What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?

[Trakar]

[/SIZE][/FONT]

Well you have reality and then there is your version...
Both parties voted for Afghanistan & Iraq...

and that is probably the primary reason that "compromise" resulted in no prosecutions for the criminal acts associated with those wars and such atrocities as the Patriot act, Gitmo, warrantless wiretapping, etc., by those in high positions of previous and current administrations



True, but none of those consequences had anything to do with the housing bubble or the economic collapse in 2007.


Provide that everyone who is sick or injured receives the care that they need to return to health as a basic obligation that all residents of this nation owe to each other and we can get rid of the insurers and profiteers who seek to earn obscene profits off the misery and infirmity of others.

And it really is that simple...

Outlaw and criminalize political parties and we would very simply and quickly eliminate 99% of the problems inherent to modern politics.

So what do you think? If all the conservatives left and liberals would be in charge:

I don't think we'd notice much difference at all, from my perspective both ideologies are corrupt and there isn't a plug nickel's worth of difference between either of these corporatist stooges in modern American conservative and liberal philosophies.

There would have been no retaliation for 9/11?

If Conservatives (and the right of center liberals that constitute most of the Democratic Party) had left this country in the seventies, I suspect that the only memories 9-11 would evoke is as the telephone emergency assistance number, so there would have been nothing to "retaliate" against. Not that there would have been no one in the world that disliked the US, but the unfolding of history for the last 40 years would have been unrecognizably different.

 

[Euroconservativ]

What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?

Detroit

Moscow.

Really? Why would American liberals want to become Russia, an even MORE conservative country?

"Conservatism is the dominant intellectual legacy of Russia"
Richard Pipes

Conservative Russia

People simply do not realize that Russia is a deeply conservative country.

Fiscal policy is buttressed on a low, flat rate of income tax (13%), and there is virtually no social safety net, with spending on unemployment security, medical provision, disability aid, infrastructure, the environment, and urban regeneration far lower, in both absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, than its G8 contemporaries.

Similarly, military spending is high in comparison — and growing — medical care is available free in theory, but requires private insurance or additional cash payment in practice, and businesses are in reality pretty un-regulated.

If that doesn’t sound to you like a set of policies Newt Gingrich or William F Buckley would support, then you don’t know your dyed in the wool conservatives from your woolly jumper wearing liberals.

If conservatives promote state-ownership/control of the main national industries, high military spending and trade protectionism... then you are right, modern Russia is conservative

I consider myself a conservative and do not support such things.

By the way, Switzerland has a strongly decentralized system (both politically and fiscally) and does better. Federal tax rates are really low, the federal government is not partisan, almost 70% of their health care is consumer-driven, immigration laws are strict even if 20% of the population is foreign-born, etc This is an example i like.

 

[Bfgrn]

Moscow.

Really? Why would American liberals want to become Russia, an even MORE conservative country?

"Conservatism is the dominant intellectual legacy of Russia"
Richard Pipes

Conservative Russia

People simply do not realize that Russia is a deeply conservative country.

Fiscal policy is buttressed on a low, flat rate of income tax (13%), and there is virtually no social safety net, with spending on unemployment security, medical provision, disability aid, infrastructure, the environment, and urban regeneration far lower, in both absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, than its G8 contemporaries.

Similarly, military spending is high in comparison — and growing — medical care is available free in theory, but requires private insurance or additional cash payment in practice, and businesses are in reality pretty un-regulated.

If that doesn’t sound to you like a set of policies Newt Gingrich or William F Buckley would support, then you don’t know your dyed in the wool conservatives from your woolly jumper wearing liberals.

If conservatives promote state-ownership/control of the main national industries, high military spending and trade protectionism... then you are right, modern Russia is conservative

I consider myself a conservative and do not support such things.

By the way, Switzerland has a strongly decentralized system (both politically and fiscally) and does better. Federal tax rates are really low, the federal government is not partisan, almost 70% of their health care is consumer-driven, immigration laws are strict even if 20% of the population is foreign-born, etc This is an example i like.

The point is conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth. A conservative in America wants to 'conserve' capitalism, nationalism and American parochial orthodoxy. A conservative in Russia wants to conserve communism, nationalism and Russian parochial orthodoxy. Left/right in this context is about as pertinent as whether the water in each country swirls down the drain clockwise or counterclockwise.


While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

 

[PMZ]

Moscow.

Really? Why would American liberals want to become Russia, an even MORE conservative country?

"Conservatism is the dominant intellectual legacy of Russia"
Richard Pipes

Conservative Russia

People simply do not realize that Russia is a deeply conservative country.

Fiscal policy is buttressed on a low, flat rate of income tax (13%), and there is virtually no social safety net, with spending on unemployment security, medical provision, disability aid, infrastructure, the environment, and urban regeneration far lower, in both absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, than its G8 contemporaries.

Similarly, military spending is high in comparison — and growing — medical care is available free in theory, but requires private insurance or additional cash payment in practice, and businesses are in reality pretty un-regulated.

If that doesn’t sound to you like a set of policies Newt Gingrich or William F Buckley would support, then you don’t know your dyed in the wool conservatives from your woolly jumper wearing liberals.

If conservatives promote state-ownership/control of the main national industries, high military spending and trade protectionism... then you are right, modern Russia is conservative

I consider myself a conservative and do not support such things.

By the way, Switzerland has a strongly decentralized system (both politically and fiscally) and does better. Federal tax rates are really low, the federal government is not partisan, almost 70% of their health care is consumer-driven, immigration laws are strict even if 20% of the population is foreign-born, etc This is an example i like.

What are some samples of federal vs state(canton) responsibilities different between the US and Switzerland?

 

[PMZ]

Really? Why would American liberals want to become Russia, an even MORE conservative country?

"Conservatism is the dominant intellectual legacy of Russia"
Richard Pipes

Conservative Russia

People simply do not realize that Russia is a deeply conservative country.

Fiscal policy is buttressed on a low, flat rate of income tax (13%), and there is virtually no social safety net, with spending on unemployment security, medical provision, disability aid, infrastructure, the environment, and urban regeneration far lower, in both absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, than its G8 contemporaries.

Similarly, military spending is high in comparison — and growing — medical care is available free in theory, but requires private insurance or additional cash payment in practice, and businesses are in reality pretty un-regulated.

If that doesn’t sound to you like a set of policies Newt Gingrich or William F Buckley would support, then you don’t know your dyed in the wool conservatives from your woolly jumper wearing liberals.

If conservatives promote state-ownership/control of the main national industries, high military spending and trade protectionism... then you are right, modern Russia is conservative

I consider myself a conservative and do not support such things.

By the way, Switzerland has a strongly decentralized system (both politically and fiscally) and does better. Federal tax rates are really low, the federal government is not partisan, almost 70% of their health care is consumer-driven, immigration laws are strict even if 20% of the population is foreign-born, etc This is an example i like.

The point is conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth. A conservative in America wants to 'conserve' capitalism, nationalism and American parochial orthodoxy. A conservative in Russia wants to conserve communism, nationalism and Russian parochial orthodoxy. Left/right in this context is about as pertinent as whether the water in each country swirls down the drain clockwise or counterclockwise.


While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

People conserve in times of scarcity and invest in times of plenty. That is the essence of conservative vs liberal. And the reason why conservatives are so easy to recruit via media. People worried about losing are much easier to get angry and afraid than those whose worldview is that we can have whatever we can dream of and work collectively towards.

 

[Foxfyre]

and that is probably the primary reason that "compromise" resulted in no prosecutions for the criminal acts associated with those wars and such atrocities as the Patriot act, Gitmo, warrantless wiretapping, etc., by those in high positions of previous and current administrations



True, but none of those consequences had anything to do with the housing bubble or the economic collapse in 2007.


Provide that everyone who is sick or injured receives the care that they need to return to health as a basic obligation that all residents of this nation owe to each other and we can get rid of the insurers and profiteers who seek to earn obscene profits off the misery and infirmity of others.



Outlaw and criminalize political parties and we would very simply and quickly eliminate 99% of the problems inherent to modern politics.

So what do you think? If all the conservatives left and liberals would be in charge:

I don't think we'd notice much difference at all, from my perspective both ideologies are corrupt and there isn't a plug nickel's worth of difference between either of these corporatist stooges in modern American conservative and liberal philosophies.

There would have been no retaliation for 9/11?

If Conservatives (and the right of center liberals that constitute most of the Democratic Party) had left this country in the seventies, I suspect that the only memories 9-11 would evoke is as the telephone emergency assistance number, so there would have been nothing to "retaliate" against. Not that there would have been no one in the world that disliked the US, but the unfolding of history for the last 40 years would have been unrecognizably different.

So what is it in conservative policies--that is modern day conservative American policies i.e. classical liberal policies--that make it a corrupt system? Please don't point to people who claim to be conservative but are actually liberal and/or authoritarians. Let's leave all people from all sides out of it for a minut and focus on the conservative concepts for a bit.

 

[Bfgrn]

So what do you think? If all the conservatives left and liberals would be in charge:

I don't think we'd notice much difference at all, from my perspective both ideologies are corrupt and there isn't a plug nickel's worth of difference between either of these corporatist stooges in modern American conservative and liberal philosophies.

There would have been no retaliation for 9/11?

If Conservatives (and the right of center liberals that constitute most of the Democratic Party) had left this country in the seventies, I suspect that the only memories 9-11 would evoke is as the telephone emergency assistance number, so there would have been nothing to "retaliate" against. Not that there would have been no one in the world that disliked the US, but the unfolding of history for the last 40 years would have been unrecognizably different.

So what is it in conservative policies--that is modern day conservative American policies i.e. classical liberal policies--that make it a corrupt system? Please don't point to people who claim to be conservative but are actually liberal and/or authoritarians. Let's leave all people from all sides out of it for a minut and focus on the conservative concepts for a bit.

One word answer...BUSH.

Bush was the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Harding—and perhaps ever. He governed, wherever possible, fully in step with the basic conservative principles that defined Ronald Reagan's presidency and have shaped the political right for the last two generations: opposition to New Deal-style social programs; a view of civil liberties as obstacles to dispensing justice; the pursuit of low taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy; a pro-business stance on regulation; a hawkish, militaristic, nationalistic foreign policy; and a commitment to bringing religion, and specifically Christianity, back into public policy. "Mr. Bush has a philosophy. It is conservative," wrote Peggy Noonan in 2002. Ah, but times change. In June 2008 she complained, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[PMZ]

So what do you think? If all the conservatives left and liberals would be in charge:

I don't think we'd notice much difference at all, from my perspective both ideologies are corrupt and there isn't a plug nickel's worth of difference between either of these corporatist stooges in modern American conservative and liberal philosophies.

There would have been no retaliation for 9/11?

If Conservatives (and the right of center liberals that constitute most of the Democratic Party) had left this country in the seventies, I suspect that the only memories 9-11 would evoke is as the telephone emergency assistance number, so there would have been nothing to "retaliate" against. Not that there would have been no one in the world that disliked the US, but the unfolding of history for the last 40 years would have been unrecognizably different.

So what is it in conservative policies--that is modern day conservative American policies i.e. classical liberal policies--that make it a corrupt system? Please don't point to people who claim to be conservative but are actually liberal and/or authoritarians. Let's leave all people from all sides out of it for a minut and focus on the conservative concepts for a bit.

I don't think that there's any difference between liberals and conservatives in terms of corruption. People are currupt or not, not worldviews.

I think that both worldviews are self fulfilling. I think that conservatives create scarcity and liberals, plenty, all other things being equal.

Liberals invest in growth. They are optimistic. They have faith in their fellow man and expect collaboration and cooperation.

Conservatives are suspicious of their fellow man and expect friction and selfishness.

Liberals want to change the present to create a better future.

Conservatives want to prevent the present from changing in order to avoid an even worse future.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Really? Why would American liberals want to become Russia, an even MORE conservative country?

"Conservatism is the dominant intellectual legacy of Russia"
Richard Pipes

Conservative Russia

People simply do not realize that Russia is a deeply conservative country.

Fiscal policy is buttressed on a low, flat rate of income tax (13%), and there is virtually no social safety net, with spending on unemployment security, medical provision, disability aid, infrastructure, the environment, and urban regeneration far lower, in both absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, than its G8 contemporaries.

Similarly, military spending is high in comparison — and growing — medical care is available free in theory, but requires private insurance or additional cash payment in practice, and businesses are in reality pretty un-regulated.

If that doesn’t sound to you like a set of policies Newt Gingrich or William F Buckley would support, then you don’t know your dyed in the wool conservatives from your woolly jumper wearing liberals.

If conservatives promote state-ownership/control of the main national industries, high military spending and trade protectionism... then you are right, modern Russia is conservative

I consider myself a conservative and do not support such things.

By the way, Switzerland has a strongly decentralized system (both politically and fiscally) and does better. Federal tax rates are really low, the federal government is not partisan, almost 70% of their health care is consumer-driven, immigration laws are strict even if 20% of the population is foreign-born, etc This is an example i like.

The point is conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth. A conservative in America wants to 'conserve' capitalism, nationalism and American parochial orthodoxy. A conservative in Russia wants to conserve communism, nationalism and Russian parochial orthodoxy. Left/right in this context is about as pertinent as whether the water in each country swirls down the drain clockwise or counterclockwise.


While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

This is possibly the weirdest stretch of an idea forged yet. The rhetorical acrobatics are amazing. I'm not even trying to be sarcastic. You say an American conservative wants to conserve "capitalism" which is why he is like a conservative in Russia because Russian "conservatives" want to conserve communism. Does the fact that communism and conservatism are diametrically opposing concepts matter in this debate at all? Let me put it this way. Liberals and nazis are the same because they both wear pants. You keep equating conservative with conserve. That's as silly as me equating progressive with progress.

 

[PMZ]

If conservatives promote state-ownership/control of the main national industries, high military spending and trade protectionism... then you are right, modern Russia is conservative

I consider myself a conservative and do not support such things.

By the way, Switzerland has a strongly decentralized system (both politically and fiscally) and does better. Federal tax rates are really low, the federal government is not partisan, almost 70% of their health care is consumer-driven, immigration laws are strict even if 20% of the population is foreign-born, etc This is an example i like.

The point is conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth. A conservative in America wants to 'conserve' capitalism, nationalism and American parochial orthodoxy. A conservative in Russia wants to conserve communism, nationalism and Russian parochial orthodoxy. Left/right in this context is about as pertinent as whether the water in each country swirls down the drain clockwise or counterclockwise.


While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

This is possibly the weirdest stretch of an idea forged yet. The rhetorical acrobatics are amazing. I'm not even trying to be sarcastic. You say an American conservative wants to conserve "capitalism" which is why he is like a conservative in Russia because Russian "conservatives" want to conserve communism. Does the fact that communism and conservatism are diametrically opposing concepts matter in this debate at all? Let me put it this way. Liberals and nazis are the same because they both wear pants. You keep equating conservative with conserve. That's as silly as me equating progressive with progress.

"That's as silly as me equating progressive with progress."

What's silly about that?

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I don't think we'd notice much difference at all, from my perspective both ideologies are corrupt and there isn't a plug nickel's worth of difference between either of these corporatist stooges in modern American conservative and liberal philosophies.



If Conservatives (and the right of center liberals that constitute most of the Democratic Party) had left this country in the seventies, I suspect that the only memories 9-11 would evoke is as the telephone emergency assistance number, so there would have been nothing to "retaliate" against. Not that there would have been no one in the world that disliked the US, but the unfolding of history for the last 40 years would have been unrecognizably different.

So what is it in conservative policies--that is modern day conservative American policies i.e. classical liberal policies--that make it a corrupt system? Please don't point to people who claim to be conservative but are actually liberal and/or authoritarians. Let's leave all people from all sides out of it for a minut and focus on the conservative concepts for a bit.

I don't think that there's any difference between liberals and conservatives in terms of corruption. People are currupt or not, not worldviews.

I think that both worldviews are self fulfilling. I think that conservatives create scarcity and liberals, plenty, all other things being equal.

Liberals invest in growth. They are optimistic. They have faith in their fellow man and expect collaboration and cooperation.

Conservatives are suspicious of their fellow man and expect friction and selfishness.

Liberals want to change the present to create a better future.

Conservatives want to prevent the present from changing in order to avoid an even worse future.

You say that liberals are optimistic and have faith in their fellow man and expect collaboration and cooperation. Of course liberals believe no such thing which explains why liberals want enormous government along with an enormous bureaucracy to create the rules citizens have to obey and an enormous agency to enforce these rules. Police states are the product of a liberal agenda.

 

[Bfgrn]

If conservatives promote state-ownership/control of the main national industries, high military spending and trade protectionism... then you are right, modern Russia is conservative

I consider myself a conservative and do not support such things.

By the way, Switzerland has a strongly decentralized system (both politically and fiscally) and does better. Federal tax rates are really low, the federal government is not partisan, almost 70% of their health care is consumer-driven, immigration laws are strict even if 20% of the population is foreign-born, etc This is an example i like.

The point is conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth. A conservative in America wants to 'conserve' capitalism, nationalism and American parochial orthodoxy. A conservative in Russia wants to conserve communism, nationalism and Russian parochial orthodoxy. Left/right in this context is about as pertinent as whether the water in each country swirls down the drain clockwise or counterclockwise.


While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

This is possibly the weirdest stretch of an idea forged yet. The rhetorical acrobatics are amazing. I'm not even trying to be sarcastic. You say an American conservative wants to conserve "capitalism" which is why he is like a conservative in Russia because Russian "conservatives" want to conserve communism. Does the fact that communism and conservatism are diametrically opposing concepts matter in this debate at all? Let me put it this way. Liberals and nazis are the same because they both wear pants. You keep equating conservative with conserve. That's as silly as me equating progressive with progress.

Definition of CONSERVATISM
2
a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established
b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3
: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

Conservatism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


con·ser·va·tism (kn-sûrv-tzm)
n.
1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.

conservatism - definition of conservatism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


con·serv·a·tism
[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiz-uhm]
noun
1.
the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.

Conservatism | Define Conservatism at Dictionary.com

Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to retain") is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.

Conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JohnL.Burke]

The point is conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth. A conservative in America wants to 'conserve' capitalism, nationalism and American parochial orthodoxy. A conservative in Russia wants to conserve communism, nationalism and Russian parochial orthodoxy. Left/right in this context is about as pertinent as whether the water in each country swirls down the drain clockwise or counterclockwise.


While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

This is possibly the weirdest stretch of an idea forged yet. The rhetorical acrobatics are amazing. I'm not even trying to be sarcastic. You say an American conservative wants to conserve "capitalism" which is why he is like a conservative in Russia because Russian "conservatives" want to conserve communism. Does the fact that communism and conservatism are diametrically opposing concepts matter in this debate at all? Let me put it this way. Liberals and nazis are the same because they both wear pants. You keep equating conservative with conserve. That's as silly as me equating progressive with progress.

"That's as silly as me equating progressive with progress."

What's silly about that?

Progressivism does not support progress, It supports an attempt to reach back in history and resurrect a failed and disturbing idea that has been proven to not work and inevitably lead to genocide or poverty. Often both.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

The point is conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth. A conservative in America wants to 'conserve' capitalism, nationalism and American parochial orthodoxy. A conservative in Russia wants to conserve communism, nationalism and Russian parochial orthodoxy. Left/right in this context is about as pertinent as whether the water in each country swirls down the drain clockwise or counterclockwise.


While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

This is possibly the weirdest stretch of an idea forged yet. The rhetorical acrobatics are amazing. I'm not even trying to be sarcastic. You say an American conservative wants to conserve "capitalism" which is why he is like a conservative in Russia because Russian "conservatives" want to conserve communism. Does the fact that communism and conservatism are diametrically opposing concepts matter in this debate at all? Let me put it this way. Liberals and nazis are the same because they both wear pants. You keep equating conservative with conserve. That's as silly as me equating progressive with progress.

Definition of CONSERVATISM
2
a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established
b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3
: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

Conservatism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


con·ser·va·tism (kn-sûrv-tzm)
n.
1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.

conservatism - definition of conservatism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


con·serv·a·tism
[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiz-uhm]
noun
1.
the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.

Conservatism | Define Conservatism at Dictionary.com

Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to retain") is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.

Conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change".
Are you suggesting that conservatives want to bring back slavery because it was America's tradition at one time? The problem you are making is that you are using the widest definition of conservative to apply to an ever changing political landscape in a specific manner. In other words. One can call Reagan a conservative because of some ideas he had. He could also be called a moderate because of other ideas he had. Some people have called him too liberal because he provided amnesty for over a million illegal aliens. Just as Reagan does not fit the dictionary definition of conservative he did however call himself a conservative because he did fit the political definition of a conservative at the time. Dictionary definitions do not provide political context of a constantly changing societal paradigm. One more example. John F. Kennedy called himself a democrat. Using the dictionaries definition of democrat would not describe the full content of Kennedy's legacy. The shifting political dynamics of an ever changing world does not lend itself with one definition of one word that was written at one time.

 

[Bfgrn]

This is possibly the weirdest stretch of an idea forged yet. The rhetorical acrobatics are amazing. I'm not even trying to be sarcastic. You say an American conservative wants to conserve "capitalism" which is why he is like a conservative in Russia because Russian "conservatives" want to conserve communism. Does the fact that communism and conservatism are diametrically opposing concepts matter in this debate at all? Let me put it this way. Liberals and nazis are the same because they both wear pants. You keep equating conservative with conserve. That's as silly as me equating progressive with progress.

Definition of CONSERVATISM
2
a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established
b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3
: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

Conservatism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


con·ser·va·tism (kn-sûrv-tzm)
n.
1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.

conservatism - definition of conservatism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


con·serv·a·tism
[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiz-uhm]
noun
1.
the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.

Conservatism | Define Conservatism at Dictionary.com

Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to retain") is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.

Conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change".
Are you suggesting that conservatives want to bring back slavery because it was America's tradition at one time? The problem you are making is that you are using the widest definition of conservative to apply to an ever changing political landscape in a specific manner. In other words. One can call Reagan a conservative because of some ideas he had. He could also be called a moderate because of other ideas he had. Some people have called him too liberal because he provided amnesty for over a million illegal aliens. Just as Reagan does not fit the dictionary definition of conservative he did however call himself a conservative because he did fit the political definition of a conservative at the time. Dictionary definitions do not provide political context of a constantly changing societal paradigm. One more example. John F. Kennedy called himself a democrat. Using the dictionaries definition of democrat would not describe the full content of Kennedy's legacy. The shifting political dynamics of an ever changing world does not lend itself with one definition of one word that was written at one time.

The only word gymnastics are yours. The core of conservatism is resistance or hesitancy to change. It does not mean going back to slavery. conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Definition of CONSERVATISM
2
a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established
b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3
: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

Conservatism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


con·ser·va·tism (kn-sûrv-tzm)
n.
1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.

conservatism - definition of conservatism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


con·serv·a·tism
[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiz-uhm]
noun
1.
the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.

Conservatism | Define Conservatism at Dictionary.com

Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to retain") is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.

Conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change".
Are you suggesting that conservatives want to bring back slavery because it was America's tradition at one time? The problem you are making is that you are using the widest definition of conservative to apply to an ever changing political landscape in a specific manner. In other words. One can call Reagan a conservative because of some ideas he had. He could also be called a moderate because of other ideas he had. Some people have called him too liberal because he provided amnesty for over a million illegal aliens. Just as Reagan does not fit the dictionary definition of conservative he did however call himself a conservative because he did fit the political definition of a conservative at the time. Dictionary definitions do not provide political context of a constantly changing societal paradigm. One more example. John F. Kennedy called himself a democrat. Using the dictionaries definition of democrat would not describe the full content of Kennedy's legacy. The shifting political dynamics of an ever changing world does not lend itself with one definition of one word that was written at one time.

The only word gymnastics are yours. The core of conservatism is resistance or hesitancy to change. It does not mean going back to slavery. conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.

Well, I'm glad you don't think conservatives want to go back to slavery. You're already making more sense than most of the liberal/progressives on this site.

 

[PMZ]

So what is it in conservative policies--that is modern day conservative American policies i.e. classical liberal policies--that make it a corrupt system? Please don't point to people who claim to be conservative but are actually liberal and/or authoritarians. Let's leave all people from all sides out of it for a minut and focus on the conservative concepts for a bit.

I don't think that there's any difference between liberals and conservatives in terms of corruption. People are currupt or not, not worldviews.

I think that both worldviews are self fulfilling. I think that conservatives create scarcity and liberals, plenty, all other things being equal.

Liberals invest in growth. They are optimistic. They have faith in their fellow man and expect collaboration and cooperation.

Conservatives are suspicious of their fellow man and expect friction and selfishness.

Liberals want to change the present to create a better future.

Conservatives want to prevent the present from changing in order to avoid an even worse future.

You say that liberals are optimistic and have faith in their fellow man and expect collaboration and cooperation. Of course liberals believe no such thing which explains why liberals want enormous government along with an enormous bureaucracy to create the rules citizens have to obey and an enormous agency to enforce these rules. Police states are the product of a liberal agenda.

I know of no liberal in favor of enormous government.

Liberals want government the size it needs to be in order to fulfill it's responsibilities as defined by the contract between it and we the people, our Constitution. We insist on government of, by, and for, the people. All of the people.

That requires progress. That requires confidence. That requires investment.

We've learned since 2001 about the impact of a worldview of scarcity in terms of getting things done. Making progress. Solving problems.

Never again.

 

[PMZ]

This is possibly the weirdest stretch of an idea forged yet. The rhetorical acrobatics are amazing. I'm not even trying to be sarcastic. You say an American conservative wants to conserve "capitalism" which is why he is like a conservative in Russia because Russian "conservatives" want to conserve communism. Does the fact that communism and conservatism are diametrically opposing concepts matter in this debate at all? Let me put it this way. Liberals and nazis are the same because they both wear pants. You keep equating conservative with conserve. That's as silly as me equating progressive with progress.

"That's as silly as me equating progressive with progress."

What's silly about that?

Progressivism does not support progress, It supports an attempt to reach back in history and resurrect a failed and disturbing idea that has been proven to not work and inevitably lead to genocide or poverty. Often both.

I have to call you on trying to appropriate the English language to justify your limited thinking.

Progress between the people in government and the citizens including the people in government is alway a matter of progress. Continuous improvement. Adaptation to the times.

What you describe is called conservatism. Reluctance to leave the past. Fear of the future. Fear of your fellow man.

 

[PMZ]

This is possibly the weirdest stretch of an idea forged yet. The rhetorical acrobatics are amazing. I'm not even trying to be sarcastic. You say an American conservative wants to conserve "capitalism" which is why he is like a conservative in Russia because Russian "conservatives" want to conserve communism. Does the fact that communism and conservatism are diametrically opposing concepts matter in this debate at all? Let me put it this way. Liberals and nazis are the same because they both wear pants. You keep equating conservative with conserve. That's as silly as me equating progressive with progress.

Definition of CONSERVATISM
2
a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established
b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3
: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

Conservatism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


con·ser·va·tism (kn-sûrv-tzm)
n.
1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.

conservatism - definition of conservatism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


con·serv·a·tism
[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiz-uhm]
noun
1.
the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.

Conservatism | Define Conservatism at Dictionary.com

Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to retain") is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.

Conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change".
Are you suggesting that conservatives want to bring back slavery because it was America's tradition at one time? The problem you are making is that you are using the widest definition of conservative to apply to an ever changing political landscape in a specific manner. In other words. One can call Reagan a conservative because of some ideas he had. He could also be called a moderate because of other ideas he had. Some people have called him too liberal because he provided amnesty for over a million illegal aliens. Just as Reagan does not fit the dictionary definition of conservative he did however call himself a conservative because he did fit the political definition of a conservative at the time. Dictionary definitions do not provide political context of a constantly changing societal paradigm. One more example. John F. Kennedy called himself a democrat. Using the dictionaries definition of democrat would not describe the full content of Kennedy's legacy. The shifting political dynamics of an ever changing world does not lend itself with one definition of one word that was written at one time.

Seems like an attempt to redefine the English language such that everything and everybody who is perceived as good is conservative. Everything perceived by anybody as bad is liberal.

I can see why such definitions would make one grasp at conservatism, but, words have meaning and work only when we all apply the same meaning to them. That's why we use the dictionary meaning not the self serving, what we wish was true meaning.

 

[PMZ]

"The disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change".
Are you suggesting that conservatives want to bring back slavery because it was America's tradition at one time? The problem you are making is that you are using the widest definition of conservative to apply to an ever changing political landscape in a specific manner. In other words. One can call Reagan a conservative because of some ideas he had. He could also be called a moderate because of other ideas he had. Some people have called him too liberal because he provided amnesty for over a million illegal aliens. Just as Reagan does not fit the dictionary definition of conservative he did however call himself a conservative because he did fit the political definition of a conservative at the time. Dictionary definitions do not provide political context of a constantly changing societal paradigm. One more example. John F. Kennedy called himself a democrat. Using the dictionaries definition of democrat would not describe the full content of Kennedy's legacy. The shifting political dynamics of an ever changing world does not lend itself with one definition of one word that was written at one time.

The only word gymnastics are yours. The core of conservatism is resistance or hesitancy to change. It does not mean going back to slavery. conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.

Well, I'm glad you don't think conservatives want to go back to slavery. You're already making more sense than most of the liberal/progressives on this site.

While I don't believe a desire for slavery defines conservatism, I read into a lot of posts from specific conservatives that they wouldn't be opposed to it.