The conundrum

[Neubarth]

Wake up Maggie, I think I've got something to say to you. It's late in this Depression and we really should be back at work.

Once we get the Unemployment Insurance Claims down to 390 thousand a week, THEN we can worry about health care. I have long favored a health care package, but not now.

We need to end this Depression first in order to get public support. It won't fly until then

 

[MaggieMae]

All of that is very sweet and noble, but again, it is pure ideology and is NOT what is actually practiced by the masses of conservatives. Instead, it consists of a pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps mindset; anyone can be successful if he or she only tries; the inner-city poverty pockets made their own bed and now they can lie in it; and my favorite mantra "Don't Tread On Me" which sums up TODAY'S overall conservative mentality quite well. Conservatives have yet to prove to me that, left to their own private charities, they are any better at taking care of the truly helpless, and they most certainly do NOT allow the same "opportunities" for the downtrodden to make it on their own. I don't single out YOU, personally, and I do know that there are millions of truly compassionate conservatives, but as a general rule, the new-new conservatives are all for themselves and nobody else. I got mine, so screw the rest of you. Don't tread on me.

Well that would probably depend on how you define ideology. I define ideology as the basic concepts, principles, and/or values held by an individual, group, or society - the social contract - or - the core beliefs that form the basis of a sociopolitical system.

If that is how you define it then yes, my view of modern American conservatism is based on ideology shared by all or most who consider themselves American conservatives as the term is defined and understood by them now.

If you define it as misconceptions and wrong headed dogma, then you described your own ideology when you so badly misrepresent what modern American conservatism is all about.

For instance, conservatives know that there are people who need a hand up which is why it is almost exclusively conservatives, more especially religious conservative, who establish and volunteer at homeless shelters, soup kitchens, orphanages and homes for troubled children, halfway houses, thrift shops, leper colonies, prison ministries, tutoring and mentoring programs, latchkey programs, etc. etc. etc.

The difference is that liberals look to the government to do things like that and then the liberals don't have to get their hands dirty. They don't seem to care whether anybody's situation ever improves so long as they can salve their conscience by throwing other people's money at the problem.

Conservatives see it as their personal responsibility and, except in rare cases, not the responsibility of government. Conservatives think it is wrong to help people stay in poverty or other unpleasant situation, but that the focus should be on taking care of their basic needs to live but otherwise make getting out of poverty or other unpleasant situation much more attractive than staying in it.

Liberals seem to think good intentions are sufficient to do something. Conservatives know the best intentions can sometimes be disastrous and that the goal should always be results, not just feeling smug or righteous that you meant well.

Liberals see people of color, the poor, the errant, the disadvantaged, and even sometimes the criminal as victims of society and the responsibility of government to make their lives better. Conservatives see them as people with abilities and hopes and dreams and possibilities, and the kindest thing you can do for them is to show them how to make good choices that give them the best possible shot at achieving what they want out of life.

In the broadest term, liberals too often punish or penalize success and reward underachievement or failure. Conservatives think success is a worthy goal and all people should be encouraged to achieve it. That won't happen with many folks if we make it profitable or with little or no consequence for them to fail.

In short Conservatives, on average, more especially religious conservatives, have been more generous with their time, talents, and fortunes than have liberals, on average. Conservatism is not synonymous with lack of compassion or hard heartedness or unwillingness to give folks a hand up. They just disagree with most liberals in the best way to do that.

Whatever leads you to believe that "conservatives" establish more shelters, etc., and "lend a hand up" more so than "liberals"?? Perhaps because you identify only with conservatives, your personal space is only surrounded by like-minded conservatives? "Liberals" are just as apt to take the bull by the horns and make sure that the downtrodden in our neighborhoods have roofs over their heads and food in their bellies.

My own experience in this area has been that when people are willing to lend a helping hand, they don't do it for some political (or even religious) reason nor expect any kudos from community or God. Nobody ever asked me what my "political" affiliation was, ever. And I've volunteered at food banks, mentored troubled kids and especially kids with reading problems, and also at a homeless shelter for Vietnam vets (now taking Iraq vets as well), the latter built from the ground up with donated lumber, etc., the workers, and all the amenities. Nobody ever asked the political leanings of those those people nor the businesses, and it was never published in the local paper that it was a "conservative" group or a "liberal" group who got the project together.

It may come as a surprise to you, because, again, I don't think from all your comments that you've had very much exposure other than to people in your circle who have the same holier-than-thou attitude, that Democrats (liberals, if you must) are just as compassionate, just as religious, and just as human as Republicans (conservatives). We are no more apt to have alcohol or drug problems, beat up on our spouses and kids than your basic Republican. Percentage-wise, Democrats probably attend the church of their choice as much as you do, and we believe in the Golden Rule even when we don't feel the need to sit before a pulpit to hear that, just as some of you don't. We are concerned about our offspring and the future of this country just as much as you are. We donate our money and our time much more than we are given credit for by the ideologues in your party. You're not special, and it's ludicrous to think you are.

All that said, considering the extent of poverty that shockingly exists in this bountiful nation, still the wealthiest on earth, there is no way in hell individiuals can make a dent in it and I will therefore continue to support any government program that does. You can continue spouting self-righteous platitudes, but without help from the government, you would be cleaning up dead bodies off the streets.

 

[MaggieMae]

Wake up Maggie, I think I've got something to say to you. It's late in this Depression and we really should be back at work.

Once we get the Unemployment Insurance Claims down to 390 thousand a week, THEN we can worry about health care. I have long favored a health care package, but not now.

We need to end this Depression first in order to get public support. It won't fly until then

I agree that the health care issue should be tabled. But unfortunately, unemployment is going to continue to be a major problem. Even among the employed, a recent McKinsey Global Institute report found that 71% of US workers hold jobs for which there is decreasing demand, decreasing supply, or both. Which means that many jobs lost to this recession won't be coming back, so the need is even greater now to provide retraining AND investment (both private and government) in what WILL provide the good jobs--such as alternative and renewable energy projects.

 

[Foxfyre]

Whatever leads you to believe that "conservatives" establish more shelters, etc., and "lend a hand up" more so than "liberals"?? Perhaps because you identify only with conservatives, your personal space is only surrounded by like-minded conservatives? "Liberals" are just as apt to take the bull by the horns and make sure that the downtrodden in our neighborhoods have roofs over their heads and food in their bellies.

What leads me to believe it is that I have worked in fields like that both as vocation or as avocation from highschool, college, and all my adult life. I see who is there day after day. I read the studies and analysis and polls related to volunteerism and benevolence in America. Many liberals do volunteer and do directly contribute, but they are in far fewer numbers than the conservatives. Liberals are far less likely to take the initiative to found an agency like that and then expend the blood, sweat, tears, and personal fortune to get it up and keep it running.

Liberals are far more active than conservatives in lobbying the government to address such problems.

My own experience in this area has been that when people are willing to lend a helping hand, they don't do it for some political (or even religious) reason nor expect any kudos from community or God. Nobody ever asked me what my "political" affiliation was, ever. And I've volunteered at food banks, mentored troubled kids and especially kids with reading problems, and also at a homeless shelter for Vietnam vets (now taking Iraq vets as well), the latter built from the ground up with donated lumber, etc., the workers, and all the amenities. Nobody ever asked the political leanings of those those people nor the businesses, and it was never published in the local paper that it was a "conservative" group or a "liberal" group who got the project together.

You're right. People don't do it BECAUSE of their political or religious philosophy or ideology. They do it because of who they are.

But the fact is, one of the traits of conservatism is a mindset of personal responsibility and being results oriented. And that is why more conservatives than liberals see it as a personal responsiblity to tackle problems in society while liberals will look more to it being a government responsibility to tackle problems in society. Conservatives will often reject a one-size-fits-all government approach because it is too often more expensive, bureaucraticly inefficient, and ineffective in solving problem while it is far more likely to create dependencies. Liberals rarely ever look at it that way and just think if government had more power, more money, more involvement, problems would get fixed.

It may come as a surprise to you, because, again, I don't think from all your comments that you've had very much exposure other than to people in your circle who have the same holier-than-thou attitude, that Democrats (liberals, if you must) are just as compassionate, just as religious, and just as human as Republicans (conservatives). We are no more apt to have alcohol or drug problems, beat up on our spouses and kids than your basic Republican. Percentage-wise, Democrats probably attend the church of their choice as much as you do, and we believe in the Golden Rule even when we don't feel the need to sit before a pulpit to hear that, just as some of you don't. We are concerned about our offspring and the future of this country just as much as you are. We donate our money and our time much more than we are given credit for by the ideologues in your party. You're not special, and it's ludicrous to think you are.

I don't recall even implying, much less saying that I think I'm special. Most Americans are mostly conservative by my definition of American conservative whether or not they see themselves that way. You belie your liberalism by turning the discussion to ad hominem impressions, however, rather than competently disputing what I have said.

I also have never said that liberals are not compassionate or religious. Until just recently, I was a VERY active member in one of America's most liberal church denominations, and I have worked shoulder to shoulder with flaming liberal friends, associates, colleagues in numerous worthy endeavors. I don't know why you dragged domestic violence and drug/alcohol abuse into a discussion on ideology, but red herrings and non sequitur are common traits I've observed in many discussions with liberals. (No, conservatives are not immune to that, but I see it less often in arguments put forth by conservatives.)

As to my personal experience, as I said I was heavily involved in a very liberal church for decades and have many ultra liberal friends among colleagues, associates, and family. I used one of those Facebook programs that pulls information from profiles of my Facebook friends and was surprised that more than 70% of my Facebook friends identify themselves as left of center. So you can take that ad hominem assumption and stick where most ad hominem assumptions ought to go.

All that said, considering the extent of poverty that shockingly exists in this bountiful nation, still the wealthiest on earth, there is no way in hell individiuals can make a dent in it and I will therefore continue to support any government program that does. You can continue spouting self-righteous platitudes, but without help from the government, you would be cleaning up dead bodies off the streets.

Has it ever occurred to you that since LBJ, this country has poured more than 7 Trillion - that's trillion with a "T" into his 'war on poverty' and all the results we see of that is destruction of families, destruction of vital old neighorhoods traded out for rat infested projects, creation of permanent underclasses and perpetually unemployable, a steadily increase of incompetence and ineffectiveness in our education system, and more than 60%of the populaton that is now wholly or partially dependent on government.

Do you think that is wonderful?

Or do you think it is time to give conservatism a chance to reverse what I think is an abominable trend?

 

[uscitizen]

Yeah we need more riots and strife in America.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah we need more riots and strife in America.

The only riots and strife I've seen in my lifetime were a result of liberalism, not modern American conservatism.

 

[uscitizen]

Yeah we need more riots and strife in America.

The only riots and strife I've seen in my lifetime were a result of liberalism, not modern American conservatism.

True, the conservatives do like to spend money.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Yeah we need more riots and strife in America.

Riots and strife can be seen as the result of frustration over lack of decent jobs. A case can be made that decent jobs are lacking because the federal government shifted from primarily tariff revenue to primarily income tax revenue. Income tax causes production price increases in the US, those increases help drive manufacturing jobs away from the US. Tariffs raise the cost of products manufactured outside the US, but they do not have to be punitive, and if the main source of federal income were tariffs then the government would have no choice but to keep the tariff low enough to generate revenue; which is to say a non-punitive tariff.

Unfortunately tariffs would not suffice to keep the parasites in Washington DC happy, so we remain saddled with income tax and a weak job market.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah we need more riots and strife in America.

The only riots and strife I've seen in my lifetime were a result of liberalism, not modern American conservatism.

Just cut on SS Medicare and welfare and see what happens.

That is something I, a conservative, am strongly advocating, but it does have to be done slowly, incrementally, and carefully just as it has accrued or there will be unjustifiable suffering to those the government has made dependent on government programs. Do it as Barack Obama, the liberal, proposed it, however, and yeah, you would see a backlash. Liberals might riot, I don't know. Conservatives would be demanding the heads of those in Congress and there would be retribution to be paid at the ballot box.

 

[Foxfyre]

But the conservatives are no longer conservative!

Nonsense. People either hold conservative values or they don't. Some of the people YOU might call conservative might not be conservative, but ALL the people I call conservative are conservative.

 

[California Girl]

whatever they think they are for they merely help the corporations get EVERYTHING they want from us.

The Rs are useful idiots for corporate America.

As are apparently far too many of the dems as well.

Very likely , that can of whoopass (number 10 size) better be opening as we speak or Im done with them too.

I'm certain that, just as soon as someone informs Obama of your toothless threat, he will unleash hell on America, just for you.

Even with a public option, ya can't fix stupid.

 

[California Girl]

Yeah we need more riots and strife in America.

The only riots and strife I've seen in my lifetime were a result of liberalism, not modern American conservatism.

We need public sector workers to die early. Save us a fortune in SS too!

 

[Annie]

The OP was a generalization of the mood of the country. Address that, please. Offering solutions to specific issues are discussed elsewhere (although rather lean on the side of conservatives who are generally 99.99% criticism and 1% solutions).

I sure you see it that way Maggie, but it simply is not true. Conservatism is a concept, a way of life, a specific idea of what good government is and/or should be.

Modern liberalism embraces government and looks to it to provide solutions for all or most of humankind's problems.

Modern American conservatism embraces self reliance, self determination, and personal freedom. It wants government to mostly secure our rights as specified in the Constitution and then leave us alone to seek our own destiny.

And that is your problem. It isn't obstruction or hatefulness or unwillingness to seek solutions. It is the tension between the 'nanny state' and 'freedom'.

Scott Rasmussen sums it up really well in his new book In Search of Self-Governance:

Years of public opinion polls have shown a growing disconnect between the American people and the nation’s political leaders. Rasmussen’s conclusion: Americans don’t want to be governed from the left, the right or the center. They want to govern themselves. The American desire for – and attachment to – self-governance runs deep. It is one of our nation’s cherished core values and an important part of our cultural DNA. And right now, it needs to be saved.


“Self-governance is about far more than politics and government,” says Rasmussen. “It requires a lot of the American people, and it has nothing to do with the petty partisan games played by Republicans and Democrats. Unfortunately, even after more than 200 years of success, there is an urgent need to defend this most basic of American values.”

In Search of Self-Governance - Rasmussen Reports

This country today cannot be run based on pure conservative ideology. It simply can't. We're now a nation of around 307 million very diverse individuals, and conservatism tends to assume that all those millions can be neatly placed in one box and all come out the same--happily ever after--without regard to the enormous differences in class, culture, environment, or community structure. Conservative ideologues live in a world of what-if, and not in the real world of WHAT-IS.

What does diversity have to do the purpose of government?

 

[MaggieMae]

I sure you see it that way Maggie, but it simply is not true. Conservatism is a concept, a way of life, a specific idea of what good government is and/or should be.

Modern liberalism embraces government and looks to it to provide solutions for all or most of humankind's problems.

Modern American conservatism embraces self reliance, self determination, and personal freedom. It wants government to mostly secure our rights as specified in the Constitution and then leave us alone to seek our own destiny.

And that is your problem. It isn't obstruction or hatefulness or unwillingness to seek solutions. It is the tension between the 'nanny state' and 'freedom'.

Scott Rasmussen sums it up really well in his new book In Search of Self-Governance:



In Search of Self-Governance - Rasmussen Reports

This country today cannot be run based on pure conservative ideology. It simply can't. We're now a nation of around 307 million very diverse individuals, and conservatism tends to assume that all those millions can be neatly placed in one box and all come out the same--happily ever after--without regard to the enormous differences in class, culture, environment, or community structure. Conservative ideologues live in a world of what-if, and not in the real world of WHAT-IS.

What does diversity have to do the purpose of government?

Because you can't have a one-size-fits-all form of government, which is what conservatives advocate. Just read some of Foxfyres comments.

 

[Foxfyre]

Because you can't have a one-size-fits-all form of government, which is what conservatives advocate. Just read some of Foxfyres comments.

Well YOU certainly haven't read ANY of Foxfyre's comments if you think a single one of my comments comes anywhere close to your conclusion. That one is over the top even for you, Maggie.

Conservatism rejects most big government solutions to social problems in part because they ARE one-size-fits-all solutions and are therefore doomed to fail. Liberalism promotes big government as THE solution for most of such problems, and I think most liberals honestly believe that if government just had more money, more power, and more authority to fix things, it would.

Conservatives are anti-big government because they know what a lie that is.

 

[uscitizen]

But the conservatives are no longer conservative!

Nonsense. People either hold conservative values or they don't. Some of the people YOU might call conservative might not be conservative, but ALL the people I call conservative are conservative.

True please let me restate that.

Republicans are no longer conservative.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Yeah we need more riots and strife in America.

The only riots and strife I've seen in my lifetime were a result of liberalism, not modern American conservatism.

We need public sector workers to die early. Save us a fortune in SS too!

Public Sector workers don't get SS. They get PERS. Which here in Oregon (And I thin in CA too) is a whole different kettle of rotten fish.

Here in Oregon we had to raise taxes to keep PERS going. Given the way PERS operates here, the situation will only get worse.

 

[Foxfyre]

But the conservatives are no longer conservative!

Nonsense. People either hold conservative values or they don't. Some of the people YOU might call conservative might not be conservative, but ALL the people I call conservative are conservative.

True please let me restate that.

Republicans are no longer conservative.

Alas it is true that many abandoned solid conservative principles they once held fast, and some never were. "Republican" is not synonymous with 'conservative' any more than "Democrat" is synonymous with 'liberal'. You find many variations within both parties though most true conservatives will more likely affiliate with the GOP and most true liberals will affiliate with the Dems. On average the GOP is mostly right of center; the Democrats are mostly left of center.

But it is not true that ALL Republicans are no longer conservative. I can name quite a few who have not abandoned that ship or even fallen off the wagon.

 

[MaggieMae]

Because you can't have a one-size-fits-all form of government, which is what conservatives advocate. Just read some of Foxfyres comments.

Well YOU certainly haven't read ANY of Foxfyre's comments if you think a single one of my comments comes anywhere close to your conclusion. That one is over the top even for you, Maggie.

Conservatism rejects most big government solutions to social problems in part because they ARE one-size-fits-all solutions and are therefore doomed to fail. Liberalism promotes big government as THE solution for most of such problems, and I think most liberals honestly believe that if government just had more money, more power, and more authority to fix things, it would.

Conservatives are anti-big government because they know what a lie that is.

But wasn't it you earlier who posted that any government program should be available to ALL Americans, not just certain classes? And I came back and said something to the effect "welfare for billionnaires you mean"??

Government programs that subsidize the lower class have income eligibility requirements, together with other measurements, so that means they are not one-size fits all.

 

[Foxfyre]

Because you can't have a one-size-fits-all form of government, which is what conservatives advocate. Just read some of Foxfyres comments.

Well YOU certainly haven't read ANY of Foxfyre's comments if you think a single one of my comments comes anywhere close to your conclusion. That one is over the top even for you, Maggie.

Conservatism rejects most big government solutions to social problems in part because they ARE one-size-fits-all solutions and are therefore doomed to fail. Liberalism promotes big government as THE solution for most of such problems, and I think most liberals honestly believe that if government just had more money, more power, and more authority to fix things, it would.

Conservatives are anti-big government because they know what a lie that is.

But wasn't it you earlier who posted that any government program should be available to ALL Americans, not just certain classes? And I came back and said something to the effect "welfare for billionnaires you mean"??

Government programs that subsidize the lower class have income eligibility requirements, together with other measurements, so that means they are not one-size fits all.

I am opposed to the Federal government dispensing welfare to billionaires or anybody else. I am opposed to the Federal government dispensing any form of charity, benevolence, subsidy, etc. to anybody. So yes, whatever goods and services the federal government provides to the people must be for ALL the people--the poor and billlionaires alike. Otherwise whatever 'regulation' is imposed on government welfare can too easily be manipulated to favor pet constituencies and punish others.

My reasons go back to an understanding of the dynamics in government of the people rather than of the elite. Such a government rejects a structure that becomes more self serving than effective in serving the people. The U.S. Constitution was a 'first' in world government and was a great experiment in liberty that is impossible under feudal, monarchal, totalitarian, or socialist systems in which the government decides what the people should and should not have.

At the state and local levels, the people may very well agree on a social contract that pools resources to help the less fortunate. That cannot be done at the federal level without giving government powers that threaten the liberties the Constitution guarantees. Americans have experienced and now value such liberties as none other, and I believe that makes Americans the amazing, resourceful, and productive people that they are.

And I think in the face of increasing pressures from the government to take more and more authority, more people are beginning to recognize the danger in that.

65% Now Hold Populist, or Mainstream, Views
Sunday, January 31, 2010

Sixty-five percent (65%) of voters nationwide now hold populist, or Mainstream, views of government. That’s up from 62% last September and 55% last March.

Mainstream Americans tend to trust the wisdom of the crowd more than their political leaders and are skeptical of both big government and big business (see crosstabs). While Republicans and unaffiliated voters are more likely to hold Mainstream views than Democrats, a majority of those in the president’s party (51%) hold such views.

Only four percent (4%) now support the Political Class. These voters tend to trust political leaders more than the public at large and are far less skeptical about government.

When leaners are included, 81% are in the Mainstream category, and 12% support the Political Class.

Polling conducted from January 18 through January 24 found that 76% of voters generally trust the American people more than political leaders on important national issues. Seventy-one percent (71%) view the federal government as a special interest group, and 70% believe that the government and big business typically work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors. On each question, a majority of Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliated voters share those views.

These results help explain why most voters are angry at the policies of the federal government, and most think that neither political party understands what the country needs.

“The American people don’t want to be governed from the left, the right or the center. The American people want to govern themselves," says Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports. “The American attachment to self-governance runs deep. It is one of our nation’s cherished core values and an important part of our cultural DNA.” . . . .
More here:
65% Now Hold Populist, or Mainstream, Views - Rasmussen Reports