True Conservatism?

[Amelia]

I think I'm a true conservative. I am resistant to change. The status quo may have its problems but it is preferable to major changes which come with the high probability of unforeseen and significant consequences. People are smart. They can figure out how to succeed in almost any environment if they have the will. Give them a little latitude and don't try to pull the rug out from under them every other month and they can survey the landscape and work within its parameters.

Celebrating change for the sake of change is like celebrating growing an extra toe. If your changes are going to be good, make a good case for them.

Not all changes are good.

Gridlock CAN be good. Supermajorities which can bull things through without any help from the opposition and without having made their case to the American public are bad. If someone wants to make significant changes they need to make the case for it.


Those people who consider themselves true conservatives and think of me as a RINO ... well ... if they deserve the change they want - like whatever their plans are to rein in government spending at the possible risk of causing the economy to contract - they need to make the case for it just as much as Obama and the Democrats should have made the case for their healthcare proposals instead of how they pushed harder to pass it by any parliamentary means at their disposal in the face of rising resistance from an alarmed public.



Bottom line: Moderation is more conservative than Conservatism seems to me. I am a moderate and a conservative. I want you to show me your plan if you want to change things around on me. I want a lot more than rhetoric. A lot more than "Anyone but Obama", even though I do personally think that Obama's horrible priorities, naive manipulations and lack of consistent leadership are responsible for the stagnation of what should have been a rebounding economy.

 

[VaYank5150]

Haven't you heard? 9-9-9, baby! That's all you need to know. Oh, and in-state tuition assistance for illegal aliens is OK. Oh, and Mitt wants to increase spending on defense. That about sums up your choices.

 

[Wiseacre]

The way things are now is just not working, and everybody knows it. We've got to change perceptions and attitudes, there's no confidence in the future. To me that means changes in policies regarding taxes, spending, regulation, energy, housing, entitlements, you name it.

But the real change we need is that we are so divided in so many ways. No matter what is proposed, somebody is going to denigrate and demagogue it. We ain't all pulling in the same direction, that's largely how we got out from under the massive debt from WWII. People willingly sacrificed for the good of the country, as they did when we were at war. But now, that ain't happening. These days many are putting the good of the party or themselves over what's really best for everybody. I suppose we can argue about who the worst offender, but what good does that do?

 

[Jackson]

I think I'm a true conservative. I am resistant to change. The status quo may have its problems but it is preferable to major changes which come with the high probability of unforeseen and significant consequences. People are smart. They can figure out how to succeed in almost any environment if they have the will. Give them a little latitude and don't try to pull the rug out from under them every other month and they can survey the landscape and work within its parameters.

Celebrating change for the sake of change is like celebrating growing an extra toe. If your changes are going to be good, make a good case for them.

Not all changes are good.

Gridlock CAN be good. Supermajorities which can bull things through without any help from the opposition and without having made their case to the American public are bad. If someone wants to make significant changes they need to make the case for it.


Those people who consider themselves true conservatives and think of me as a RINO ... well ... if they deserve the change they want - like whatever their plans are to rein in government spending at the possible risk of causing the economy to contract - they need to make the case for it just as much as Obama and the Democrats should have made the case for their healthcare proposals instead of how they pushed harder to pass it by any parliamentary means at their disposal in the face of rising resistance from an alarmed public.



Bottom line: Moderation is more conservative than Conservatism seems to me. I am a moderate and a conservative. I want you to show me your plan if you want to change things around on me. I want a lot more than rhetoric. A lot more than "Anyone but Obama", even though I do personally think that Obama's horrible priorities, naive manipulations and lack of consistent leadership are responsible for the stagnation of what should have been a rebounding economy.

I like what you have written, Amelia. It makes more sense than most of the posts here. If we could have faith that every candidate would spell out truthfully what his plans would be and then stick with them during their administration, we would have fewer qualms about whom to select.

We need the time with each candidate to determine what they stand for so we know exactly what theoir involve. These days, it seems as though we are asked to decide from "sound bites" and who gets the air time on talk shows. We need an evening when each candidate has the time to thoroughly explain their plans. I don't like the media playing such an important role of how candidates are viewed.

 

[Jarhead]

Haven't you heard? 9-9-9, baby! That's all you need to know. Oh, and in-state tuition assistance for illegal aliens is OK. Oh, and Mitt wants to increase spending on defense. That about sums up your choices.

I, too, am a conservative...and whereas myt conservatism revolves around personal responsibility more than anything elese, I am also well aware that more than half the country is not the same as I am.

That being said, I dont exepct any candidate to be able to get elected to Preident withgout having some more "moderate" values. Romney may be that person.

I dont think the 9-9-9 plan deserves to be ridiculed. It warrants a true analysis to see if it can work without hurting the less fortunate any more than this economic climate has hurt them. I like Cain....maybe it is becuase I am sick and tired of our politicians.

Perry? Gotta admit....he seemed to be off his rocker with that tuition breaks to the undocumented immigrants....

However, according to what I have heard, it was a bi-partisan bill that received over 90% approval in the state Senate....so it seems he signed into law something that is preferred by the people oif his state......so maybe we should actually applaud him for not following ideology when such a majority wanted it?????? Something to think about.

However, from a personality strandpoint......he is a bit stiff for me.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think I'm a true conservative. I am resistant to change. The status quo may have its problems but it is preferable to major changes which come with the high probability of unforeseen and significant consequences. People are smart. They can figure out how to succeed in almost any environment if they have the will. Give them a little latitude and don't try to pull the rug out from under them every other month and they can survey the landscape and work within its parameters.

Celebrating change for the sake of change is like celebrating growing an extra toe. If your changes are going to be good, make a good case for them.

Not all changes are good.

Gridlock CAN be good. Supermajorities which can bull things through without any help from the opposition and without having made their case to the American public are bad. If someone wants to make significant changes they need to make the case for it.


Those people who consider themselves true conservatives and think of me as a RINO ... well ... if they deserve the change they want - like whatever their plans are to rein in government spending at the possible risk of causing the economy to contract - they need to make the case for it just as much as Obama and the Democrats should have made the case for their healthcare proposals instead of how they pushed harder to pass it by any parliamentary means at their disposal in the face of rising resistance from an alarmed public.



Bottom line: Moderation is more conservative than Conservatism seems to me. I am a moderate and a conservative. I want you to show me your plan if you want to change things around on me. I want a lot more than rhetoric. A lot more than "Anyone but Obama", even though I do personally think that Obama's horrible priorities, naive manipulations and lack of consistent leadership are responsible for the stagnation of what should have been a rebounding economy.

I think where your heart lies is in Classical Liberalism, Amelia, which technically is what Modern American Conservatives (i.e. Tea Partiers, 9/12ers, Constitutionalists et al) are.

Classical Liberals retain and protect values that have withstood the test of time, promote change where change is warranted, and resist change of what is working. They don't accept government as the solution to fix people problems and they don't look to fix what isn't broken.

Classical Liberals want government to do only that which cannot be done more effectively, efficiently, and/or economically by the private sector. They want government to secure our unalienable, civil, legal, and Constitutional rights and then leave the people alone to form whatever sort of society they wish to have and to govern themselves.

 

[The T]

The way things are now is just not working, and everybody knows it. We've got to change perceptions and attitudes, there's no confidence in the future. To me that means changes in policies regarding taxes, spending, regulation, energy, housing, entitlements, you name it.

But the real change we need is that we are so divided in so many ways. No matter what is proposed, somebody is going to denigrate and demagogue it. We ain't all pulling in the same direction, that's largely how we got out from under the massive debt from WWII. People willingly sacrificed for the good of the country, as they did when we were at war. But now, that ain't happening. These days many are putting the good of the party or themselves over what's really best for everybody. I suppose we can argue about who the worst offender, but what good does that do?

The Founders gave us the roadmap. Too bad that map didn't have a GPS attached. To look at it now shows were we should be and why we shouldn't stray from thier vision, from what they gave us and why elections matter.

 

[paulitician]

Constitutional Conservatism is true Conservatism. Neocons and RINOs try to have it both ways most often. Constitutional Conservatism is the way forward.

 

[DaGoose]

The way things are now is just not working, and everybody knows it. We've got to change perceptions and attitudes, there's no confidence in the future. To me that means changes in policies regarding taxes, spending, regulation, energy, housing, entitlements, you name it.

But the real change we need is that we are so divided in so many ways. No matter what is proposed, somebody is going to denigrate and demagogue it. We ain't all pulling in the same direction, that's largely how we got out from under the massive debt from WWII. People willingly sacrificed for the good of the country, as they did when we were at war. But now, that ain't happening. These days many are putting the good of the party or themselves over what's really best for everybody. I suppose we can argue about who the worst offender, but what good does that do?

The Founders gave us the roadmap. Too bad that map didn't have a GPS attached. To look at it now shows were we should be and why we shouldn't stray from thier vision, from what they gave us and why elections matter.

I can see the roadmap analogy but I prefer a different one. The Founders gave us a foundation on which to build, the tools to correct problems, the Bill of Rights and the checks and balances on which to govern. There is no way they could forsee industrial pollution, air traffic, food borne illness, full time politicians, paved roads, etc..

We were able to grow and adapt to an ever changing nation and world and yet the Constitution has enabled us to grow and adapt while staying within a set framework of rules that they put forth and agreed upon.

 

[Foxfyre]

The way things are now is just not working, and everybody knows it. We've got to change perceptions and attitudes, there's no confidence in the future. To me that means changes in policies regarding taxes, spending, regulation, energy, housing, entitlements, you name it.

But the real change we need is that we are so divided in so many ways. No matter what is proposed, somebody is going to denigrate and demagogue it. We ain't all pulling in the same direction, that's largely how we got out from under the massive debt from WWII. People willingly sacrificed for the good of the country, as they did when we were at war. But now, that ain't happening. These days many are putting the good of the party or themselves over what's really best for everybody. I suppose we can argue about who the worst offender, but what good does that do?

The Founders gave us the roadmap. Too bad that map didn't have a GPS attached. To look at it now shows were we should be and why we shouldn't stray from thier vision, from what they gave us and why elections matter.

I can see the roadmap analogy but I prefer a different one. The Founders gave us a foundation on which to build, the tools to correct problems, the Bill of Rights and the checks and balances on which to govern. There is no way they could forsee industrial pollution, air traffic, food borne illness, full time politicians, paved roads, etc..

We were able to grow and adapt to an ever changing nation and world and yet the Constitution has enabled us to grow and adapt while staying within a set framework of rules that they put forth and agreed upon.

If the federal government secures the rights of the people as the Founders intended, they didn't have to foresee air pollution, air traffic, etc. All they have to do is enact regulation that does not allow one person to infringe on the unalienable rights of another. They fully understood the concept that we cannot have a 'more perfect union' if the states negotiated certain things among themselves which would permit userous or unethical practices should some states gang up on others. So interstate commerce needs federal regulation which would allow for government regulation of minimum standards for food, product safety, etc. The federal government has no business paving roads EXCEPT as necessary for the common defense. Otherwise whatever the government does should be of equal access and benefit to all.

It is quite simple actually. Ask the question: can the states/private sector reasonably do this for their own benefit? If so, it is not a federal responsibility. If not, then the federal government regulates it.

The Founders gave us a document that gives the federal government full authority to promote the GENERAL welfare (meaning what is beneficial to all without respect for class or race or whatever but does not infringe on anybody's unalienable rights) and to do what is necessary to secure those rights.

And if the federal government would again restrict itself to that role, we would again be electing public servants instead of career politicians to office.

 

[WatertheTree]

The way things are now is just not working, and everybody knows it. We've got to change perceptions and attitudes, there's no confidence in the future. To me that means changes in policies regarding taxes, spending, regulation, energy, housing, entitlements, you name it.

But the real change we need is that we are so divided in so many ways. No matter what is proposed, somebody is going to denigrate and demagogue it. We ain't all pulling in the same direction, that's largely how we got out from under the massive debt from WWII. People willingly sacrificed for the good of the country, as they did when we were at war. But now, that ain't happening. These days many are putting the good of the party or themselves over what's really best for everybody. I suppose we can argue about who the worst offender, but what good does that do?

The Founders gave us the roadmap. Too bad that map didn't have a GPS attached. To look at it now shows were we should be and why we shouldn't stray from thier vision, from what they gave us and why elections matter.

I can see the roadmap analogy but I prefer a different one. The Founders gave us a foundation on which to build, the tools to correct problems, the Bill of Rights and the checks and balances on which to govern. There is no way they could forsee industrial pollution, air traffic, food borne illness, full time politicians, paved roads, etc..

We were able to grow and adapt to an ever changing nation and world and yet the Constitution has enabled us to grow and adapt while staying within a set framework of rules that they put forth and agreed upon.

Thats the problem, thats why this system is not working. Our monetary system is in direct violation of the constitution and our founders faught very hard agianst a central bank.

We have dismissed the constitution and the rule of law, yet were suprised and perplexed at why our systems are failing.

There is no accountability. Our 3rd leg of government, the judicial branch has totally failed us so many times.

The biggest problem is that we have turned politics into a spectator sport. Nothing will get better utill everyone with a bone to pick decides to get involved. Attitudes much change. We live in a world where being a criminal makes you 'cooler' then the guy who knows who the vice president is, yet we dont understand why pure evil institutions like the federal reserve are allowed to exist, or how Bush was allowed to stay for a second term.

Democracy depends on participation.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Perry? Gotta admit....he seemed to be off his rocker with that tuition breaks to the undocumented immigrants....

However, according to what I have heard, it was a bi-partisan bill that received over 90% approval in the state Senate....so it seems he signed into law something that is preferred by the people oif his state......so maybe we should actually applaud him for not following ideology when such a majority wanted it?????? Something to think about.

However, from a personality strandpoint......he is a bit stiff for me.

Not to derail this thread, but I would like to point out the Perry situation you just described is almost identical to the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act that Clinton signed, and you guys dump 100% of the blame on Clinton in that situation.

So yes, something to think about.