What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?

[PMZ]

And so many of our fellow memers here still can't discuss a concept and are interested in nothing other than accusing, insulting, or demonizing, or criticizing something or somebody.

As for the EPA, it was Richard Nixon, one of those eeeeeeevul conservatives, who signed it into law as well as a lot of other landmark legislation. There has been no President in our history, with the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt, who has been as effective in legislative focus on the environment. But thousands of businesses can now testify to the overreach of most areas of government as time has marched on--and environmental overrreach has been excessively damaging to the economy and has eroded individual liberties.

No conservative wants anybody to have easy ability or or any right to commit environmental violence on others and no conservative wants dirty air, water, or polluted soil/food supply/environment any more than anybody else wants that

Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights. But a government unchecked in size, power, and scope becomes blind to unalienable right and too often goes way beyond common sense in what rules and regs need to exist. Conservatives will push back on an overly and unnecessarily authoritarian government and realize noble sounding titles on legislation does not necessarily mean that the legislation itself is noble.

Liberals of course won't often recognize that good government rather than overreaching government is the conservative's motive and will refuse to look at whether the push back has justifications. If there is something related to 'environmental' in the rules and regs, liberals just assume it is a good thing and any effort to remove it is an effort to allow environmental violence.

You like to claim "conservatism" as benign, but "Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights" is anything but. To me it says protecting your rights but not mine. Which is even worse than anarchy, it's tyranny. If you are allowed to infringe my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, things revert quickly back to the guy with the biggest club rules the neighborhood. Sort of like urban gangland.

 

[Circe]

You like to claim "conservatism" as benign, but "Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights" is anything but. To me it says protecting your rights but not mine. Which is even worse than anarchy, it's tyranny. If you are allowed to infringe my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, things revert quickly back to the guy with the biggest club rules the neighborhood. Sort of like urban gangland.

You want control, control, control of everyone else, don't you?

We're not going to let you do that, I hope.


You don't control us, we don't control you. That's how conservatism should work.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

And so many of our fellow memers here still can't discuss a concept and are interested in nothing other than accusing, insulting, or demonizing, or criticizing something or somebody.

As for the EPA, it was Richard Nixon, one of those eeeeeeevul conservatives, who signed it into law as well as a lot of other landmark legislation. There has been no President in our history, with the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt, who has been as effective in legislative focus on the environment. But thousands of businesses can now testify to the overreach of most areas of government as time has marched on--and environmental overrreach has been excessively damaging to the economy and has eroded individual liberties.

No conservative wants anybody to have easy ability or or any right to commit environmental violence on others and no conservative wants dirty air, water, or polluted soil/food supply/environment any more than anybody else wants that

Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights. But a government unchecked in size, power, and scope becomes blind to unalienable right and too often goes way beyond common sense in what rules and regs need to exist. Conservatives will push back on an overly and unnecessarily authoritarian government and realize noble sounding titles on legislation does not necessarily mean that the legislation itself is noble.

Liberals of course won't often recognize that good government rather than overreaching government is the conservative's motive and will refuse to look at whether the push back has justifications. If there is something related to 'environmental' in the rules and regs, liberals just assume it is a good thing and any effort to remove it is an effort to allow environmental violence.

You like to claim "conservatism" as benign, but "Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights" is anything but. To me it says protecting your rights but not mine. Which is even worse than anarchy, it's tyranny. If you are allowed to infringe my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, things revert quickly back to the guy with the biggest club rules the neighborhood. Sort of like urban gangland.

You are fine when "the guy with the biggest club" is the government, however. Conservatism in anathema to tyranny. Conservatives want a smaller government so more people have a say in their future and opportunities. This is not to say conservatives want no government. Government has its place. However, conservatives don't believe the government has a place in our private lives, bedrooms, churches and thought process. Tyranny, in the last hundred years, has always derived from a liberal agenda that requires a large government to carry "the biggest club".
I find it humorous that you compare conservatives to an urban gangland. Urban ganglands are derived from liberal policies implemented in inner cities, inner city schools, and a corrupt and inefficient welfare state.

 

[Foxfyre]

And so many of our fellow memers here still can't discuss a concept and are interested in nothing other than accusing, insulting, or demonizing, or criticizing something or somebody.

As for the EPA, it was Richard Nixon, one of those eeeeeeevul conservatives, who signed it into law as well as a lot of other landmark legislation. There has been no President in our history, with the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt, who has been as effective in legislative focus on the environment. But thousands of businesses can now testify to the overreach of most areas of government as time has marched on--and environmental overrreach has been excessively damaging to the economy and has eroded individual liberties.

No conservative wants anybody to have easy ability or or any right to commit environmental violence on others and no conservative wants dirty air, water, or polluted soil/food supply/environment any more than anybody else wants that

Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights. But a government unchecked in size, power, and scope becomes blind to unalienable right and too often goes way beyond common sense in what rules and regs need to exist. Conservatives will push back on an overly and unnecessarily authoritarian government and realize noble sounding titles on legislation does not necessarily mean that the legislation itself is noble.

Liberals of course won't often recognize that good government rather than overreaching government is the conservative's motive and will refuse to look at whether the push back has justifications. If there is something related to 'environmental' in the rules and regs, liberals just assume it is a good thing and any effort to remove it is an effort to allow environmental violence.

You like to claim "conservatism" as benign, but "Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights" is anything but. To me it says protecting your rights but not mine. Which is even worse than anarchy, it's tyranny. If you are allowed to infringe my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, things revert quickly back to the guy with the biggest club rules the neighborhood. Sort of like urban gangland.

You are fine when "the guy with the biggest club" is the government, however. Conservatism in anathema to tyranny. Conservatives want a smaller government so more people have a say in their future and opportunities. This is not to say conservatives want no government. Government has its place. However, conservatives don't believe the government has a place in our private lives, bedrooms, churches and thought process. Tyranny, in the last hundred years, has always derived from a liberal agenda that requires a large government to carry "the biggest club".
I find it humorous that you compare conservatives to an urban gangland. Urban ganglands are derived from liberal policies implemented in inner cities, inner city schools, and a corrupt and inefficient welfare state.

But you see, they cannot articulate a defense for liberalism given the dismal results of it after it has been in operation for awhile. But they are so emotionally invested in it, they have to protect it and the only way they know to do that is to attack conservatives and conservatism however dishonest they have to be to do that. They distort or change our words, put words in our mouths, misrepresent what we do, and demonize us with whatever they have to distort or characterize or make up to do that.

And don't expect them to actually debate the concept or even repeat it back to us accurately. There is apparently something in the water they drink that prevents them from having the ability to do that.

 

[Bfgrn]

And so many of our fellow memers here still can't discuss a concept and are interested in nothing other than accusing, insulting, or demonizing, or criticizing something or somebody.

As for the EPA, it was Richard Nixon, one of those eeeeeeevul conservatives, who signed it into law as well as a lot of other landmark legislation. There has been no President in our history, with the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt, who has been as effective in legislative focus on the environment. But thousands of businesses can now testify to the overreach of most areas of government as time has marched on--and environmental overrreach has been excessively damaging to the economy and has eroded individual liberties.

No conservative wants anybody to have easy ability or or any right to commit environmental violence on others and no conservative wants dirty air, water, or polluted soil/food supply/environment any more than anybody else wants that

Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights. But a government unchecked in size, power, and scope becomes blind to unalienable right and too often goes way beyond common sense in what rules and regs need to exist. Conservatives will push back on an overly and unnecessarily authoritarian government and realize noble sounding titles on legislation does not necessarily mean that the legislation itself is noble.

Liberals of course won't often recognize that good government rather than overreaching government is the conservative's motive and will refuse to look at whether the push back has justifications. If there is something related to 'environmental' in the rules and regs, liberals just assume it is a good thing and any effort to remove it is an effort to allow environmental violence.

You like to claim "conservatism" as benign, but "Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights" is anything but. To me it says protecting your rights but not mine. Which is even worse than anarchy, it's tyranny. If you are allowed to infringe my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, things revert quickly back to the guy with the biggest club rules the neighborhood. Sort of like urban gangland.

You are fine when "the guy with the biggest club" is the government, however. Conservatism in anathema to tyranny. Conservatives want a smaller government so more people have a say in their future and opportunities. This is not to say conservatives want no government. Government has its place. However, conservatives don't believe the government has a place in our private lives, bedrooms, churches and thought process. Tyranny, in the last hundred years, has always derived from a liberal agenda that requires a large government to carry "the biggest club".
I find it humorous that you compare conservatives to an urban gangland. Urban ganglands are derived from liberal policies implemented in inner cities, inner city schools, and a corrupt and inefficient welfare state.

"conservatives don't believe the government has a place in our private lives, bedrooms, churches", just as long as a women's uterus is the property of the state, poor people pee in a cup so government can test it, and Christianity and creationism is taught in schools.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

You like to claim "conservatism" as benign, but "Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights" is anything but. To me it says protecting your rights but not mine. Which is even worse than anarchy, it's tyranny. If you are allowed to infringe my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, things revert quickly back to the guy with the biggest club rules the neighborhood. Sort of like urban gangland.

You are fine when "the guy with the biggest club" is the government, however. Conservatism in anathema to tyranny. Conservatives want a smaller government so more people have a say in their future and opportunities. This is not to say conservatives want no government. Government has its place. However, conservatives don't believe the government has a place in our private lives, bedrooms, churches and thought process. Tyranny, in the last hundred years, has always derived from a liberal agenda that requires a large government to carry "the biggest club".
I find it humorous that you compare conservatives to an urban gangland. Urban ganglands are derived from liberal policies implemented in inner cities, inner city schools, and a corrupt and inefficient welfare state.

But you see, they cannot articulate a defense for liberalism given the dismal results of it after it has been in operation for awhile. But they are so emotionally invested in it, they have to protect it and the only way they know to do that is to attack conservatives and conservatism however dishonest they have to be to do that. They distort or change our words, put words in our mouths, misrepresent what we do, and demonize us with whatever they have to distort or characterize or make up to do that.

And don't expect them to actually debate the concept or even repeat it back to us accurately. There is apparently something in the water they drink that prevents them from having the ability to do that.

Liberalism is a type of religion based on faith as opposed to historical reference and analytical analysis. It is emotion and a knee jerk reaction as opposed to common sense and a protection of rights. Liberalism focuses on rhetoric as opposed to results. So far, all liberalism has accomplished is genocide,poverty and fascistic governments. For liberalism to work, it must create a government big enough to subvert the will of the people by any means necessary.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

You like to claim "conservatism" as benign, but "Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights" is anything but. To me it says protecting your rights but not mine. Which is even worse than anarchy, it's tyranny. If you are allowed to infringe my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, things revert quickly back to the guy with the biggest club rules the neighborhood. Sort of like urban gangland.

You are fine when "the guy with the biggest club" is the government, however. Conservatism in anathema to tyranny. Conservatives want a smaller government so more people have a say in their future and opportunities. This is not to say conservatives want no government. Government has its place. However, conservatives don't believe the government has a place in our private lives, bedrooms, churches and thought process. Tyranny, in the last hundred years, has always derived from a liberal agenda that requires a large government to carry "the biggest club".
I find it humorous that you compare conservatives to an urban gangland. Urban ganglands are derived from liberal policies implemented in inner cities, inner city schools, and a corrupt and inefficient welfare state.

"conservatives don't believe the government has a place in our private lives, bedrooms, churches", just as long as a women's uterus is the property of the state, poor people pee in a cup so government can test it, and Christianity and creationism is taught in schools.

When the government is in charge of "free" contraception then the government is already in charge of women"s uteruses. Liberalism wants to be in charge of everything. Otherwise liberalism would die. Liberalism, by its very nature, despises the will of the people. Obamacare being only one example.

 

[Foxfyre]

You like to claim "conservatism" as benign, but "Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights" is anything but. To me it says protecting your rights but not mine. Which is even worse than anarchy, it's tyranny. If you are allowed to infringe my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, things revert quickly back to the guy with the biggest club rules the neighborhood. Sort of like urban gangland.

You are fine when "the guy with the biggest club" is the government, however. Conservatism in anathema to tyranny. Conservatives want a smaller government so more people have a say in their future and opportunities. This is not to say conservatives want no government. Government has its place. However, conservatives don't believe the government has a place in our private lives, bedrooms, churches and thought process. Tyranny, in the last hundred years, has always derived from a liberal agenda that requires a large government to carry "the biggest club".
I find it humorous that you compare conservatives to an urban gangland. Urban ganglands are derived from liberal policies implemented in inner cities, inner city schools, and a corrupt and inefficient welfare state.

"conservatives don't believe the government has a place in our private lives, bedrooms, churches", just as long as a women's uterus is the property of the state, poor people pee in a cup so government can test it, and Christianity and creationism is taught in schools.

Conservatives have no interest in a woman's uterus unless they are in an intimate relationship with the woman who owns it or it is their own. They just don't want to be obligated to pay for the consequences of how women use their uteruses. Just leave us out of your business please. And don't bring up the issues of abortion. Conservatives will likely have a personal interest in that but don't assign it to the federal government to decide.

Conservatives have no interest in the pee of poor people. But those who expect conservatives to support them should have to demonstrate that they are truly needy and are using the benefits to provide necessities to themselves and their children. Conservatives understand and acknowledge that a huge percentage of children being raised in poverty and a huge percentage of children being poorly parented and neglected are being raised by parents stoned or zoned out on illegal substances. Conservatives don't see it as compassion to continue subsidizing that. Do YOU think it is compassionate to subsidize that?

Conservatives believe in liberty and individual conscience so long as one person does not infringe on the rights of another. So if conservatives don't want creationsm and Christianity taught in the schools, they believe in the right of the community to choose that option. But likewise those communities who do want creationism and Christianity taught in their schools should also have that right. Or Atheism. Or Buddhism. Or Judaism. Or any other philosophy. When the federal government has the power to tell us what we can and cannot teach our children, we have no liberty at all.

 

[Bfgrn]

You are fine when "the guy with the biggest club" is the government, however. Conservatism in anathema to tyranny. Conservatives want a smaller government so more people have a say in their future and opportunities. This is not to say conservatives want no government. Government has its place. However, conservatives don't believe the government has a place in our private lives, bedrooms, churches and thought process. Tyranny, in the last hundred years, has always derived from a liberal agenda that requires a large government to carry "the biggest club".
I find it humorous that you compare conservatives to an urban gangland. Urban ganglands are derived from liberal policies implemented in inner cities, inner city schools, and a corrupt and inefficient welfare state.

But you see, they cannot articulate a defense for liberalism given the dismal results of it after it has been in operation for awhile. But they are so emotionally invested in it, they have to protect it and the only way they know to do that is to attack conservatives and conservatism however dishonest they have to be to do that. They distort or change our words, put words in our mouths, misrepresent what we do, and demonize us with whatever they have to distort or characterize or make up to do that.

And don't expect them to actually debate the concept or even repeat it back to us accurately. There is apparently something in the water they drink that prevents them from having the ability to do that.

Liberalism is a type of religion based on faith as opposed to historical reference and analytical analysis. It is emotion and a knee jerk reaction as opposed to common sense and a protection of rights. Liberalism focuses on rhetoric as opposed to results. So far, all liberalism has accomplished is genocide,poverty and fascistic governments. For liberalism to work, it must create a government big enough to subvert the will of the people by any means necessary.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

You couldn't be any further from the truth. There is a plethora of studies on personality types, liberal, and conservative. But what all these modern studies prove was already common knowledge from common sense observation and understanding how emotions manifest in human behavior a century ago. The core of conservatism is the strongest of all human emotion...FEAR. It explains why conservatives cling to guns and Bibles. It is why conservatives fear minorities and create monster like grime reaper images in their minds.

Conservatives have NEVER given us less government. Even when they controlled both houses of Congress and the White House for almost a decade. The conservative idea of less government, is less regulations on polluters, Wall Street crooks and any of the opulent and CEO's conservatives worship. Conservatives equate wealth with morality.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...

Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

These ideas are not new. Indeed they were common sense until recently. Nowadays, though, most of the people who call themselves "conservatives" have little notion of what conservatism even is. They have been deceived by one of the great public relations campaigns of human history. Only by analyzing this deception will it become possible to revive democracy in the United States.

The Main Arguments of Conservatism

From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.

The defenders of aristocracy represent aristocracy as a natural phenomenon, but in reality it is the most artificial thing on earth. Although one of the goals of every aristocracy is to make its preferred social order seem permanent and timeless, in reality conservatism must be reinvented in every generation. This is true for many reasons, including internal conflicts among the aristocrats; institutional shifts due to climate, markets, or warfare; and ideological gains and losses in the perpetual struggle against democracy. In some societies the aristocracy is rigid, closed, and stratified, while in others it is more of an aspiration among various fluid and factionalized groups. The situation in the United States right now is toward the latter end of the spectrum. A main goal in life of all aristocrats, however, is to pass on their positions of privilege to their children, and many of the aspiring aristocrats of the United States are appointing their children to positions in government and in the archipelago of think tanks that promote conservative theories.

Conservatism in every place and time is founded on deception. The deceptions of conservatism today are especially sophisticated, simply because culture today is sufficiently democratic that the myths of earlier times will no longer suffice.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Wow! That was just ridiculous!

 

[Circe]

Well, I sort of liked it. It's fully 225 years out of date, but I've been studying the French Revolution so "Down with the aristos!" feels familiar and homey.

 

[Bfgrn]

Well, I sort of liked it. It's fully 225 years out of date, but I've been studying the French Revolution so "Down with the aristos!" feels familiar and homey.

Read the whole article. There is current information.

But try this litmus test when you are listening to conservatives. When have they ever stood up for the little guy over the big guy, the poor over the rich, the minority over whites, or women's equality?

When you understand what conservatism is, every argument they make leads to the same end.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...


Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

 

[Circe]

When you understand what conservatism is, every argument they make leads to the same end.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

Yes! That's what Robespierre said! And Hebert, and Danton, and especially the murderous Marat.......

Probably these ideas need to be a little updated as of 2013, however.

 

[Foxfyre]

The changes I speak of did not happen over night. It was a slow death. I watched it happen, I am even guilty of helping it along.

Yes, I know what you mean. I feel terribly guilty about buying everything from Amazon, but I have hated shopping my whole life, and I love Internet shopping. I realize that the stores are collapsing all around us!

And books: I buy mostly ebooks, and stream all video, or play DVDs, never go to movie theaters. We are certainly in a second coming of Gutenberg-level change. What big changes in society will it bring? Last time it brought the Protestant Reformation!

I would not do any of this if I didn't love the new opportunities, but the pace of change is so incredibly fast, as Jeremiah said. And accelerating. Nervous-making.

Yes change begets more change and it is accelerating all the time. We have acquired more new products and technology in the last 50 years than probably in the rest of the history of the world. And those who are unable to adapt and capitalize on the trends and new innovations get left in the dust.

Think how demoralizing it must have been to the wagon and buggy manufacturers as the automobile began consuming almost all of the personal transportation market. Ironically most of the first automobiles were electric but they quickly gave way to internal combustion engines at that technology improve and became more practical.

And yet we still have buggy and wagon manufacturers but now they build their products for show, for pleasure, for nostalgia and don't pretend that they are still in the transportation business.

Likewise those stores and shops that will survive will offer products for those who want to see what they are buying up close and personal, will feature superior customer service and atmosphere that the internet cannot provide, but most are also broadly expanding their internet services to accommodate those who prefer to shop that way.

Conservatism has always included a strong confidence in the free market to provide prosperity for the maximum number of people. And the free market operates strictly on the concept of providing products and services that the people want and/or on persuading people that they want the products and services offered. Short circuit that process with too much government taxation amd unnecessary regulation, meddling, and interference, and there will be less prosperity for all.

 

[Bfgrn]

When you understand what conservatism is, every argument they make leads to the same end.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

Yes! That's what Robespierre said! And Hebert, and Danton, and especially the murderous Marat.......

Probably these ideas need to be a little updated as of 2013, however.

I told you the article talks about current times. An aristocracy can take more forms than the ones in Robespierre's day. A plutocracy, a oligarchy, a corporatocracy.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wow! That was just ridiculous!

Most of the stuff he cuts and pastes is. Or at least it has little relevance to whatever he is responding to. I don't think most of these folks who can't grasp what modern conservatism is, but who attack it relenetlessly, could articulate an accurate concept of modern American conservatism if their lives depended on it.

 

[PMZ]

I grew up mostly in the 50s and early 60s. I'm sure that if one were to poll the adults of those years as to what the secret of America was, almost all would agree on freedom. I believe that the same is true of today. What would be different between then and now would be the answer to the question, "where does America's freedom come from?" Then it would have been universally, "our democracy and our Constitution", now about 40% would answer "from our personal guns, and from a weak, limited government".

What caused that cultural shift? IMO it's largely due to a product invented during the days that President Reagan was riding the waves of the Iran situation and perestroika, and perfected by Rush Limbaugh, media motivated extreme conservatism. The quality of Rush's business model is indisputable. He's been paid by advertisers over a billion dollars over his career for delivering that product. Many others, like Rupert Murdoch, and Glenn Beck have followed in his footsteps and achieved huge rewards in doing so.

They all also benefited from a sub-message of their theme. That economic growth comes from the wealthy, and therefore tax reductions to the wealthy result in growth. Supply side economics. So small government, or high deficits, result in economic growth.

Media motivated extreme conservatism was also boosted during those years by the relationship between the media gurus and the Republican Party. The GOP found a brand new and significantly powerful tool for their party by encouraging the success of media motivated extreme conservatism and creating, in essence, 24/7/365 unregulated political campaign advertising.

As we politically moved from the success of Clinton to the failures of Bush, that connection became the life support system for the GOP. They put the media pedal to the metal to obscure Bush's failure and the crescendo peaked, as one would expect, in 2008 when the party was faced with a weak slate, McCain and Palin, trying to follow Bush's catastrophes against a strong Obama/Biden ticket.

Since then there have been almost no successes from the marriage that people once thought was made in heaven. Despite the 24/7/365 negative campaigning by the media for the Republicans, President Obama was reelected. Recovery has ensued. Progress made in the ending of the holy wars, the decline in the deficit, and our largest global competitiveness issue, health care. The Republican's are now mostly known for their Congressional intransigence. Not much to build on.

IMO the best end game for these American Dark Ages would be to return to where we were, our faith in the gift from our founders, democracy and our Constitution. I think that that return would ultimately put the GOP back into the game. I think that if the decline in opinion casting is matched by the returning preeminence of news casting, and the resultant maturation of an informed electorate we can go back to success.

 

[itfitzme]

I grew up mostly in the 50s and early 60s.*

I'm sure that if one were to poll the adults of those years as to what the secret of America was, almost all would agree on freedom. I believe that the same is true of today.*

What would be different between then and now would be the answer to the question, "where does America's freedom come from?" Then it would have been universally, "our democracy and our Constitution", now about 40% would answer "from our personal guns, and from a weak, limited government".*

You got me of thinking of my father, who grew up in the depression.

My father served in WWII and the Korean war. *He proudly hung the American flag out every Memorial Day. *No one doubted his patriotism. *

He also served as Secretary Treasurer for his local chapter of the union, a member of the AFL/CIO. He was an active member of the local Moose Club. *He never missed a local and national vote. *He was a registered Republican. He was a Catholic. And he proudly paid his union dues, his Moose membership fee, his church donation, and his state and local taxes.

He fought in WWII, against the aggressions of Germany and Japan. *He fought in Korea against the Communist aggression.

In those days, service to country, to fellow co-workers, and to local community volunteer organizations was service to supporting freedom and America. *This included both donating time and money.

Why? Because service to his country was service to its gov't, a gov't founded on democracy and suppporting freedom. *Service to the union was supporting a democractic and free labor force. *And service to the community was service to neghbors who also supported the ideals of democratic freedoms.

He recognized that his military service, the US governmemt, the union, the local community volunteer organization, and his church were fundamemtally social organizations that required personal sacrifice to the larger social community in order to guarantee democratic freedoms.*

He recognized the difference between personal responsibility to a socially derived democracy and the Communism of the United Soviet Socialist Republic.

He understood the difference betweee choosing to give up some personal freedoms and Soviet Socialism.

He understood that labor unions were democratic social organizations, not Socialism.

He saw no personal or ideological conflict between a social democracy and Socialism. *

Freedom wasn't a gun. *He had a rifle and a pistol when he served. His knives and machette were stored away in a footlocker in the garage. He kept a baseball bat by the front door at home. He took his driver's license and a pen to the voting booth. *He had a tool for everything, the right tool at the right time.

When it came to work at his job, he arrived early, left work late, worked overtime, and worked holidays. Once the vote was in, the rules established, and the orders given, he did his job. *Like as with his tools,*he did the right thing at the right time.

He knew the difference because freedom was something he fought for, something he worked for, something he voted for. *He understood the difference between living on a deserted island and living in a free and democratic society.*

Freedom was the right to vote. And the cost of that freedom was in accepting that democratic vote.

He understood the differences and didn't expect for freedom to be a free-for-all. He didn't expect freedom to just be free.

 

[PMZ]

I grew up mostly in the 50s and early 60s.*

I'm sure that if one were to poll the adults of those years as to what the secret of America was, almost all would agree on freedom. I believe that the same is true of today.*

What would be different between then and now would be the answer to the question, "where does America's freedom come from?" Then it would have been universally, "our democracy and our Constitution", now about 40% would answer "from our personal guns, and from a weak, limited government".*

You got me of thinking of my father, who grew up in the depression.

My father served in WWII and the Korean war. *He proudly hung the American flag out every Memorial Day. *No one doubted his patriotism. *

He also served as Secretary Treasurer for his local chapter of the union, a member of the AFL/CIO. He was an active member of the local Moose Club. *He never missed a local and national vote. *He was a registered Republican. He was a Catholic. And he proudly paid his union dues, his Moose membership fee, his church donation, and his state and local taxes.

He fought in WWII, against the aggressions of Germany and Japan. *He fought in Korea against the Communist aggression.

In those days, service to country, to fellow co-workers, and to local community volunteer organizations was service to supporting freedom and America. *This included both donating time and money.

Why? Because service to his country was service to its gov't, a gov't founded on democracy and suppporting freedom. *Service to the union was supporting a democractic and free labor force. *And service to the community was service to neghbors who also supported the ideals of democratic freedoms.

He recognized that his military service, the US governmemt, the union, the local community volunteer organization, and his church were fundamemtally social organizations that required personal sacrifice to the larger social community in order to guarantee democratic freedoms.*

He recognized the difference between personal responsibility to a socially derived democracy and the Communism of the United Soviet Socialist Republic.

He understood the difference betweee choosing to give up some personal freedoms and Soviet Socialism.

He understood that labor unions were democratic social organizations, not Socialism.

He saw no personal or ideological conflict between a social democracy and Socialism. *

Freedom wasn't a gun. *He had a rifle and a pistol when he served. His knives and machette were stored away in a footlocker in the garage. He kept a baseball bat by the front door at home. He took his driver's license and a pen to the voting booth. *He had a tool for everything, the right tool at the right time.

When it came to work at his job, he arrived early, left work late, worked overtime, and worked holidays. Once the vote was in, the rules established, and the orders given, he did his job. *Like as with his tools,*he did the right thing at the right time.

He knew the difference because freedom was something he fought for, something he worked for, something he voted for. *He understood the difference between living on a deserted island and living in a free and democratic society.*

Freedom was the right to vote. And the cost of that freedom was in accepting that democratic vote.

He understood the differences and didn't expect for freedom to be a free-for-all. He didn't expect freedom to just be free.

You and I remember it the same way. There were no stronger Republicans than my parents. There were no stronger Democrats than my immigrant grandparents. If they were alive today, I believe that my grandparents would continue to be proud, but my parents would be appalled.

I give conservatives a hard time about wanting the past, but, in this regard, I'm with them.

 

[Bfgrn]

The changes I speak of did not happen over night. It was a slow death. I watched it happen, I am even guilty of helping it along.

Yes, I know what you mean. I feel terribly guilty about buying everything from Amazon, but I have hated shopping my whole life, and I love Internet shopping. I realize that the stores are collapsing all around us!

And books: I buy mostly ebooks, and stream all video, or play DVDs, never go to movie theaters. We are certainly in a second coming of Gutenberg-level change. What big changes in society will it bring? Last time it brought the Protestant Reformation!

I would not do any of this if I didn't love the new opportunities, but the pace of change is so incredibly fast, as Jeremiah said. And accelerating. Nervous-making.

Yes change begets more change and it is accelerating all the time. We have acquired more new products and technology in the last 50 years than probably in the rest of the history of the world. And those who are unable to adapt and capitalize on the trends and new innovations get left in the dust.

Think how demoralizing it must have been to the wagon and buggy manufacturers as the automobile began consuming almost all of the personal transportation market. Ironically most of the first automobiles were electric but they quickly gave way to internal combustion engines at that technology improve and became more practical.

And yet we still have buggy and wagon manufacturers but now they build their products for show, for pleasure, for nostalgia and don't pretend that they are still in the transportation business.

Likewise those stores and shops that will survive will offer products for those who want to see what they are buying up close and personal, will feature superior customer service and atmosphere that the internet cannot provide, but most are also broadly expanding their internet services to accommodate those who prefer to shop that way.

Conservatism has always included a strong confidence in the free market to provide prosperity for the maximum number of people. And the free market operates strictly on the concept of providing products and services that the people want and/or on persuading people that they want the products and services offered. Short circuit that process with too much government taxation amd unnecessary regulation, meddling, and interference, and there will be less prosperity for all.

I don't disagree with what you are saying. But you are really missing my point. The changes I've seen is not about 'products', it's about people. Personal interaction has diminished, community and neighbor has been replaced with gated communities and privacy fences. You would have had to lived it to miss it.

Conservatives today have turned 'free markets' into a blind faith. Capitalism is an economic theory, not a moral theory or a religion. And BTW, liberals also believe in capitalism. But they also understand the "free market" doesn't exist. There is no such thing. All markets are constructed. There are rules to any market, and there is nothing magical or self regulating or 'invisible'. We only have to look at the recent financial crisis to see that unregulated Wall Street greed leads to total self interest and no regard for our nation. That is why government must regulate and intervene when there is malfeasance.