well, and the Dems disappointed me on those issues for a long time.

Both parties suck ass IMO, It is just a matter of trying to limit the Damage done.

 

[Madeline]

social cons are democrats and should switch parties to where they belong

Social Conservatives are Democrats? Really. So Abolishing Abortion, Ending Gay Rights, and All the other Fair right Christian BS are Democrats beliefs?

I assume what you meant is Social Liberals are Democrats. You would be half right. I used to be a Democrat. However Fiscal Responsibility, A strong National Defense, And Limited Constitutional Government are important to me as well, and the Dems disappointed me on those issues for a long time.

Both parties suck ass IMO, It is just a matter of trying to limit the Damage done.

I was once a Democrat too. Seems like a natural evolution as one ages, moving from the far left to the middle.

 

[shintao]

I was once a Democrat too. Seems like a natural evolution as one ages, moving from the far left to the middle.

The candidates gave you opportunity to move to the middle with all their promises. You just decided to stay. Bush was so far left he was running on the Democrat ticket. It comes as no surprise then that he doubled the size of welfare with faith based charities run out of the WH. No wonder you are a dead skunk in the middle of the road, stinking to high heaven.

 

[code1211]

All forms of contraception should be sold over the counter including the "morning after" pill.

This in itself should eliminate the need for abortion.

Those unwanted that are so irresponsible that they cannot be bothered to take a morning after pill after unprotected sex can be adopted.

I expect that will be a very low number.

And how many of that low number are you willing to personally care for?

All of them.

In the USA alone, there are more than 1.2 million abortions annually. That is today with all of the education and all of the free and available birth control methods.

You must have a very large guest room.