The founders idea of a political spectrum

[Vast LWC]

No, conservatives don't want the federal government managing social issues either.

Conservatives want the federal government to secure and defend our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever society we wish to form. So if the people of Podunk Junction don't want abortion clinics or strip clubs or drive up liquor windows or gambling casinos, they aren't required to have them. They can form whatever social contract they want and have the kind of society they want just so long as they don't trample on anybody's unalienable rights.

But if Center City down the road wants abortion clinics, strip clubs, drive up liquor windows, gambling casinos, or anything else they want, they can also form whatever social contract they want and have the kind of society they want just so they don't trample on anybody's unalienable rights.

That is how the Founders saw it. The Federal government would secure and defend everybody's rights with whatever laws and regulation was necessary to do that, but would otherwise stay out of it. Short of violating those rights or interfering with each other, the states, counties, and cities could form whatever kind of government and society they wanted to have.

Again, these are Libertarian ideals you're describing, not conservative ideals.

And you're right, SOME of the founders were in fact libertarians. Some others were not.

Think about who has controlled the modern conservative movement since it strayed from Goldwater-era Libertarianism.

Groups like the "Moral Majority" and the "Christian Coalition".

 

[Foxfyre]

Examples of Conservative moral issues where they desire more governmental control:

*Harsher prison sentences.

In most cases a state's rights issue rather than a federal one, but in either case, getting bad guys off the streets and keeping them off the streets is a matter of public safety and protecting the unalienable rights of the people. If there are no consequences for violating the rights of others, then there are no rights at all.

*Stricter drug laws.

For those conservatives that want that, the same reasoning applies. Preventing violation of our rights because of drug abuse is a valid function of government. Not all conservatives by any means are in agreement on how best to do that, however and this really isn't a conservative vs liberal issue.

*Warrantless wiretapping.

Only as necessary to catch and apprehend those intent on doing mayhem and destruction and otherwise violating our rights.

*The Death Penalty.

This is another one that is neither conservative nor liberal and you'll find a large percentage of folks in both camps being for it and being against it.

*Illegal Immigration control.

Yep. Conservatives definitely do believe that necessary laws should be enforced.

*Pornography Laws.

This is another where you'll find folks in both camps wanting stronger laws or less regulation. Not a conservative vs liberal issue.

*Language censorship in the media.

That's a liberal thing, not a conservative one.

These are just some examples, I could go on.

So could I. But in each issue just ask yourself: what unalienable, civil, legal, or Constitutional right is affected here. If it takes away from or weakens any such rights, Conservatives will usually oppose it. If it doesn't, then most conservatives won't have a problem with it.

 

[Vast LWC]

Examples of Conservative moral issues where they desire more governmental control:

*Harsher prison sentences.

In most cases a state's rights issue rather than a federal one, but in either case, getting bad guys off the streets and keeping them off the streets is a matter of public safety and protecting the unalienable rights of the people. If there are no consequences for violating the rights of others, then there are no rights at all.

*Stricter drug laws.

For those conservatives that want that, the same reasoning applies. Preventing violation of our rights because of drug abuse is a valid function of government. Not all conservatives by any means are in agreement on how best to do that, however and this really isn't a conservative vs liberal issue.



Only as necessary to catch and apprehend those intent on doing mayhem and destruction and otherwise violating our rights.



This is another one that is neither conservative nor liberal and you'll find a large percentage of folks in both camps being for it and being against it.



Yep. Conservatives definitely do believe that necessary laws should be enforced.



This is another where you'll find folks in both camps wanting stronger laws or less regulation. Not a conservative vs liberal issue.

*Language censorship in the media.

That's a liberal thing, not a conservative one.

These are just some examples, I could go on.

So could I. But in each issue just ask yourself: what unalienable, civil, legal, or Constitutional right is affected here. If it takes away from or weakens any such rights, Conservatives will usually oppose it. If it doesn't, then most conservatives won't have a problem with it.

Rationalizations as to why these issues are in fact supported by conservatives do not change the fact that they are supported.

And no, language censorship in the media, as applied to cursing and profanity, is not a "liberal thing". Just because one Democrat, Tipper Gore, was involved in that particular cause does not make it a liberal issue. Most of the people that support censorship of dirty language in the media are in fact conservatives.

And the desire for enforcement of pornography laws is much more prevalent in conservatives than it is in Liberals. "Child Pornography" is a different issue, as it pertains to minors, and minors are not afforded the same rights as adults, so are afforded extra protection by EVERYONE.

 

[Foxfyre]

Examples of Conservative moral issues where they desire more governmental control:

*Harsher prison sentences.

In most cases a state's rights issue rather than a federal one, but in either case, getting bad guys off the streets and keeping them off the streets is a matter of public safety and protecting the unalienable rights of the people. If there are no consequences for violating the rights of others, then there are no rights at all.



For those conservatives that want that, the same reasoning applies. Preventing violation of our rights because of drug abuse is a valid function of government. Not all conservatives by any means are in agreement on how best to do that, however and this really isn't a conservative vs liberal issue.



Only as necessary to catch and apprehend those intent on doing mayhem and destruction and otherwise violating our rights.



This is another one that is neither conservative nor liberal and you'll find a large percentage of folks in both camps being for it and being against it.



Yep. Conservatives definitely do believe that necessary laws should be enforced.



This is another where you'll find folks in both camps wanting stronger laws or less regulation. Not a conservative vs liberal issue.



That's a liberal thing, not a conservative one.

These are just some examples, I could go on.

So could I. But in each issue just ask yourself: what unalienable, civil, legal, or Constitutional right is affected here. If it takes away from or weakens any such rights, Conservatives will usually oppose it. If it doesn't, then most conservatives won't have a problem with it.

Rationalizations as to why these issues are in fact supported by conservatives do not change the fact that they are supported.

And no, language censorship in the media, as applied to cursing and profanity, is not a "liberal thing". Just because one Democrat "Tipper Gore" was involved in that particular cause does not make it a liberal issue. Most of the people that support censorship of dirty language in the media are in fact conservatives.

Most of those are supported by some but not all. They are not 'conservative' issues any more than 'liberal' issues. It is important to separate the social contract and societal norms for what is is and is not appropriate for the government to dictate.

But yes, conservatives do want to know that it is safe to sit and watch a family television show or movie with reasonable assurance that their kids won't be subjected to images and language that the parents consider inappropriate for children. So they do support a degree of cultural values being incorporated into shared media. Intelligent conservatives however don't want such things carried to an absurd degree.

But it is the liberals who are the PC police, who demand that heads roll and people be fired and who organize boycotts and demand blood for a radio host or some other figure uttering a politically incorrect term. To me that is a far more sinister form of censorship.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, conservatives don't want the federal government managing social issues either.

Conservatives want the federal government to secure and defend our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever society we wish to form. So if the people of Podunk Junction don't want abortion clinics or strip clubs or drive up liquor windows or gambling casinos, they aren't required to have them. They can form whatever social contract they want and have the kind of society they want just so long as they don't trample on anybody's unalienable rights.

But if Center City down the road wants abortion clinics, strip clubs, drive up liquor windows, gambling casinos, or anything else they want, they can also form whatever social contract they want and have the kind of society they want just so they don't trample on anybody's unalienable rights.

That is how the Founders saw it. The Federal government would secure and defend everybody's rights with whatever laws and regulation was necessary to do that, but would otherwise stay out of it. Short of violating those rights or interfering with each other, the states, counties, and cities could form whatever kind of government and society they wanted to have.

Again, these are Libertarian ideals you're describing, not conservative ideals.

And you're right, SOME of the founders were in fact libertarians. Some others were not.

Think about who has controlled the modern conservative movement since it strayed from Goldwater-era Libertarianism.

Groups like the "Moral Majority" and the "Christian Coalition".

Modern American Conservatism and liberalism (little 'l') definitely have a lot in common. In their purest form they are almost identical.

Groups like the "Moral Majority" and the "Christian Coalition" probably have overstepped the boundaries now and then, but they never would have existed if they hadn't felt that liberalism was being forced on them through the government in a way that did violate their unalienable rights.

You have to step outside your prejudices where such groups are concerned and hear what they are actually saying. You don't have to agree with them--hell, I don't agree with a lot of their stuff--but so long as they are American citizens organizing to have a voice in the process, they are no worse and no different than any of the leftist groups that do that. And whether its leftwing or rightwing groups, they can be effective only with a federal government that is inappropriately meddling in social issues it should leave to the states and local communities to manage.

 

[The T]

No, conservatives don't want the federal government managing social issues either.

Conservatives want the federal government to secure and defend our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever society we wish to form. So if the people of Podunk Junction don't want abortion clinics or strip clubs or drive up liquor windows or gambling casinos, they aren't required to have them. They can form whatever social contract they want and have the kind of society they want just so long as they don't trample on anybody's unalienable rights.

But if Center City down the road wants abortion clinics, strip clubs, drive up liquor windows, gambling casinos, or anything else they want, they can also form whatever social contract they want and have the kind of society they want just so they don't trample on anybody's unalienable rights.

That is how the Founders saw it. The Federal government would secure and defend everybody's rights with whatever laws and regulation was necessary to do that, but would otherwise stay out of it. Short of violating those rights or interfering with each other, the states, counties, and cities could form whatever kind of government and society they wanted to have.

Again, these are Libertarian ideals you're describing, not conservative ideals.

And you're right, SOME of the founders were in fact libertarians. Some others were not.

Think about who has controlled the modern conservative movement since it strayed from Goldwater-era Libertarianism.

Groups like the "Moral Majority" and the "Christian Coalition".

Modern American Conservatism and liberalism (little 'l') definitely have a lot in common. In their purest form they are almost identical.

Groups like the "Moral Majority" and the "Christian Coalition" probably have overstepped the boundaries now and then, but they never would have existed if they hadn't felt that liberalism was being forced on them through the government in a way that did violate their unalienable rights.

You have to step outside your prejudices where such groups are concerned and hear what they are actually saying. You don't have to agree with them--hell, I don't agree with a lot of their stuff--but so long as they are American citizens organizing to have a voice in the process, they are no worse and no different than any of the leftist groups that do that. And whether its leftwing or rightwing groups, they can be effective only with a federal government that is inappropriately meddling in social issues it should leave to the states and local communities to manage.

Very Well-Written.

An Imperial Federal Government as we have now was never the intent of the Founders. A free and just society was...based on the rule of LAW where everyone was concerned without stepping upon others and their exercise of Liberty. (Based upon the individual).

What we have now favours one group over another and contrary to the spirit of what we were given. A precarious balance is way out of whack.

A Republic if we can keep it...indeed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Tell the social conservatives then to back off nationally on certain hotbutton ideas such as gay marriage and abortion, and let the states handle it, conservatives. Be consistent in your philosophy because every time I hear Palin et al speak I hear big-government GOP'ism, and who wants that?

 

[Vast LWC]

Modern American Conservatism and liberalism (little 'l') definitely have a lot in common. In their purest form they are almost identical.

Groups like the "Moral Majority" and the "Christian Coalition" probably have overstepped the boundaries now and then, but they never would have existed if they hadn't felt that liberalism was being forced on them through the government in a way that did violate their unalienable rights.

You have to step outside your prejudices where such groups are concerned and hear what they are actually saying. You don't have to agree with them--hell, I don't agree with a lot of their stuff--but so long as they are American citizens organizing to have a voice in the process, they are no worse and no different than any of the leftist groups that do that. And whether its leftwing or rightwing groups, they can be effective only with a federal government that is inappropriately meddling in social issues it should leave to the states and local communities to manage.

Sorry, I stepped away, but I'm back for a bit.

What do you think "Family Values", the center of the entire Conservative platform, means?

Look, I'm not making judgement calls here on whether right or left is better. What I am saying is that Totalitarianism is neither right nor left, but it's own separate entity. As is Libertarianism.

And, yeah sure, there are exceptions among people on the left-hand side of the fence who do want some moral governance (making them more totalitarian) just like there are some exceptions on the right-hand side of the fence that are pissed at corporations and feel there should be some regulation. But those are exceptions to the general rule.

A lot of conservative folks say that the Republican party became more "left-wing" during the Bush administration. That is not true. They just moved along the right-hand side of the fence further away from Libertarianism and further towards Totalitarianism.

Now, you can say that you think Obama, for instance, is a totalitarian, (I'd disagree of course) but understand that liberalism and totalitarianism are just as far apart on the spectrum as conservatism and totalitarianism.

 

[The T]

Tell the social conservatives then to back off nationally on certain hotbutton ideas such as gay marriage and abortion, and let the states handle it, conservatives. Be consistent in your philosophy because every time I hear Palin et al speak I hear big-government GOP'ism, and who wants that?

A Tenth-Amendment Guy? Really Jake? Whoda' THUNK IT?

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry, I stepped away, but I'm back for a bit.

What do you think "Family Values", the center of the entire Conservative platform, means?

Look, I'm not making judgement calls here on whether right or left is better. What I am saying is that Totalitarianism is neither right nor left, but it's own separate entity. As is Libertarianism.

I agree that Libertarianism (Capital "L") can't be compartmentalized because it certain is not centrist but half of it goes right and half of it goes extreme right.

Totalitarianism is barely to the right of Dictatorship and barely to the left of Monarchy and all are far left because all put all the power in the government and allow none to the people. For me (and the OP) what determines left or right is based on what powers/rights the people have. Little or none - far left. Anarchy - far right. Conservatism is to the left of Anarchy however because conservatism embraces a government charged to protect and defend the rights of the people. The people are not given authority to infringe on the rights of any other, but otherwise all the power is invested in them.

And, yeah sure, there are exceptions among people on the left-hand side of the fence who do want some moral governance (making them more totalitarian) just like there are some exceptions on the right-hand side of the fence that are pissed at corporations and feel there should be some regulation. But those are exceptions to the general rule.

Moral governance is not what determines that a government is Totalitarian but rather the degree of power and authority it commands to dictate morality or ecnomics or sociopolitical structures.

But petitioning the government for address of grievances is an unalienable right afforded by our 'conservative' Constitution. It might be leftists or rightwingers for instance that are pissed off at corporations they feel are trampling on their rights and either might petition the government to do something about it via regulation or punative measures or whatever. It might be leftists or rightwingers protesting destruction of habitat or aesthetic beauty or pollution of air, water, soil and either might petition the government for regulation that would address/repair that. And some would see it as a moral problem that a corporation was cheating people or that some entity was polluting the environment.

But set moral judgments aside and it still comes down to an issue of rights being violated. That is appropriate for government to address. Matters of individual preference however, that do not violate individual rights, should be decided at more local levels.

A lot of conservative folks say that the Republican party became more "left-wing" during the Bush administration. That is not true. They just moved along the right-hand side of the fence further away from Libertarianism and further towards Totalitarianism.

This is dead wrong, in my opinion, but is too complicated to get into here. Suffice it to say that conservatives ranged from mildly angry to furious with President Bush for what they believed was irresponsible domestic spending (advocated by the left), lenient immigration policy including amnesty (advocated by the left), endorsement of international global warming controls (advocated by the left), NCLB (federal control of schools - a leftist thing), prescription drugs for seniors (more socialized medicine - a leftist thing), steel tariffs (a leftist thing) etc. etc. etc. All of these were way left of center from where most of us conservatives thought we should be.

Now, you can say that you think Obama, for instance, is a totalitarian, (I'd disagree of course) but understand that liberalism and totalitarianism are just as far apart on the spectrum as conservatism and totalitarianism.

Nobody I know that I would consider a conservative has said Obama is a totalitarian, but he certainly does have socialist and Marxist leanings as demonstrated in his writings, in his rhetoric, and in the kinds of people he surrounds himself with. And to the degree that leftists put their faith in government to bring about reform and social change, modern American liberals share quite a bit in common with socialism and Marxism.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sorry, I stepped away, but I'm back for a bit.

What do you think "Family Values", the center of the entire Conservative platform, means?

Look, I'm not making judgement calls here on whether right or left is better. What I am saying is that Totalitarianism is neither right nor left, but it's own separate entity. As is Libertarianism.

I agree that Libertarianism (Capital "L") can't be compartmentalized because it certain is not centrist but half of it goes right and half of it goes extreme right.

Totalitarianism is barely to the right of Dictatorship and barely to the left of Monarchy and all are far left because all put all the power in the government and allow none to the people. For me (and the OP) what determines left or right is based on what powers/rights the people have. Little or none - far left. Anarchy - far right. Conservatism is to the left of Anarchy however because conservatism embraces a government charged to protect and defend the rights of the people. The people are not given authority to infringe on the rights of any other, but otherwise all the power is invested in them.

And, yeah sure, there are exceptions among people on the left-hand side of the fence who do want some moral governance (making them more totalitarian) just like there are some exceptions on the right-hand side of the fence that are pissed at corporations and feel there should be some regulation. But those are exceptions to the general rule.

Moral governance is not what determines that a government is Totalitarian but rather the degree of power and authority it commands to dictate morality or ecnomics or sociopolitical structures.

But petitioning the government for address of grievances is an unalienable right afforded by our 'conservative' Constitution. It might be leftists or rightwingers for instance that are pissed off at corporations they feel are trampling on their rights and either might petition the government to do something about it via regulation or punative measures or whatever. It might be leftists or rightwingers protesting destruction of habitat or aesthetic beauty or pollution of air, water, soil and either might petition the government for regulation that would address/repair that. And some would see it as a moral problem that a corporation was cheating people or that some entity was polluting the environment.

But set moral judgments aside and it still comes down to an issue of rights being violated. That is appropriate for government to address. Matters of individual preference however, that do not violate individual rights, should be decided at more local levels.

A lot of conservative folks say that the Republican party became more "left-wing" during the Bush administration. That is not true. They just moved along the right-hand side of the fence further away from Libertarianism and further towards Totalitarianism.

This is dead wrong, in my opinion, but is too complicated to get into here. Suffice it to say that conservatives ranged from mildly angry to furious with President Bush for what they believed was irresponsible domestic spending (advocated by the left), lenient immigration policy including amnesty (advocated by the left), endorsement of international global warming controls (advocated by the left), NCLB (federal control of schools - a leftist thing), prescription drugs for seniors (more socialized medicine - a leftist thing), steel tariffs (a leftist thing) etc. etc. etc. All of these were way left of center from where most of us conservatives thought we should be.

Now, you can say that you think Obama, for instance, is a totalitarian, (I'd disagree of course) but understand that liberalism and totalitarianism are just as far apart on the spectrum as conservatism and totalitarianism.

Nobody I know that I would consider a conservative has said Obama is a totalitarian, but he certainly does have socialist and Marxist leanings as demonstrated in his writings, in his rhetoric, and in the kinds of people he surrounds himself with. And to the degree that leftists put their faith in government to bring about reform and social change, modern American liberals share quite a bit in common with socialism and Marxism.

Evidence of socialist and marxist leanings, please, in his writings and his rhetoric.