A Third Party Would Be a Death Sentence for Conservatism in Government?

[☭proletarian☭]

you keep talking about conserving the way things are.... the way things are sucks

If that was addressed to me, you would be very wrong about what I am talking about. The Modern American Conservative closely resembles the Classical Liberals of the previous century.[/qoute]


Then they're classical liberals, defined by their ideology, not conservatives defined by their desire to retain power and influence and the state of things

 

[Foxfyre]

you keep talking about conserving the way things are.... the way things are sucks

If that was addressed to me, you would be very wrong about what I am talking about. The Modern American Conservative closely resembles the Classical Liberals of the previous century.[/qoute]


Then they're classical liberals, defined by their ideology, not conservatives defined by their desire to retain power and influence and the state of things

Technically you are correct, but we have to work with the language of our time, and Modern American Conservatism is very different from the strict dictionary or historical definition or what conservatism is in most other countries. So I am going with the definition as the American Conservative now understands himself/herself.

That definition (adapted from Wiki's version) is close to this:

Modern American Conservatism/Classical Liberalism
(adapted from Wiki)

Modern American Conservatism (MAC)/Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1], laissez-faire liberalism[2], and market liberalism[3] or, outside the United States and Britain, sometimes simply liberalism is a doctrine stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others.

As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries. The "normative core" of MAC/classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society, though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited. The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism MACs promote strong national defense and necessary regulation to prevent the citiziens/states from doing violence to each other, but are otherwise suspicious of all but the most minimal government necessary to perform its Constitutional mandates and object to most of a federal welfare state.

Modern Conservatives do believe basic social values and principles that have created stable, prosperous, safe, and productive societies are worth fighting for and preserving.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If Conservatism in Government could survive what the Bush's and the Congressional Republicans did to it over the last twenty years, it can survive anything.

The real question should be, could the GOP survive a mass exodus of Conservatives? Would the NeoCons and Social Cons be enough to rebuild the party around?

By neocons and social cons you mean folks who are fiscally conservative but socially more liberal? Do you mean moderate Republicans? Do you mean Blue Dog Democrats?

I'm sorry - I'm not up on the latest round of labels.

But if the Palin-Bachman types left the GOP, it would allow the Republicans to move to a more moderate position and pick up folks in the groups I listed above. My gut reaction is that just holding the existing GOP, would be enough for the GOP to outnumber the new "conservatives" and if they could pick off enough Blue Dogs, they'd be close to their current position.

In my opinion, it was the GOP moving to a 'more moderate position' that lost them elections in 2006 and 2008. When they abandoned almost all conservative principles fiscally and started behaving like Democrats, their base left them. Fiscal conservatism/responsibility is what the Tea Partiers and Tax Protest movements have been mostly demonstrating for now though I have no doubt conservative social values are important too.

I strongly disagree with others that Rush would lose his audience if the GOP collapsed however. He, Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, et al appeal mostly to conservatives whether or not they label themselves Republican and no matter how they describe themselves. None of them are advocates for the Republican party per se, and all have been highly critical of many Republicans and actions of the Republican Party when warranted.

I've heard the opinion about the Republicans being too moderate and THAT's what cost them the election.

In terms of fiscal policy, maybe. In terms of social and environmental policy I would disagree completely. The fact that the GOP lost fiscal credibility hurt bad imho. But if the only "real" fiscal conservatives you can round up are Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann types - well .... you cannot expect these types to ever poll any higher (nationally) than about 30%. (Paul's ceiling appeared to be about 7%).

So if you want to use the tea party base as a springboard - you are going to have to eject those folks or you will lose the fiscal conservative - socially/environmentally more liberal folks.

It's a call the conservative party would have to make. Fiscal conservatism is a GREAT place to start imho because neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have a wealth of credibility in that area and I personally think it is a tremendous weakness for BOTH of those parties.

But holding the religious right and holding moderates together in ANY party doesn't appear possible right now.

 

[Claudette]

Good point Fox.

I do think that if there were a third party both the Dems and the Reps would suffer. I remember back in the nineties when Ross Perrott almost got a third party going and the havoc it wrougt in the election. Perrott would never have gotten enough votes to be elecected but he did pull votes from both parties.

If there ever was a third party it would have to be strong enough to win.

 

[rightwinger]

In my opinion, it was the GOP moving to a 'more moderate position' that lost them elections in 2006 and 2008. When they abandoned almost all conservative principles fiscally and started behaving like Democrats, their base left them. Fiscal conservatism/responsibility is what the Tea Partiers and Tax Protest movements have been mostly demonstrating for now though I have no doubt conservative social values are important too.

Thats what I like to hear... The "we weren't conservative enough" argument. The Republicans didn't learn anything from the 2006 ass-kicking and they obviously haven't learned anything from the 2008 ass kicking. Stay the course only means th republicans will remain in political exile

 

[Polk]

A thread for the dreamers.

 

[nodoginnafight]

you keep talking about conserving the way things are.... the way things are sucks

I'm sorry your life sucks.
Maybe it ain't a "government" problem?????

 

[☭proletarian☭]

you keep talking about conserving the way things are.... the way things are sucks

I'm sorry your life sucks.
Maybe it ain't a "government" problem?????

You like having the nation indebted to China and on the verge of economic collapse? You like the current policies of the government?

 

[nodoginnafight]

you keep talking about conserving the way things are.... the way things are sucks

I'm sorry your life sucks.
Maybe it ain't a "government" problem?????

You like having the nation indebted to China and on the verge of economic collapse? You like the current policies of the government?

Maybe if you weren't such a "glass is half empty" kinda guy, your life wouldn't suck so bad??????????

I'm guessing you're pretty young - by the time you my age, you've seen a lot of chicken littles come and go - life goes on. Always things to fix .... always crises to be dealt with ....

Maybe your enthusiam will be what it takes to get it all fixed. I really hope so. Good luck.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Yeah, don't worry. You fuckers had your fun and stick the next generation with the bill. of course you're not worried; it's someone else's problem now. You didn't have to be responsible.

 

[manifold]

A third party that truly believed in small government, both fiscally and socially, would draw support from both the democrats and republicans. They'd get my vote and I voted all D's in 2008. First time ever, but that's what I think of the neocons.

 

[Foxfyre]

A third party that truly believed in small government, both fiscally and socially, would draw support from both the democrats and republicans. They'd get my vote and I voted all D's in 2008. First time ever, but that's what I think of the neocons.

So how are those D's working out for you a year later?

I agree that a third party would draw support from both Democrats and Republicans, but I think it would draw more support from Republicans than Democrats. The ONLY reason I think Democrats would admit to being Democrat these days is due to 1) They actually do agree with the Marxist/socialist/anti-American track of the current Administration - or - 2) They have been completed hoodwinked by the fancy rhetoric that attempts to cover that track - or - 3) They are party loyalists to the core. Or maybe all three.

At any rate, that would translate to fewer defectors from the Democrat party and a likely plurality left in the Democrat party with the Independents and Conservatives split between the other two parties.

And Rush could be right that we then ensure Democrat victories for as far as the imagination can see.

 

[Foxfyre]

I did a bit of research to see what history might teach us, and it wasn't a whole lot of help to answer the question posed in this thread.

HISTORY OF POLITICAL PARTIES

In the 1790s, the Republican Party was led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison; while Alexander Hamilton led the Federalist Party. The Federalists were for a centralized national government while the Republicans were for limited government, especially in respect to commerce.

In 1796, John Adams, a Federalist, was elected President and Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, was elected Vice President. As that didn’t work out well, we soon had a 12th amendment requiring both the President and Vice President to be from the same party.
The last Federalist was James Monroe elected 1816. By 1828 the Republican Party had divided into the Democratic Republican party led by Andrew Jackson and the Democratic Republican Party that eventually became the Democratic Party making it the oldest political party still standing, and John Quincy Adams headed the new National Republican Party that represented the old Federalist Party.

In 1832, a group of Democratic Republicans, resenting Andrew Jacksons affiliation with the Masons, created the first third party and and called it the Anti-Mason party. At the same time the National Republican Party was dissolving as Henry Clay and Daniel Webster led development of the Whig Party. In the 1840s, the Whigs elected William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor.

About the same time, the “Free Soil Party” was formed by supporters of the Wilmot Proviso, which prohibited slavery in any territory acquired from Mexico. In time, another party, the Know Nothings, developed from Democrats who did not like the wave of Catholics immigrants.

On July 6, 1854,. The Republican Party was formed in 1854 by the Whigs and Free Soil party. Eventually, the Know Nothings dissolved with most members joining the Republicans. At their first convention on July 6, 1854, the platform was one that called on the country to abolish slavery. That emphasis continued until accomplished by the Civil War under the Presidency of Abraham Lincoln.

Thus, as political parties form and dissolve, we are now left with two viable political parties called Democratic and Republican. Parties. Over time many more parties have been formed, each one to further their own agenda or leadership that they felt not adequately represented by the two major parties. None have ever gained enough traction to be viable.

And the question remains now whether a third party could be viable and whether it would a) most hurt the Republicans or b) most hurt the Democrats more.

(Most adapted from article in The Examiner.
History of political parties in the USA)

 

[manifold]

Well...

If Rush says it then it must assuredly be pure, unadulterated truth.

 

[slackjawed]

nobody will know for sure unless it happens.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well...

If Rush says it then it must assuredly be pure, unadulterated truth.

You really think so? I have always found Rush to be well researched in his stuff, but I have caught him in enough errors that I generally check out stuff before accepting his view as the final gospel.

In this case, he was offering an opinion of what effect a third party initiative would have on the elections in 2010 and 2012, and he made a compelling enough argument that I thought it merited investigation, thought, and consideration.

 

[edthecynic]

Well...

If Rush says it then it must assuredly be pure, unadulterated truth.

You really think so? I have always found Rush to be well researched in his stuff, but I have caught him in enough errors that I generally check out stuff before accepting his view as the final gospel.

In this case, he was offering an opinion of what effect a third party initiative would have on the elections in 2010 and 2012, and he made a compelling enough argument that I thought it merited investigation, thought, and consideration.

I've always found America's Hemorrhoid Stuttering LimpBoy to be un-researched in his stuff, but if you have caught him in enough errors that you doubt him then you have caught him lying about having a 99.5% "accuracy" rating. If he lies about his "accuracy" why do you think he will tell the truth about 3rd Parties, or anything else for that matter?

In reality, your MessiahRushie is a GOP hack. He has openly admitted he carries their water. The Republican Party is HIS Party. He has openly admitted that too! He only pretends to be a CON$ervative and not a Republican because it is incredibly obvious that the GOP is a complete failure. But he is still and always a Republican toady first and a CON$ervative last.

The GOP Dumps on Conservatives, Then Blames Us for Their Losses
May 14, 2008
RUSH: This thing down in Mississippi, the special election, regardless of party, conservatives could have voted for the Republican down there, doesn't matter. In two of the three of these cases, in two of the three of these House Republican congressional losses, they have been beaten by conservative Democrats, big-time conservative, social conservative Democrats. The Republican Party is ceding conservatism in the South to the Democrat Party. You know, yesterday was a very frustrating day, as you know.

CALLER: I was wondering if the Democrats in Mississippi were more conservative than the Republicans, why wouldn't you be pleased about that as a conservative?

RUSH: You think I ought to be happy that there's conservatism out there. I'm not happy my own party wants to get rid of it. I'm mad that my own party wants to cast conservatism aside. I know there's plenty of conservatism out there. That's the source of the frustration.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well...

If Rush says it then it must assuredly be pure, unadulterated truth.

You really think so? I have always found Rush to be well researched in his stuff, but I have caught him in enough errors that I generally check out stuff before accepting his view as the final gospel.

In this case, he was offering an opinion of what effect a third party initiative would have on the elections in 2010 and 2012, and he made a compelling enough argument that I thought it merited investigation, thought, and consideration.

I've always found America's Hemorrhoid Stuttering LimpBoy to be un-researched in his stuff, but if you have caught him in enough errors that you doubt him then you have caught him lying about having a 99.5% "accuracy" rating. If he lies about his "accuracy" why do you think he will tell the truth about 3rd Parties, or anything else for that matter?

In reality, your MessiahRushie is a GOP hack. He has openly admitted he carries their water. The Republican Party is HIS Party. He has openly admitted that too! He only pretends to be a CON$ervative and not a Republican because it is incredibly obvious that the GOP is a complete failure. But he is still and always a Republican toady first and a CON$ervative last.

The GOP Dumps on Conservatives, Then Blames Us for Their Losses
May 14, 2008
RUSH: This thing down in Mississippi, the special election, regardless of party, conservatives could have voted for the Republican down there, doesn't matter. In two of the three of these cases, in two of the three of these House Republican congressional losses, they have been beaten by conservative Democrats, big-time conservative, social conservative Democrats. The Republican Party is ceding conservatism in the South to the Democrat Party. You know, yesterday was a very frustrating day, as you know.

CALLER: I was wondering if the Democrats in Mississippi were more conservative than the Republicans, why wouldn't you be pleased about that as a conservative?

RUSH: You think I ought to be happy that there's conservatism out there. I'm not happy my own party wants to get rid of it. I'm mad that my own party wants to cast conservatism aside. I know there's plenty of conservatism out there. That's the source of the frustration.

You're entitled to your opinion which I don't find compelling for various reasons.

I don't think so highly of myself that I think I am incapable of error, and therefore am not so hypocritical that I would accuse others of lying who are simply incorrect in their perceptions or conclusions.

And I don't think those who can offer a compelling argument in support of a group or person or cause or concept to be incorrect to do that. And, as long as they are civil and honest, I try not to be judgmental or hyper critical in how they choose to do that.

It is interesting that you in one breath call Rush a GOP hack and then proceed to paste what presumably are quotes of his that would demonstrate that he is not.

You might want to notice things like that and brush up on your debate style?

 

[edthecynic]

You really think so? I have always found Rush to be well researched in his stuff, but I have caught him in enough errors that I generally check out stuff before accepting his view as the final gospel.

In this case, he was offering an opinion of what effect a third party initiative would have on the elections in 2010 and 2012, and he made a compelling enough argument that I thought it merited investigation, thought, and consideration.

I've always found America's Hemorrhoid Stuttering LimpBoy to be un-researched in his stuff, but if you have caught him in enough errors that you doubt him then you have caught him lying about having a 99.5% "accuracy" rating. If he lies about his "accuracy" why do you think he will tell the truth about 3rd Parties, or anything else for that matter?

In reality, your MessiahRushie is a GOP hack. He has openly admitted he carries their water. The Republican Party is HIS Party. He has openly admitted that too! He only pretends to be a CON$ervative and not a Republican because it is incredibly obvious that the GOP is a complete failure. But he is still and always a Republican toady first and a CON$ervative last.

The GOP Dumps on Conservatives, Then Blames Us for Their Losses
May 14, 2008
RUSH: This thing down in Mississippi, the special election, regardless of party, conservatives could have voted for the Republican down there, doesn't matter. In two of the three of these cases, in two of the three of these House Republican congressional losses, they have been beaten by conservative Democrats, big-time conservative, social conservative Democrats. The Republican Party is ceding conservatism in the South to the Democrat Party. You know, yesterday was a very frustrating day, as you know.

CALLER: I was wondering if the Democrats in Mississippi were more conservative than the Republicans, why wouldn't you be pleased about that as a conservative?

RUSH: You think I ought to be happy that there's conservatism out there. I'm not happy my own party wants to get rid of it. I'm mad that my own party wants to cast conservatism aside. I know there's plenty of conservatism out there. That's the source of the frustration.

You're entitled to your opinion which I don't find compelling for various reasons.

I don't think so highly of myself that I think I am incapable of error, and therefore am not so hypocritical that I would accuse others of lying who are simply incorrect in their perceptions or conclusions.

And I don't think those who can offer a compelling argument in support of a group or person or cause or concept to be incorrect to do that. And, as long as they are civil and honest, I try not to be judgmental or hyper critical in how they choose to do that.

It is interesting that you in one breath call Rush a GOP hack and then proceed to paste what presumably are quotes of his that would demonstrate that he is not.

You might want to notice things like that and brush up on your debate style?

First of all, I wasn't accusing you of lying! I was obviously accusing LimpBoy of lying.

And second, It is even more interesting that you think those quotes demonstrate that LimpBoy is not a GOP hack!!!

As the caller observed, if LimpBoy was truly a "movement CON$ervative" he should have been happy that the Dems were becoming more CON$ervative. But he wasn't!!!! He was pissed that HIS PARTY lost to CON$ervatives.

Get it?????????

 

[JakeStarkey]

The only compelling item of interest here is Foxfyre's immorality of stubborness. FF simply cannot admit to being incorrect in perception or conclusion. EdtheCynic has hit the peg square on the nose, and Foxfyre has begun the typical stubborness of hypocrisy.

I will add that Foxfyre's argumentation reeks of intellectual bulemia.