The schizophrenia that is conservatism

[Agit8r]

I think it is funny how many things that were promoted by progressives are now sacred cows of "conservatism"

A large and interventionist military

The Pledge of Allegiance

Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts

Hydroelectric dams

Low or nonexistent tariffs

 

[percysunshine]

We should ban everything progressives ever came up with.

Wait...

 

[Agit8r]

We should ban everything progressives ever came up with.

Wait...

yeah! who needs an 8hr workday

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It has become apparent that Republicans, Tea Partiers, and Libertarians consider themselves conservatives. Then there are the independants who fall into two catagories, conservative and liberal. So now we have four different types of conservatism, so far.

What has actually come apparent is that you are mentally ill. "There are 2 types of people, those who agree with me, and those who don't. And everyone who does not agree with me is mentally ill.

Conservatism is quickly becoming like christianity, with many denominations which vary ever so slightly from one to the next. Making them hard to pin down or determine what they believe. It also gives them plenty of hiding room as they float from one group to the next. This has become quite popular among conservatives since the GWB presidency.

Did you ever consider the possiblity that the reason they are hard to pin down is you are attempting to stuff a wide spectrum of different political philosophies into the same box?

Conservatism breaks down even further when you start talking about religion and the constitution. The only common denominator among all the conservatives is that they don't like Democrats, or Liberals.

The only common denominator is that they don't like liberals? You forgot the fact that they are all racists, and that they all want to take over the world and turn it into a Christian theocracy.

Conservatism is quickly resembling terrorist cells, as they have no definitive leader, and their agenda is widely varried. Depending on who you talk to, the most important thing to conservatives seams to range from moral issues, to financial issues, to foreign affairs issues, and then to what ever issue they decide to champion next. As for the leqdership of these groups no one knows who leads some of them, such as the Tea Partiers and Libertarians. Just what the heck is Sarrah Palin? Tea Party express or Republican VP candidate? Then there is Ron Paul and Dick Armey what position do they hold in what party?

What party? Is there a conservative party? Did I miss another memo?

What has also become apparent is their lack of willingness to negotiate, or even talk to the other side of the isle. The degree to which this takes place and which issues this happens over also varies depending on which conservative group you are talking to. The only constant here is the level of anger.

That is rather interesting, considering the fact that they just managed to get Obama to claim the largest spending cuts in US history, and forced Reid to promise a vote on defunding both Obamacare and Planned Parenthood. For people who are completely unwilling to negotiate they sure did a good job of negotiating.

These reasons and observations have led me to believe that if you are going to discuss anything with a conservative you had best find out what type of conservative you are talking to. As with christianity they are all brothers until you point out their shortcomings and then they become as slippery as eels moving from one form of conservatism to the next, until they find one that makes them look good for the issue being debated.

What type of conservative do you think I am?

Does this make them bad people? No. Does this make them unamerican? No. Does this make their beliefs wrong? No. What it does do is make them to unpredictable. It is this unpredictability that leads us to doubt and question their motives. If you have to question their motives do you really want them running the country?

I never have any trouble predicting conservatives or liberals once I get to know them as individuals. Maybe if you were capable of treating people as individuals deserving of respect you would not have any problem either. Your problem seems to be you think labels mean more than people do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Really? Because I look at him as your typical Religion hater and therefore a Liberal. But he identifies himself as an "individual", however he defines that.

An "individual" that just argued with me for collectivism?

spectrum is full of BS alert!

Even individuals must realize that there are some jobs too big to be done by yourself. Team work is different than collectivism. Even you must see the wisdom in that. If collectivism is wrong why do tea partiers group together and fight for a collective cause?

Give me a list of things that are too big for individuals.

 

[The T]

An "individual" that just argued with me for collectivism?

spectrum is full of BS alert!

Even individuals must realize that there are some jobs too big to be done by yourself. Team work is different than collectivism. Even you must see the wisdom in that. If collectivism is wrong why do tea partiers group together and fight for a collective cause?

Give me a list of things that are too big for individuals.

Don't be too eager for the list...

 

[PoliticalChic]

It has become apparent that Republicans, Tea Partiers, and Libertarians consider themselves conservatives. Then there are the independants who fall into two catagories, conservative and liberal. So now we have four different types of conservatism, so far.

Conservatism is quickly becoming like christianity, with many denominations which vary ever so slightly from one to the next. Making them hard to pin down or determine what they believe. It also gives them plenty of hiding room as they float from one group to the next. This has become quite popular among conservatives since the GWB presidency.

Conservatism breaks down even further when you start talking about religion and the constitution. The only common denominator among all the conservatives is that they don't like Democrats, or Liberals.

Conservatism is quickly resembling terrorist cells, as they have no definitive leader, and their agenda is widely varried. Depending on who you talk to, the most important thing to conservatives seams to range from moral issues, to financial issues, to foreign affairs issues, and then to what ever issue they decide to champion next. As for the leqdership of these groups no one knows who leads some of them, such as the Tea Partiers and Libertarians. Just what the heck is Sarrah Palin? Tea Party express or Republican VP candidate? Then there is Ron Paul and Dick Armey what position do they hold in what party?

What has also become apparent is their lack of willingness to negotiate, or even talk to the other side of the isle. The degree to which this takes place and which issues this happens over also varies depending on which conservative group you are talking to. The only constant here is the level of anger.

These reasons and observations have led me to believe that if you are going to discuss anything with a conservative you had best find out what type of conservative you are talking to. As with christianity they are all brothers until you point out their shortcomings and then they become as slippery as eels moving from one form of conservatism to the next, until they find one that makes them look good for the issue being debated.

Does this make them bad people? No. Does this make them unamerican? No. Does this make their beliefs wrong? No. What it does do is make them to unpredictable. It is this unpredictability that leads us to doubt and question their motives. If you have to question their motives do you really want them running the country?

As Buc pointed out, that was really not badly written. I always appreciate same.

But it shows both a lack of understanding of conservatives, and a badly conflated attempt at a straw man...

Here is an interesting exposition from a guy on your side, Jeffrey Rosen, New Republic Magazine Legal Affairs Editor.

1. Three strands of judicial conservatism.

a. Tea Party Constitutionalists. Hero is Justice Thomas, a religious conservative, anti-federalist, opposition to elites. The beliefs of this group can be found in “The Five Thousand Year Leap,” by W. Cleon Skousen,… 28 Principles of Freedom our Founding Fathers said must be understood and perpetuated by every people who desire peace, prosperity, and freedom. Learn how adherence to these beliefs during the past 200 years has brought about more progress than was made in the previous 5000 years. These 28 Principles include The Genius of Natural Law, Virtuous and Moral Leaders, Equal Rights--Not Equal Things, and Avoiding the Burden of Debt. This populist conservative group would find itself at odds with the next two.

b. Libertarianism: As represented by the Cato Institute. Pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, supports Roe v. Wade, and supports judicial activism aimed as recognizing gay marriage and healthcare reform, and repeal of the Gun-Free School Zone Act and much of the administrative state. Hero might be Judge Douglas Ginsburg [who called for the ‘resurrection of the Constitution in exile,’ restrictions on federal power]

c. Pro-Business Conservatives: represented by policies of the US Chamber of Commerce, strongly represented on the Roberts’ Court, where they won some 13 of 18 cases in which they filed a brief. Most business cases are unanimous or 7-2 decisions, vs those cases that deal with culture war issues. These conservatives favored TARP, and he use of federal pre-emption (federal law to take precedence over or to displace a state law) for farm subsidies, healthcare cases. Based on this sentiment, a court which has embraced a broad vision of federal power, as found in regulation of medical marijuana, expect the Roberts Court to reject the pro-states rights view that would lead to the invalidation of the healthcare case.


2. And here, the basics of conservatism:

Individualism, private property, and limits on power.

I can break that down for you if need be.

 

[spectrumc01]

An "individual" that just argued with me for collectivism?

spectrum is full of BS alert!

Even individuals must realize that there are some jobs too big to be done by yourself. Team work is different than collectivism. Even you must see the wisdom in that. If collectivism is wrong why do tea partiers group together and fight for a collective cause?

Give me a list of things that are too big for individuals.

Well here is a partial list because I don't have time to list everything:
1) Fighting a war, having more than one person helps
2) Transcontinental railroad
3) Running any business
4) Any construction project
and so on and so on

 

[PoliticalChic]

Really? Because I look at him as your typical Religion hater and therefore a Liberal. But he identifies himself as an "individual", however he defines that.

An "individual" that just argued with me for collectivism?

spectrum is full of BS alert!

Even individuals must realize that there are some jobs too big to be done by yourself. Team work is different than collectivism. Even you must see the wisdom in that. If collectivism is wrong why do tea partiers group together and fight for a collective cause?

I think you misunderstand what is meant by 'individuals'...it is in juxtaposition with coersive collectivism by the state.

Would you care to guess how much folks gave in charity last year?
Three hundred billion dollars. That is by individuals rather than by governmental assignment of redirected tax monies.

 

[The T]

It has become apparent that Republicans, Tea Partiers, and Libertarians consider themselves conservatives. Then there are the independants who fall into two catagories, conservative and liberal. So now we have four different types of conservatism, so far.

Conservatism is quickly becoming like christianity, with many denominations which vary ever so slightly from one to the next. Making them hard to pin down or determine what they believe. It also gives them plenty of hiding room as they float from one group to the next. This has become quite popular among conservatives since the GWB presidency.

Conservatism breaks down even further when you start talking about religion and the constitution. The only common denominator among all the conservatives is that they don't like Democrats, or Liberals.

Conservatism is quickly resembling terrorist cells, as they have no definitive leader, and their agenda is widely varried. Depending on who you talk to, the most important thing to conservatives seams to range from moral issues, to financial issues, to foreign affairs issues, and then to what ever issue they decide to champion next. As for the leqdership of these groups no one knows who leads some of them, such as the Tea Partiers and Libertarians. Just what the heck is Sarrah Palin? Tea Party express or Republican VP candidate? Then there is Ron Paul and Dick Armey what position do they hold in what party?

What has also become apparent is their lack of willingness to negotiate, or even talk to the other side of the isle. The degree to which this takes place and which issues this happens over also varies depending on which conservative group you are talking to. The only constant here is the level of anger.

These reasons and observations have led me to believe that if you are going to discuss anything with a conservative you had best find out what type of conservative you are talking to. As with christianity they are all brothers until you point out their shortcomings and then they become as slippery as eels moving from one form of conservatism to the next, until they find one that makes them look good for the issue being debated.

Does this make them bad people? No. Does this make them unamerican? No. Does this make their beliefs wrong? No. What it does do is make them to unpredictable. It is this unpredictability that leads us to doubt and question their motives. If you have to question their motives do you really want them running the country?

As Buc pointed out, that was really not badly written. I always appreciate same.

But it shows both a lack of understanding of conservatives, and a badly conflated attempt at a straw man...

Here is an interesting exposition from a guy on your side, Jeffrey Rosen, New Republic Magazine Legal Affairs Editor.

1. Three strands of judicial conservatism.

a. Tea Party Constitutionalists. Hero is Justice Thomas, a religious conservative, anti-federalist, opposition to elites. The beliefs of this group can be found in “The Five Thousand Year Leap,” by W. Cleon Skousen,… 28 Principles of Freedom our Founding Fathers said must be understood and perpetuated by every people who desire peace, prosperity, and freedom. Learn how adherence to these beliefs during the past 200 years has brought about more progress than was made in the previous 5000 years. These 28 Principles include The Genius of Natural Law, Virtuous and Moral Leaders, Equal Rights--Not Equal Things, and Avoiding the Burden of Debt. This populist conservative group would find itself at odds with the next two.

b. Libertarianism: As represented by the Cato Institute. Pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, supports Roe v. Wade, and supports judicial activism aimed as recognizing gay marriage and healthcare reform, and repeal of the Gun-Free School Zone Act and much of the administrative state. Hero might be Judge Douglas Ginsburg [who called for the ‘resurrection of the Constitution in exile,’ restrictions on federal power]

c. Pro-Business Conservatives: represented by policies of the US Chamber of Commerce, strongly represented on the Roberts’ Court, where they won some 13 of 18 cases in which they filed a brief. Most business cases are unanimous or 7-2 decisions, vs those cases that deal with culture war issues. These conservatives favored TARP, and he use of federal pre-emption (federal law to take precedence over or to displace a state law) for farm subsidies, healthcare cases. Based on this sentiment, a court which has embraced a broad vision of federal power, as found in regulation of medical marijuana, expect the Roberts Court to reject the pro-states rights view that would lead to the invalidation of the healthcare case.


2. And here, the basics of conservatism:

Individualism, private property, and limits on power.

I can break that down for you if need be.

*Life , Liberty, Property (Persuit of happiness...) as stated by the Founders was and IS an individual goal of the Founders and should be practicd now by any upstanding citizen...

WE have allowed the debate to get away from the intent of this Republic's forming...

 

[xsited1]

... What it does do is make them to unpredictable. ...

I'm glad I read your little diatribe because of this one little sentence. I agree. With Democrats and Liberals, at least you know what you're getting. With Republicans, who knows?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Even individuals must realize that there are some jobs too big to be done by yourself. Team work is different than collectivism. Even you must see the wisdom in that. If collectivism is wrong why do tea partiers group together and fight for a collective cause?

Give me a list of things that are too big for individuals.

Don't be too eager for the list...

I am looking forward too it. I cannot think of anything individuals cannot do.

 

[The T]

... What it does do is make them to unpredictable. ...

I'm glad I read your little diatribe because of this one little sentence. I agree. With Democrats and Liberals, at least you know what you're getting. With Republicans, who knows?

Until they grow a spine as a party? We might never know.

 

[Greenbeard]

Really? Because I look at him as your typical Religion hater and therefore a Liberal.

Do you consider Ayn Rand to be a liberal?

 

[The T]

Give me a list of things that are too big for individuals.

Don't be too eager for the list...

I am looking forward too it. I cannot think of anything individuals cannot do.

As for myself? Me either...but it takes hard work...and I dare say the CRUX of any list that might be fothcoming.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Even individuals must realize that there are some jobs too big to be done by yourself. Team work is different than collectivism. Even you must see the wisdom in that. If collectivism is wrong why do tea partiers group together and fight for a collective cause?

Give me a list of things that are too big for individuals.

Well here is a partial list because I don't have time to list everything:
1) Fighting a war, having more than one person helps
2) Transcontinental railroad
3) Running any business
4) Any construction project
and so on and so on

Altough the government guaranteed portions of the railroads, individuals buying stock was largely responsible:

A basic tenet of American capitalism is that supply precedes demand, as can be see in the case of all airports being closed down: the long lines of people unable to get to their destinations is the demand that cannot be fulfilled. This is why entrepreneurs must be given a free hand to produce, to speculate, as the building of more and more airports will lower prices, increasing demand. This is especially true in the case of new technologies.

Both high taxation and over regulation place a damper on this freedom.
“The proceeds from these speculations? the capital paid for stocks and bonds ? may seem misspent. In the long run, the results are called infrastructure, and they are what economies are built on.”
“Many European postal systems, telegraph lines and railroads were built with government money, and sometimes with insufficient capacity. But in the United States, instead of burdening taxpayers, we sell investors the equivalent of high-priced lottery tickets each time one of these technologies arrives.”
On the Contrary - In Technology, Supply Precedes Demand - NYTimes.com


The essential functions of the federal government would be national defense, courts, intellectual property and international relations.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Even individuals must realize that there are some jobs too big to be done by yourself. Team work is different than collectivism. Even you must see the wisdom in that. If collectivism is wrong why do tea partiers group together and fight for a collective cause?

Give me a list of things that are too big for individuals.

Well here is a partial list because I don't have time to list everything:
1) Fighting a war, having more than one person helps
2) Transcontinental railroad
3) Running any business
4) Any construction project
and so on and so on

1. Collectivism is behind every single war in history. Individuals are smart enough to avoid them. That said, individuals have often won wars when the collective forces them into one.
2. Who needs a transcontinental railroad? Individuals build planes to get things there faster and cheaper.
3. Any business? I hate to break it to you, but I you can drop me anywhere in the world and I will be able to find a business that is entirely operated by one person.
4. Many houses have been built by one person. Some people have actually been known to do everything from chopping down trees to making the planks all by themselves.

So on and so forth.

 

[PoliticalChic]

... What it does do is make them to unpredictable. ...

I'm glad I read your little diatribe because of this one little sentence. I agree. With Democrats and Liberals, at least you know what you're getting. With Republicans, who knows?

"The common wisdom holds that 'both parties' have to appeal to the extremes during the primary and then move to the center for the general election. To the contrary, both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do."
Coulter, 11-27-03

 

[The T]

Give me a list of things that are too big for individuals.

Well here is a partial list because I don't have time to list everything:
1) Fighting a war, having more than one person helps
2) Transcontinental railroad
3) Running any business
4) Any construction project
and so on and so on

Altough the government guaranteed portions of the railroads, individuals buying stock was largely responsible:

A basic tenet of American capitalism is that supply precedes demand, as can be see in the case of all airports being closed down: the long lines of people unable to get to their destinations is the demand that cannot be fulfilled. This is why entrepreneurs must be given a free hand to produce, to speculate, as the building of more and more airports will lower prices, increasing demand. This is especially true in the case of new technologies.

Both high taxation and over regulation place a damper on this freedom.
“The proceeds from these speculations? the capital paid for stocks and bonds ? may seem misspent. In the long run, the results are called infrastructure, and they are what economies are built on.”
“Many European postal systems, telegraph lines and railroads were built with government money, and sometimes with insufficient capacity. But in the United States, instead of burdening taxpayers, we sell investors the equivalent of high-priced lottery tickets each time one of these technologies arrives.”
On the Contrary - In Technology, Supply Precedes Demand - NYTimes.com


The essential functions of the federal government would be national defense, courts, intellectual property and international relations.

Highlighted and underscored. *Intent* of the Founders and the Republic...

 

[spectrumc01]

It has become apparent that Republicans, Tea Partiers, and Libertarians consider themselves conservatives. Then there are the independants who fall into two catagories, conservative and liberal. So now we have four different types of conservatism, so far.

Conservatism is quickly becoming like christianity, with many denominations which vary ever so slightly from one to the next. Making them hard to pin down or determine what they believe. It also gives them plenty of hiding room as they float from one group to the next. This has become quite popular among conservatives since the GWB presidency.

Conservatism breaks down even further when you start talking about religion and the constitution. The only common denominator among all the conservatives is that they don't like Democrats, or Liberals.

Conservatism is quickly resembling terrorist cells, as they have no definitive leader, and their agenda is widely varried. Depending on who you talk to, the most important thing to conservatives seams to range from moral issues, to financial issues, to foreign affairs issues, and then to what ever issue they decide to champion next. As for the leqdership of these groups no one knows who leads some of them, such as the Tea Partiers and Libertarians. Just what the heck is Sarrah Palin? Tea Party express or Republican VP candidate? Then there is Ron Paul and Dick Armey what position do they hold in what party?

What has also become apparent is their lack of willingness to negotiate, or even talk to the other side of the isle. The degree to which this takes place and which issues this happens over also varies depending on which conservative group you are talking to. The only constant here is the level of anger.

These reasons and observations have led me to believe that if you are going to discuss anything with a conservative you had best find out what type of conservative you are talking to. As with christianity they are all brothers until you point out their shortcomings and then they become as slippery as eels moving from one form of conservatism to the next, until they find one that makes them look good for the issue being debated.

Does this make them bad people? No. Does this make them unamerican? No. Does this make their beliefs wrong? No. What it does do is make them to unpredictable. It is this unpredictability that leads us to doubt and question their motives. If you have to question their motives do you really want them running the country?

As Buc pointed out, that was really not badly written. I always appreciate same.

But it shows both a lack of understanding of conservatives, and a badly conflated attempt at a straw man...

Here is an interesting exposition from a guy on your side, Jeffrey Rosen, New Republic Magazine Legal Affairs Editor.

1. Three strands of judicial conservatism.

a. Tea Party Constitutionalists. Hero is Justice Thomas, a religious conservative, anti-federalist, opposition to elites. The beliefs of this group can be found in “The Five Thousand Year Leap,” by W. Cleon Skousen,… 28 Principles of Freedom our Founding Fathers said must be understood and perpetuated by every people who desire peace, prosperity, and freedom. Learn how adherence to these beliefs during the past 200 years has brought about more progress than was made in the previous 5000 years. These 28 Principles include The Genius of Natural Law, Virtuous and Moral Leaders, Equal Rights--Not Equal Things, and Avoiding the Burden of Debt. This populist conservative group would find itself at odds with the next two.

b. Libertarianism: As represented by the Cato Institute. Pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, supports Roe v. Wade, and supports judicial activism aimed as recognizing gay marriage and healthcare reform, and repeal of the Gun-Free School Zone Act and much of the administrative state. Hero might be Judge Douglas Ginsburg [who called for the ‘resurrection of the Constitution in exile,’ restrictions on federal power]

c. Pro-Business Conservatives: represented by policies of the US Chamber of Commerce, strongly represented on the Roberts’ Court, where they won some 13 of 18 cases in which they filed a brief. Most business cases are unanimous or 7-2 decisions, vs those cases that deal with culture war issues. These conservatives favored TARP, and he use of federal pre-emption (federal law to take precedence over or to displace a state law) for farm subsidies, healthcare cases. Based on this sentiment, a court which has embraced a broad vision of federal power, as found in regulation of medical marijuana, expect the Roberts Court to reject the pro-states rights view that would lead to the invalidation of the healthcare case.


2. And here, the basics of conservatism:

Individualism, private property, and limits on power.

I can break that down for you if need be.

The post was designed to point out the problems of trying to discuss topics with conservatives. When the debate starts out it is you start by talking to a Republican, then the Republican turns into a Teapartier when flaws in the Republican party are pointed out (the spending of GWB). The Libertarian then turns into a Teapartier when (freedom of the individual (gay rights) is discussed). The Teapartier turns into a Republican when it's time to actually vote because they don't have a party to vote for.
* they believe in Individualism as long as gays don't have the right to get married
* They believe in private property unless they property can make more money in the hands of a developer
* They believe in power limits until they are in power