Modern American Conservatism or Classical Liberalism: A Definition

[whitehall]

Scratch a "classical liberal" and a modern conservative will bleed.

 

[Foxfyre]

Scratch a "classical liberal" and a modern conservative will bleed.

Yes in the definitions I use and that are most commonly used for the modern day American conservative, the terms 'conservative', 'classical liberal', and 'libertarian' (small "L") are interchangeable.

When the definitions are morphed into Republican or the Libertarian (capitol "L") parties, sometimes the definition no longer applies.

 

[Plasmaball]

So you see yourself as a liberal, but, as the terms are used in modern day America, you strongly embrace a very conservative principle of 100% equality in the tax code without respect for political or socioeconomic graphics.

Which goes to show that very few of us are 100% 'conservative' or 'liberal' as those terms are commonly used in America these days, but we all will at times embrace values that are normally not associated with the ideology we claim. The modern day American liberal, for instance, will almost always support a progressive tax, supports taxing the rich even more, supports allowing the less fortunate from paying nothing, etc.

And further, those of us who do support a flat tax and see the value in all having equally proportional 'skin in the game' will often be accused, by liberals, of hard heartedness, having no concern for or hating the poor, of favoring the rich, and other foolish characterizations. It is almost impossible to have a dialogue as to why the flat tax is a concept that not only is 100% fair, but also beneficial to society as a whole, including the poorest Americans.

Oh and P, thank you for answering that question. I have been asking it for days and days now, and you are the first self-professed liberal who has had the integrity to address it. You get a huge gold star.

Thanks for your reply.

That's correct, I agree that it sometimes is a matter of semantics. For instance; I see the Flat tax as equality and fairness. Now many can argue what the tax rate should be, I would prefer that it would be around 10%. I also see a consumption tax to be the same, I think that the details and amount should be clearer. It would make people who are currently not paying taxes, pay taxes.

Not this "modern day Liberal"!

Here's my version of Liberalism:

When it comes to the Bill of Rights, I am like a pro-Second Amendment ACLU type.

When it comes to 'social safety nets', I do support them but I think that the 'help' has to be finite as well as repaid in the amount of 2% from someone's paycheck. I also think that once a person gets a job, they should still get those benefits for a few months, so they can catch up or get ahead. Thus they will hopefully be less likely to have the need to get those benefits again.

We already covered taxation.

I do believe that the States should be "individual laboratories of Democracy", as long as people's Constitutional rights are not infringed (see Jim Crow). Colorado and Washington state are good examples.

Gay marriage; I have no problem with it. I don't see it as a threat to my own heterosexual marriage.

Affirmative Action: I think that we should take steps to eliminate it, because if one has the desire and talent, as well as a work ethic to support the aforementioned, the sky is the limit. If there is any 'Affirmative Action', it should be based on economics and not race, as there are plenty of poor people from every 'race' . Our country has changed and is changing for the better in that regard. My wife is a teacher and when she covers the Civil Rights movement (2nd grade curriculum) the children are totally shocked. I personally think that those topics should be covered when the children are older, so they can have the good positive outlook they have now so they can look forward and not back.

Foreign Policy: I think that we need to be pretty much 'non-interventionist', we should be a Switzerland with the muscle (which we have already) to protect Our nation. We should always have a strong military and weaponry.

Religion:
I'm not in favor of 'school prayer', though I do think it would be good to offer Theology classes in public schools. I don't give a shit if people put a Cross, Menorah, Star & Crescent, etc. on public property during their holidays.

My problem with the current Administration, is that they are much like the prior Administration when it comes to foreign policy and civil liberties issues. Not a few Conservatives like Hannity and co. are very interventionist and remember their statement; "If you have nothing to hide what are you worried about?". Now they suddenly are 'civil libertarians'.


I don't like that Obamacare is mandatory and comes with a penalty if you don't have a plan. I would prefer it to be like Medicare and people have to pay a premium if they want to join that large group policy.

Interesting. You self-identify as a 'liberal' but on almost every one of those points you commented on, you expressed pretty close to the modern American conservative point of view. You would probably agree that most who self identify as 'liberal' in modern day America would not share your point view.

So is it the term 'conservative' that you shy away from? Or are you more like one other USMB member--he hasn't posted on this thread yet and may not--who absolutely refuses to see or admit that the definitions of 'conservative' and 'liberal' are pretty much the polar opposites of what they were in the Founder's day or even at the turn of the 20th Century?
Or something else.

I am not criticizing or accusing you or baiting you in any way. I just am really curious why you self-identify as a liberal holding the views that you hold.

no, no he didnt. Modern conservative has been so butchered that the terms are basically irrelevant these days. Politics have more or less come down to a topic by topic stance/policy.

If anything P is more moderate in his answers than anything else. He is also more logical than most people i know and tends to be at odds with most modern cons these days.

Alot of liberals would agree with is stances, but the kicker is they could have a conversation about it and compromise. Something neither side does anymore.

for the most part modern cons would not agree with his stances.

 

[Erand7899]

Scratch a "classical liberal" and a modern conservative will bleed.

Yes in the definitions I use and that are most commonly used for the modern day American conservative, the terms 'conservative', 'classical liberal', and 'libertarian' (small "L") are interchangeable.

When the definitions are morphed into Republican or the Libertarian (capitol "L") parties, sometimes the definition no longer applies.

That is because the Republican party is not all conservative, and the Libertarian party contains a lot of anarchists who consider themselves to be the true libertarians.

The current war in the Republican party is over cleaning out the liberals who have taken control of the party. They are not going to give up the reins of the party easily.

 

[Foxfyre]

Scratch a "classical liberal" and a modern conservative will bleed.

Yes in the definitions I use and that are most commonly used for the modern day American conservative, the terms 'conservative', 'classical liberal', and 'libertarian' (small "L") are interchangeable.

When the definitions are morphed into Republican or the Libertarian (capitol "L") parties, sometimes the definition no longer applies.

That is because the Republican party is not all conservative, and the Libertarian party contains a lot of anarchists who consider themselves to be the true libertarians.

The current war in the Republican party is over cleaning out the liberals who have taken control of the party. They are not going to give up the reins of the party easily.

And others--and this would be closer to my own perception--would say that the current war in the Republican party is over throwing out the Tea Partiers, 9/12er, and other such conservatives that the old guard resents rocking the boat and presumably costing them votes. How many times have we heard the phrase 'right wing extremists' attached to anybody who is not a member of the Republican 'old guard'? How many times have we heard those on the Left say that the Republicans have to get rid of that type in order to win. And how many of us believe that any modern day American liberal WANTS a Republican to win anything?

But that is because too many Americans are pure partisan instead of liberated critical thinkers who can set aside party affiliation and focus on the concepts that are positive or negative for the people.

 

[boedicca]

Another thing I'd add to FF's fine list is that laws are for a finite period of time - and must be passed by the legislature. No de facto laws written by regulatory bureaucrats.. The laws should sunset - and must be affirmatively renewed by the legislature to continue. We have so many laws that most people are in violation of a law or regulation they never even heard of - which suits Statists because when everyone is a criminal, the people are easier to control.

 

[Plasmaball]

Another thing I'd add to FF's fine list is that laws are for a finite period of time - and must be passed by the legislature. No de facto laws written by regulatory bureaucrats.. The laws should sunset - and must be affirmatively renewed by the legislature to continue. We have so many laws that most people are in violation of a law or regulation they never even heard of - which suits Statists because when everyone is a criminal, the people are easier to control.

All laws sunset in the sense they can be altered or rewritten. The first time the 2nd was changed up because of your idea, you people would scream bloody murder..

Next time try thinking

 

[Pheonixops]

So you see yourself as a liberal, but, as the terms are used in modern day America, you strongly embrace a very conservative principle of 100% equality in the tax code without respect for political or socioeconomic graphics.

Which goes to show that very few of us are 100% 'conservative' or 'liberal' as those terms are commonly used in America these days, but we all will at times embrace values that are normally not associated with the ideology we claim. The modern day American liberal, for instance, will almost always support a progressive tax, supports taxing the rich even more, supports allowing the less fortunate from paying nothing, etc.

And further, those of us who do support a flat tax and see the value in all having equally proportional 'skin in the game' will often be accused, by liberals, of hard heartedness, having no concern for or hating the poor, of favoring the rich, and other foolish characterizations. It is almost impossible to have a dialogue as to why the flat tax is a concept that not only is 100% fair, but also beneficial to society as a whole, including the poorest Americans.

Oh and P, thank you for answering that question. I have been asking it for days and days now, and you are the first self-professed liberal who has had the integrity to address it. You get a huge gold star.

Thanks for your reply.

That's correct, I agree that it sometimes is a matter of semantics. For instance; I see the Flat tax as equality and fairness. Now many can argue what the tax rate should be, I would prefer that it would be around 10%. I also see a consumption tax to be the same, I think that the details and amount should be clearer. It would make people who are currently not paying taxes, pay taxes.

Not this "modern day Liberal"!

Here's my version of Liberalism:

When it comes to the Bill of Rights, I am like a pro-Second Amendment ACLU type.

When it comes to 'social safety nets', I do support them but I think that the 'help' has to be finite as well as repaid in the amount of 2% from someone's paycheck. I also think that once a person gets a job, they should still get those benefits for a few months, so they can catch up or get ahead. Thus they will hopefully be less likely to have the need to get those benefits again.

We already covered taxation.

I do believe that the States should be "individual laboratories of Democracy", as long as people's Constitutional rights are not infringed (see Jim Crow). Colorado and Washington state are good examples.

Gay marriage; I have no problem with it. I don't see it as a threat to my own heterosexual marriage.

Affirmative Action: I think that we should take steps to eliminate it, because if one has the desire and talent, as well as a work ethic to support the aforementioned, the sky is the limit. If there is any 'Affirmative Action', it should be based on economics and not race, as there are plenty of poor people from every 'race' . Our country has changed and is changing for the better in that regard. My wife is a teacher and when she covers the Civil Rights movement (2nd grade curriculum) the children are totally shocked. I personally think that those topics should be covered when the children are older, so they can have the good positive outlook they have now so they can look forward and not back.

Foreign Policy: I think that we need to be pretty much 'non-interventionist', we should be a Switzerland with the muscle (which we have already) to protect Our nation. We should always have a strong military and weaponry.

Religion:
I'm not in favor of 'school prayer', though I do think it would be good to offer Theology classes in public schools. I don't give a shit if people put a Cross, Menorah, Star & Crescent, etc. on public property during their holidays.

My problem with the current Administration, is that they are much like the prior Administration when it comes to foreign policy and civil liberties issues. Not a few Conservatives like Hannity and co. are very interventionist and remember their statement; "If you have nothing to hide what are you worried about?". Now they suddenly are 'civil libertarians'.


I don't like that Obamacare is mandatory and comes with a penalty if you don't have a plan. I would prefer it to be like Medicare and people have to pay a premium if they want to join that large group policy.

Interesting. You self-identify as a 'liberal' but on almost every one of those points you commented on, you expressed pretty close to the modern American conservative point of view. You would probably agree that most who self identify as 'liberal' in modern day America would not share your point view.

So is it the term 'conservative' that you shy away from? Or are you more like one other USMB member--he hasn't posted on this thread yet and may not--who absolutely refuses to see or admit that the definitions of 'conservative' and 'liberal' are pretty much the polar opposites of what they were in the Founder's day or even at the turn of the 20th Century?
Or something else.

I am not criticizing or accusing you or baiting you in any way. I just am really curious why you self-identify as a liberal holding the views that you hold.

Excellent thread, I'm glad that it has not digressed into an insult and pissing contest!

As to myself identifying as a Liberal, let's start with this:

"Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property.[2][3][4][5][6]"

" Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law. "

"In the 21st century it is being argued that emerging is a New liberalism that is centered on the concept of timeless freedom, which would extend negative and positive liberty to future generations through proactive action today.[97] In addition to examining negative, positive, and timeless liberty, liberals have tried to understand the proper relationship between liberty and democracy. As they struggled to expand suffrage rights, liberals increasingly understood that people left out of the democratic decision-making process were liable to the tyranny of the majority, a concept explained in Mill's On Liberty and in Democracy in America (1835) by Alexis de Tocqueville.[98] As a response, liberals began demanding proper safeguards to thwart majorities in their attempts at suppressing the rights of minorities"

Some people may change the definition of Liberalism, but the definition remains the same. How many 'modern Liberals' would disagree with the concepts that I typed above? Which one of my beliefs do you think that conservatives would agree with? The 'safety net', 'gay marriage', 'school prayer', 'foreign policy', etc. ? I can see how they could agree somewhat with the affirmative action, taxation, and Second Amendment stance.

I do 'shy away' from conservatism because it may be that I listen to too much talk radio when driving during the day.

I don't like when, not a few, Black and White conservatives use disparaging terms and phrases about Black people in general. Ones like "The Blacks are on the Democrat plantation." , "Blacks vote democrat because they want free stuff.", and the other 'slave' references. I think it's insulting as well as inaccurate. These are the same people who claim to 'focus on the individual' while they easily lump 'the Blacks' into a group to insult. They tend to try to make the MINORITY of Black people who aren't doing well, the 'face' of "the Blacks" in general. Do they really think the way to win the hearts and minds of people is to insult them with such blanket and inaccurate generalizations?

Conservative Black Chick » Blog Archive » JC Watts Tells RNC Enough with Phony Outreach; Try Inclusion
Michael Steele: For Decades GOP Pursued 'Southern Strategy' That Alienated Minorities

I don't like their hawkish and interventionist foreign policy ideas for the most part.

I sometimes wonder if the same conservatives who advocate the cross or manger on public property, would also support a star and crescent or a Buddha on public property during their holidays.

I am sure that conservatives and I would also disagree on what to do with illegal aliens. I'm more of a path to citizenship than 'round 'em up and deport them'.

I don't like the 'stop and frisk' when it's pretty much race based and without any probable cause. Some if not many conservatives may disagree with me.

I know that you are not trying to 'bait' me, etc. , I enjoy having a civil conversation.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thanks for that P. I'll get back to you on it though I'll probably do it more piecemeal.

Going back to the earlier posts on the thread, I was careful to express that we are using the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' as they are most commonly used and understood in modern day America and that they do NOT conform to the traditional dictionary or encyclopedia definitions of these terms. I quoted Thomas Sowell on Page 1 or 2 that illustrates this beautifully in a few sentences.

But you definitely so far appear to be much more philosophically modern day American conservative in those 10 statements in the OP than you are liberal.

But as I said, I'll get back to you on that and hopefully you will inspire others to chime in on some of that.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would like to focus for a minute on #1 on the list:

Liberty is the ability, with impunity, to be who and what we are in thoughts, beliefs, speech, and action that does not violate the rights of anybody else.

In the last year or so there have been so many cases of bruhahas and punitive measures taken against individuals who were simply being themselves at any given time.

Paula Deen
Phil on Duck Dynasty
Ellen Degeneres in a Penney's ad
The CEO of Chic-fil-a
That bakery that didn't want to participate in a gay wedding
And so many others including those currently on the front pages and being discussed at length on message boards. . . .

None of these people were doing anything to anybody. None were requiring any participation or contribution from anybody else in anything. None were in positions where they were teaching kids or otherwise able to impose their views on anybody else. They were simply being themselves and expecting to be allowed to be who and what they are. But there were those who presumed to punish them for just being who and what they are and who would have destroyed their reputations and means of making a living if they could.

My definition of conservatism sees punishing people for nothing more than being who and what they are, when who and what they are has absolutely nothing to do with us and is hurting nobody, as wrong and should be soundly condemned if not made illegal.

Liberty does not require us to appreciate, condone, agree with, or associate with those we find reprehensible. But liberty does not include license to punish people for no other reason than they hold opinions and beliefs that we don't share.

 

[Erand7899]

Yes in the definitions I use and that are most commonly used for the modern day American conservative, the terms 'conservative', 'classical liberal', and 'libertarian' (small "L") are interchangeable.

When the definitions are morphed into Republican or the Libertarian (capitol "L") parties, sometimes the definition no longer applies.

That is because the Republican party is not all conservative, and the Libertarian party contains a lot of anarchists who consider themselves to be the true libertarians.

The current war in the Republican party is over cleaning out the liberals who have taken control of the party. They are not going to give up the reins of the party easily.

And others--and this would be closer to my own perception--would say that the current war in the Republican party is over throwing out the Tea Partiers, 9/12er, and other such conservatives that the old guard resents rocking the boat and presumably costing them votes. How many times have we heard the phrase 'right wing extremists' attached to anybody who is not a member of the Republican 'old guard'? How many times have we heard those on the Left say that the Republicans have to get rid of that type in order to win. And how many of us believe that any modern day American liberal WANTS a Republican to win anything?

But that is because too many Americans are pure partisan instead of liberated critical thinkers who can set aside party affiliation and focus on the concepts that are positive or negative for the people.

Almost half of voter eligible adults in these United States do not vote at all. I have asked many why they don't vote, and the ususal answer is that they do not believe their vote makes any difference. Some think the election process is rigged, and others think the politicians will not do what they say they will do anyway. So, why vote.

We need to draw these jaded voters back to the polls with a Republican party that represents their values, and does what it says it will do. Dump all the social BS, and stick solidly to sound fiscal policy, sound pro business policies, and a strong national defense. The rest can wait until we get this nation back on track and working again.

I would advocate repeal of both the 16th and 17th amendments, and I would advocate for the FAIR tax. The FAIR tax will bring manufacturing back to the United States, and provide a lot of good paying jobs.

 

[Foxfyre]

To follow up on my previous post, I grew up in an America in which college campuses and other groups invited, welcomed, and treated with great respect people of widely different views and beliefs, and encouraged us to be exposed and to hear this and then discuss and analyze what we heard. So our college campus had Birchers and Communists and Secessionists and Isolationists and Interventionists and every other -ist you can think of in our auditorium at some time and students were encouraged to attend to hear them. To be rude or discourteous to somebody invited to speak would have been unthinkable.

Whatever happened to that America?

The following happened in the UK, but it is illustrative of the kind of polarized ideological snobbery and superiority that is increasingly the case here:

Last year two bloggers who object to what they call the Islamization of America, were prohibited from entered the UK where they had been invited to speak at a English Defence League march in Woolwich where a popular drummer had been killed. The reason for banning them was given that they were undesirable because they promoted hate.

Robert Spencer subsequently wrote for "Jihad Watch":

"When Pamela Geller and I were barred from entering Britain last year, many people who realized how ridiculous that ban was pointed out that Winston Churchill, because of the quote below, would not be welcome in Britain today — an idea which was met with the usual Leftist/Islamic supremacist response of derision and ridicule. But here is proof that those who made this observation were absolutely right.

If there is any genuine resistance in Britain today against jihad terror and Islamic supremacism, it will now champion Paul Weston’s cause. We’ll see. I suspect that more likely the leading “counter-jihadists” in Dhimmi Britannia will pick at Weston’s past statements, saying he wasn’t right just here or just there, and throw him to the wolves. . ."
You are being redirected...

So. . .IF my source is telling it like it is. . .

What did Winston Churchill write all those years ago that is so un-PC that even quoting Churchill would get a person, Paul Weston, arrested? It was this:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.”--from Winston Churchill's book The River War first published in 1899.

Would you demand that this book be banned in your local school library? Or public library?

 

[The T]

Another thing I'd add to FF's fine list is that laws are for a finite period of time - and must be passed by the legislature. No de facto laws written by regulatory bureaucrats.. The laws should sunset - and must be affirmatively renewed by the legislature to continue. We have so many laws that most people are in violation of a law or regulation they never even heard of - which suits Statists because when everyone is a criminal, the people are easier to control.

Indeed. It would seem to me that the Congress has shirked their duties and assigned it elsewhere. And they have the nerve to tell us that they're underpaid. (Whatever happened to PUBLIC SERVICE at the behest of those you represent)?

I wholeheartedly agree with your post. And one other thing the Congress has done is to give the Executive too much power.

It is the purpose of the Congress to protect our liberties, and all they have done is given themselves vast power over us to the point that we have pretty much been rendered slaves...I don't think the Founders would be very pleased.

 

[Pheonixops]

Thanks for that P. I'll get back to you on it though I'll probably do it more piecemeal.

Going back to the earlier posts on the thread, I was careful to express that we are using the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' as they are most commonly used and understood in modern day America and that they do NOT conform to the traditional dictionary or encyclopedia definitions of these terms. I quoted Thomas Sowell on Page 1 or 2 that illustrates this beautifully in a few sentences.

But you definitely so far appear to be much more philosophically modern day American conservative in those 10 statements in the OP than you are liberal.

But as I said, I'll get back to you on that and hopefully you will inspire others to chime in on some of that.

Thank you, I like the PBS type of discussion than ones we see on a few networks. I agree with Plasma that many of us tend to be 'issue by issue' , it much more refreshing to actually DISCUSS topics like this, instead of engaging in mudslinging. I ;ike when things like below happen:

Cory Booker and Tim Scott Are the Senate's Newest Odd Couple | News | BET

"On most days, Sens. Tim Scott (R-South Carolina) and Cory Booker (D-New Jersey), the only two African-Americans serving in the upper chamber of Congress, cancel each other out. That's just how it goes when you're voting from opposite sides of the ideological aisle.

Despite their differences on most policies that hit the Senate floor, the pair has joined forces to create a bipartisan piece of legislation called the Leveraging and Energizing America's Apprenticeship Programs Act (LEAP). It's also the first bill that Booker has sponsored since he arrived at the Capitol.

The bill's primary goal is to increase the number of participants in registered apprenticeships in the U.S. In addition to arming workers with in-demand skills, it would help fill 4 million job vacancies across the nation, the two lawmakers say. They also believe that apprenticeships could make a significant difference to the 16 percent of young people aged 16-24, especially minorities and individuals who don't have college degrees.

"Our competitiveness and economic strength depend on our commitment to developing a 21st century workforce," Booker said."


"A key provision in the measure is a federal tax credit for businesses hiring new apprentices that are registered with the U.S. Labor Department or a state apprenticeship agency. To pay for the tax credit, Booker and Scott are proposing a ban on federal agencies printing publications that are available online, but includes an exemption for seniors, Medicare recipients and communities with limited Internet access."



In my opinion, this is how Washington could work and should work. For republicans and conservatives, this is a MUCH better way to make inroads with 'minorities', and show them your ideas on 'conservative principles'.

You may not like the article but, one can see how the writer of the article admires Jack Kemp and his vision.

Jack Kemp Showed GOP How to Appeal to Minorities | The Fiscal Times

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Modern American Conservatism or Classical Liberalism: A Definition

Pity Americans are hostile to the only viable ‘ism,’ pragmatism.

It is utterly ridiculous that intelligent, rational people should be compelled to blindly adhere to a given political/economic dogma, when the pragmatic approach is always best.

Rather than slavishly abiding by sanctioned political/economic doctrine and dogma, instead pursue a political and economic course predicated on facts, evidence, and what’s most likely to be successful.

What we most often find is that the best ideas are those which take from all political and economic disciplines.

No single ‘ism’ has a monopoly on the truth, reactionary conservatism in particular.

 

[Dot Com]

Modern American Conservatism or Classical Liberalism: A Definition

Pity Americans are hostile to the only viable ‘ism,’ pragmatism.

It is utterly ridiculous that intelligent, rational people should be compelled to blindly adhere to a given political/economic dogma, when the pragmatic approach is always best.

Rather than slavishly abiding by sanctioned political/economic doctrine and dogma, instead pursue a political and economic course predicated on facts, evidence, and what’s most likely to be successful.

What we most often find is that the best ideas are those which take from all political and economic disciplines.

No single ‘ism’ has a monopoly on the truth, reactionary conservatism in particular.

we'd have to remove the $$$ from politics to get anything like a gov't that works for the vast majority of Americans. Something modern-day conservatives are adamantly against I might add.

 

[Pheonixops]

I would like to focus for a minute on #1 on the list:

Liberty is the ability, with impunity, to be who and what we are in thoughts, beliefs, speech, and action that does not violate the rights of anybody else.

In the last year or so there have been so many cases of bruhahas and punitive measures taken against individuals who were simply being themselves at any given time.

Paula Deen
Phil on Duck Dynasty
Ellen Degeneres in a Penney's ad
The CEO of Chic-fil-a
That bakery that didn't want to participate in a gay wedding
And so many others including those currently on the front pages and being discussed at length on message boards. . . .

None of these people were doing anything to anybody. None were requiring any participation or contribution from anybody else in anything. None were in positions where they were teaching kids or otherwise able to impose their views on anybody else. They were simply being themselves and expecting to be allowed to be who and what they are. But there were those who presumed to punish them for just being who and what they are and who would have destroyed their reputations and means of making a living if they could.

My definition of conservatism sees punishing people for nothing more than being who and what they are, when who and what they are has absolutely nothing to do with us and is hurting nobody, as wrong and should be soundly condemned if not made illegal.

Liberty does not require us to appreciate, condone, agree with, or associate with those we find reprehensible. But liberty does not include license to punish people for no other reason than they hold opinions and beliefs that we don't share.

My take on the above is that I agree that people shouldn't be harmed for speaking their mind. I also think that if people don't like what someone says, they also have their First Amendment right to speak out about it and disagree with the person. If people want to boycott the person's show, store, establishment, etc. , they have a right to do it in a lawful manner.
When Reverend Wright made his statements, plenty of conservative republicans were up in arms and looping what he said, day after day on their radio and TV shows. They railed against so-called 'Black Liberation Theology'. When Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc., make a statement, conservatives exercise their First Amendment rights to speak out against them. It's not a one way street. That said, I would disagree if the government went after Ms. Deen, The Duck Guy. Sterling, Bundy, for saying what they said. I would feel that their First Amendment rights were being violated.

 

[Foxfyre]

That is because the Republican party is not all conservative, and the Libertarian party contains a lot of anarchists who consider themselves to be the true libertarians.

The current war in the Republican party is over cleaning out the liberals who have taken control of the party. They are not going to give up the reins of the party easily.

And others--and this would be closer to my own perception--would say that the current war in the Republican party is over throwing out the Tea Partiers, 9/12er, and other such conservatives that the old guard resents rocking the boat and presumably costing them votes. How many times have we heard the phrase 'right wing extremists' attached to anybody who is not a member of the Republican 'old guard'? How many times have we heard those on the Left say that the Republicans have to get rid of that type in order to win. And how many of us believe that any modern day American liberal WANTS a Republican to win anything?

But that is because too many Americans are pure partisan instead of liberated critical thinkers who can set aside party affiliation and focus on the concepts that are positive or negative for the people.

Almost half of voter eligible adults in these United States do not vote at all. I have asked many why they don't vote, and the ususal answer is that they do not believe their vote makes any difference. Some think the election process is rigged, and others think the politicians will not do what they say they will do anyway. So, why vote.

We need to draw these jaded voters back to the polls with a Republican party that represents their values, and does what it says it will do. Dump all the social BS, and stick solidly to sound fiscal policy, sound pro business policies, and a strong national defense. The rest can wait until we get this nation back on track and working again.

I would advocate repeal of both the 16th and 17th amendments, and I would advocate for the FAIR tax. The FAIR tax will bring manufacturing back to the United States, and provide a lot of good paying jobs.

First we have to have a pretty cohesive national consensus on what we want to accomplish before we get to the 'how to'. That is the general purpose of this thread. What do you want the federal government to do? What do you want the federal government not to do? What is social BS? What is 'sound fiscal policy'? What are 'pro business policies?' What constitutes a 'strong national defense?' Unless most of us are on the same page of what we want the government to do or not do, then going straight to the 'how to' will just keep producing more of the same mismatched, convoluted, and ever more confused system that we now have.

I have another thread out there that is generating almost no response, but it is a review of the concepts of government posed by Peter Schweizer in his newest book. One thing he says the government uses effectively to control we the people is fear of prosecution. There are currently so many laws on the books that on any given day anybody doing any business at all could be committing three felonies a day. A implied suggested threat by a politician that such things might 'get looked into' is sufficient to get a CEO to fork over considerable campaign cash to 'help out' the politician in some other way.

Boedicca's idea about Congress being required to look at and renew those laws ever so often would certainly be a start.

 

[Pheonixops]

To follow up on my previous post, I grew up in an America in which college campuses and other groups invited, welcomed, and treated with great respect people of widely different views and beliefs, and encouraged us to be exposed and to hear this and then discuss and analyze what we heard. So our college campus had Birchers and Communists and Secessionists and Isolationists and Interventionists and every other -ist you can think of in our auditorium at some time and students were encouraged to attend to hear them. To be rude or discourteous to somebody invited to speak would have been unthinkable.

Whatever happened to that America?

The following happened in the UK, but it is illustrative of the kind of polarized ideological snobbery and superiority that is increasingly the case here:

Last year two bloggers who object to what they call the Islamization of America, were prohibited from entered the UK where they had been invited to speak at a English Defence League march in Woolwich where a popular drummer had been killed. The reason for banning them was given that they were undesirable because they promoted hate.

Robert Spencer subsequently wrote for "Jihad Watch":

"When Pamela Geller and I were barred from entering Britain last year, many people who realized how ridiculous that ban was pointed out that Winston Churchill, because of the quote below, would not be welcome in Britain today — an idea which was met with the usual Leftist/Islamic supremacist response of derision and ridicule. But here is proof that those who made this observation were absolutely right.

If there is any genuine resistance in Britain today against jihad terror and Islamic supremacism, it will now champion Paul Weston’s cause. We’ll see. I suspect that more likely the leading “counter-jihadists” in Dhimmi Britannia will pick at Weston’s past statements, saying he wasn’t right just here or just there, and throw him to the wolves. . ."
You are being redirected...

So. . .IF my source is telling it like it is. . .

What did Winston Churchill write all those years ago that is so un-PC that even quoting Churchill would get a person, Paul Weston, arrested? It was this:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.”--from Winston Churchill's book The River War first published in 1899.

Would you demand that this book be banned in your local school library? Or public library?

Heck no.

 

[The T]

And others--and this would be closer to my own perception--would say that the current war in the Republican party is over throwing out the Tea Partiers, 9/12er, and other such conservatives that the old guard resents rocking the boat and presumably costing them votes. How many times have we heard the phrase 'right wing extremists' attached to anybody who is not a member of the Republican 'old guard'? How many times have we heard those on the Left say that the Republicans have to get rid of that type in order to win. And how many of us believe that any modern day American liberal WANTS a Republican to win anything?

But that is because too many Americans are pure partisan instead of liberated critical thinkers who can set aside party affiliation and focus on the concepts that are positive or negative for the people.

Almost half of voter eligible adults in these United States do not vote at all. I have asked many why they don't vote, and the ususal answer is that they do not believe their vote makes any difference. Some think the election process is rigged, and others think the politicians will not do what they say they will do anyway. So, why vote.

We need to draw these jaded voters back to the polls with a Republican party that represents their values, and does what it says it will do. Dump all the social BS, and stick solidly to sound fiscal policy, sound pro business policies, and a strong national defense. The rest can wait until we get this nation back on track and working again.

I would advocate repeal of both the 16th and 17th amendments, and I would advocate for the FAIR tax. The FAIR tax will bring manufacturing back to the United States, and provide a lot of good paying jobs.

First we have to have a pretty cohesive national consensus on what we want to accomplish before we get to the 'how to'. That is the general purpose of this thread. What do you want the federal government to do? What do you want the federal government not to do? What is social BS? What is 'sound fiscal policy'? What are 'pro business policies?' What constitutes a 'strong national defense?' Unless most of us are on the same page of what we want the government to do or not do, then going straight to the 'how to' will just keep producing more of the same mismatched, convoluted, and ever more confused system that we now have.

I have another thread out there that is generating almost no response, but it is a review of the concepts of government posed by Peter Schweizer in his newest book. One thing he says the government uses effectively to control we the people is fear of prosecution. There are currently so many laws on the books that on any given day anybody doing any business at all could be committing three felonies a day. A implied suggested threat by a politician that such things might 'get looked into' is sufficient to get a CEO to fork over considerable campaign cash to 'help out' the politician in some other way.

Boedicca's idea about Congress being required to look at and renew those laws ever so often would certainly be a start.

And so would a complete LAW review to weed out overlapping Law, and Law that has outlived it's usefulness to the point it has become a stigma and rendered the liberty of the people as outmoded and favours Government. Those laws must go.