What beliefs define a 21st Century American conservative?

[kaz]

I guess most conservatives would wonder why I have turned against the new republican party.

...

I also see how this country is being taken over by those with the most wealth

Not really, you're not a conservative. You're yet another wealth envy liberal who calls himself a conservative and you fooled only yourself. This board has several of you, enjoy...

 

[initforme]

Yup I'm fooling myself. You just proved my point. Thanks. That was easy.

 

[Foxfyre]

I guess most conservatives would wonder why I have turned against the new republican party.

...

I also see how this country is being taken over by those with the most wealth

Not really, you're not a conservative. You're yet another wealth envy liberal who calls himself a conservative and you fooled only yourself. This board has several of you, enjoy...

I don't know that init is necessarily a 'wealth envy' liberal. What makes him a liberal is the implication--I say implication because I may be misinterpreting what he wrote--that those who accumulate wealth are automatically responsible to take care of those who don't, and what is wrong with America is that some accumulate much wealth.

A conservative would say that, while charity is commendable and even necessary in a moral society, it is an individual choice and not to be decided by others. A conservative would say that those who honorably and ethically acquire wealth by any means do not need to be ashamed of or hold contempt for that wealth.

I would need to know what specifically he objects to re Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum to further evaluate that.

All liberals would say that hard work and living within your means is a virtue. So would all conseratives. So that alone defines neither group.

Though it is certainly a worthy goal and an asset, I disagree that a college education is essential for making your way in the world these days. A number of my family members in the younger generation with no more or little more than a highschool education are quite successful in their respective careers. A couple of them only have G.E.D.s. Success usually does require self confidence, a vision, a work ethic, and marketable skills whether acquired or via inate talent.

Again conservatism is a state of mind. It is personal responsibility and accountablity within a system of self governance. The modern American conservative wants no king or ruling authority to dictate what he shall be or what he may accomplish and feels entitled to nothing he has not earned by his own labor and ability.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And what you would 'like to see' is what defines you as a modern American conservative. It is the conservatism and vision of the Founders that has nothing at all to do with dictionary definitions, how the Left would characterize it, or whether a person has an R or D after their name.

And that perspective characterizes you as a (modern is not quite correct) contemporary conservative.

We have no source to understand the exact definition of the words used by the founders, no dictionary - that I'm able to find - exists which may have been used by them and Webster's first edition, American Dictionary of the English Language was published in 1828, decades after the writing of The Constitution.

How "the general welfare" has been defined has generally been at the whim of those with an agenda as have any number of other nuanced explanations/definitions. Even those who write law reviews on such matters have opinions which leak into the scholarly work.

As for those of us who offer our opinions on such matters, they are without much doubt the product of biased reasoning.

But conservatism as it is demonstrated in the American culture is what it is whether or not those who embrace it would define it as such. Hence the term 'modern' as in other countries conservatism is something else quite different.

As I posted previously, the Founders were not concerned with definitions of 'liberal' or 'conservative' but rather with an ideal, a vision, a concept, a principle that they wrote into the U.S. Constitution as a great and previously untried experiment. It was a concept of people who, with their unalienable rights secured, would be free to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have. It succeeded beyond their wildest dreams until the people, as people are wont to do from the most ancient of Biblical times, began clamoring for a 'king'. And slowly but surely we have been reverting back to an authoritarian government that assigns us our rights; the authoritarian government the Founders intended to free us from.

Modern American Conservatism rejects the concept of a king and is based on a strong sense of the value of self governance.

Bias in and of itself is not a bad or counterproductive thing. When bias occurs from an informed concept and perspective, it is necessary to produce a successful civilization.

I always appreciate you thoughtful remarks, without being too negative other conservatives (or those who claim such) ought to follow your lead. Frankly I don't believe many of those who claim to be conservatives understand the true meaning of what it means to be conservative. But I digjress. Definitions aside, for the moment, I agree bias leaks into all of our opinions no matter how reasoned we believe our arguments may be.

Now, suggesting only conservatives (my inference, not something you wrote) reject the concept of a king (again by inference) and liberal/progressives want a large federal authoritarain big brother is off the mark.

Without going into too much detail I believe the far left and the far right hold many ideas in common. At the most extreme both reject the legitimacy of any government to exercise control over any aspect of their lives.

For those of us in the middle (and I know I'm seen as a lefty which is quite off the mark) we want a government which is pragmatic, able to anticipate problems and when the time comes solve them in the most expedient manner possible. In that I refer to all levels of government, not only the federal one.

 

[Foxfyre]

And that perspective characterizes you as a (modern is not quite correct) contemporary conservative.

We have no source to understand the exact definition of the words used by the founders, no dictionary - that I'm able to find - exists which may have been used by them and Webster's first edition, American Dictionary of the English Language was published in 1828, decades after the writing of The Constitution.

How "the general welfare" has been defined has generally been at the whim of those with an agenda as have any number of other nuanced explanations/definitions. Even those who write law reviews on such matters have opinions which leak into the scholarly work.

As for those of us who offer our opinions on such matters, they are without much doubt the product of biased reasoning.

But conservatism as it is demonstrated in the American culture is what it is whether or not those who embrace it would define it as such. Hence the term 'modern' as in other countries conservatism is something else quite different.

As I posted previously, the Founders were not concerned with definitions of 'liberal' or 'conservative' but rather with an ideal, a vision, a concept, a principle that they wrote into the U.S. Constitution as a great and previously untried experiment. It was a concept of people who, with their unalienable rights secured, would be free to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have. It succeeded beyond their wildest dreams until the people, as people are wont to do from the most ancient of Biblical times, began clamoring for a 'king'. And slowly but surely we have been reverting back to an authoritarian government that assigns us our rights; the authoritarian government the Founders intended to free us from.

Modern American Conservatism rejects the concept of a king and is based on a strong sense of the value of self governance.

Bias in and of itself is not a bad or counterproductive thing. When bias occurs from an informed concept and perspective, it is necessary to produce a successful civilization.

I always appreciate you thoughtful remarks, without being too negative other conservatives (or those who claim such) ought to follow your lead. Frankly I don't believe many of those who claim to be conservatives understand the true meaning of what it means to be conservative. But I digjress. Definitions aside, for the moment, I agree bias leaks into all of our opinions no matter how reasoned we believe our arguments may be.

Now, suggesting only conservatives (my inference, not something you wrote) reject the concept of a king (again by inference) and liberal/progressives want a large federal authoritarain big brother is off the mark.

Without going into too much detail I believe the far left and the far right hold many ideas in common. At the most extreme both reject the legitimacy of any government to exercise control over any aspect of their lives.

For those of us in the middle (and I know I'm seen as a lefty which is quite off the mark) we want a government which is pragmatic, able to anticipate problems and when the time comes solve them in the most expedient manner possible. In that I refer to all levels of government, not only the federal one.

But you see. For the modern American Conservative, what makes you a liberal is that you look to government to solve the problems. The Conservative does not. The Conservative knows that government, given license to do so which we have done to exaggerated lengths, will always create more problems for freedom than it could ever hope to solve. The Conservative wants the central government to provide the common defense, promote the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare and not individuals or any targeted group,) secure our rights, and then leave us alone to form the sort of society we wish to have. That implies that we will solve our own problems and need no 'king' (higher authority) to do that for us.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What you're going to have to do however is find a way of dumping basic truism of liberalism; that anything bad that happens to you is never your fault.

Just as ridiculous a statement as ever there was.

Is it really ridiculous? It is the Left in the USA that blames the corporations, blames the rich, blames income inequity, blames polluters, blames white people, blames history, blames Christianity and/or religion in general, blames George Bush, etc. etc. etc. for societies' ills. The thief would not be a thief if others would redistribute their wealth more equitably. The kid in the inner city would not grow up stupid, angry, and lawless if the rich would just contribute more, through the government, to his welfare. There would be much fewer children in poverty if there was more distribution of condoms and less resistance to abortion on demand, etc. etc. etc.

I imagine a liberal finds little wrong with society that the liberal attributes to his/her own values, outlook, and conscience and that is not blamed on somebody else.

Now you've gone and built a bunch of straw men; I should be careful when I issue compliments

 

[nraforlife]

Following the constitution.

Yet what does that mean exactly? When many decisions by (supposedly) learned jurists are decided 5-4. How does one "follow the Constitution"?

Its pretty damned easy when one just goes where the original intent leads as opposed to twists & turns to produce a desired predetermined result.

 

[Wry Catcher]

There will be no consistent set of beliefs that are "conservative" for the whole of the 21st century anymore than there was for the 20th or the 19th.

I don't expect consistency, I'm really wondering what those individuals who define themselves as conservative believe.

Nothing personal but that's a stupid question, Catcher since there are just as many varieties of conservatives as there are varieties of liberals. I myself am a fiscal conservative. I'm also an agnostic who has no problem with a woman's right to choose or gay marriage. According to your world model that probably isn't "consistant". You seem to feel that conservatives should fit neatly into "slots". I'm sorry but it doesn't work that way.

No I don't feel most conservatives should or do fit into slots. If someone labels themselves as a conservative, I expect they hold certain beliefs (such as those you noted in which I agree 100%). My question was what do they believe which makes them self identify as a conservative.

I too believe government and citizens should live within their means but that does not mean when I need a roof I put off it's replacement until I can pay for it in cash. I'll go into debt (i.e. borrow the money) so that a heavy rain doesn't destroy the house.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Following the constitution.

Yet what does that mean exactly? When many decisions by (supposedly) learned jurists are decided 5-4. How does one "follow the Constitution"?

Its pretty damned easy when one just goes where the original intent leads as opposed to twists & turns to produce a desired predetermined result.

How does one determine the "original intent"?

 

[M14 Shooter]

But conservatism as it is demonstrated in the American culture is what it is whether or not those who embrace it would define it as such. Hence the term 'modern' as in other countries conservatism is something else quite different.

As I posted previously, the Founders were not concerned with definitions of 'liberal' or 'conservative' but rather with an ideal, a vision, a concept, a principle that they wrote into the U.S. Constitution as a great and previously untried experiment. It was a concept of people who, with their unalienable rights secured, would be free to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have. It succeeded beyond their wildest dreams until the people, as people are wont to do from the most ancient of Biblical times, began clamoring for a 'king'. And slowly but surely we have been reverting back to an authoritarian government that assigns us our rights; the authoritarian government the Founders intended to free us from.

Modern American Conservatism rejects the concept of a king and is based on a strong sense of the value of self governance.

Bias in and of itself is not a bad or counterproductive thing. When bias occurs from an informed concept and perspective, it is necessary to produce a successful civilization.

I always appreciate you thoughtful remarks, without being too negative other conservatives (or those who claim such) ought to follow your lead. Frankly I don't believe many of those who claim to be conservatives understand the true meaning of what it means to be conservative. But I digjress. Definitions aside, for the moment, I agree bias leaks into all of our opinions no matter how reasoned we believe our arguments may be.

Now, suggesting only conservatives (my inference, not something you wrote) reject the concept of a king (again by inference) and liberal/progressives want a large federal authoritarain big brother is off the mark.

Without going into too much detail I believe the far left and the far right hold many ideas in common. At the most extreme both reject the legitimacy of any government to exercise control over any aspect of their lives.

For those of us in the middle (and I know I'm seen as a lefty which is quite off the mark) we want a government which is pragmatic, able to anticipate problems and when the time comes solve them in the most expedient manner possible. In that I refer to all levels of government, not only the federal one.

But you see. For the modern American Conservative, what makes you a liberal is that you look to government to solve the problems. The Conservative does not. The Conservative knows that government, given license to do so which we have done to exaggerated lengths, will always create more problems for freedom than it could ever hope to solve. The Conservative wants the central government to provide the common defense, promote the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare and not individuals or any targeted group,) secure our rights, and then leave us alone to form the sort of society we wish to have. That implies that we will solve our own problems and need no 'king' (higher authority) to do that for us.

Put simply:
Conservatives teach, encourage and expect reliance on ones self; liberals preach, encourage and enable depenance on others.

 

[Foxfyre]

Just as ridiculous a statement as ever there was.

Is it really ridiculous? It is the Left in the USA that blames the corporations, blames the rich, blames income inequity, blames polluters, blames white people, blames history, blames Christianity and/or religion in general, blames George Bush, etc. etc. etc. for societies' ills. The thief would not be a thief if others would redistribute their wealth more equitably. The kid in the inner city would not grow up stupid, angry, and lawless if the rich would just contribute more, through the government, to his welfare. There would be much fewer children in poverty if there was more distribution of condoms and less resistance to abortion on demand, etc. etc. etc.

I imagine a liberal finds little wrong with society that the liberal attributes to his/her own values, outlook, and conscience and that is not blamed on somebody else.

Now you've gone and built a bunch of straw men; I should be careful when I issue compliments

No, not straw men. Generic examples to illustrate. There is a difference between these two things. There are a few on this thread who can get beyond the social issues and get to the core principles that define what a modern American conservative is. Those who share those principles will almost always describe themselves as conservatives while widely disagreeing on many social issues.

Again the conservative does not look to government as the primary agent of change, benevolence, or the author of society or American culture. The conservative looks to the free man/woman, with his/her rights secured and otherwise free of government interference, to form the sort of society that s/he wishes to have.

The modern American liberal looks to government and not the free individual to accomplish that.

All the social issues are moving targets within ideology that develops within these principles. Conservatives generally look to government interference as the principle agent of societal grief or failure to achieve solutions. Liberals generally look to other people, past and present, as the principle agents of societal grief and to government as the solutions to it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is it really ridiculous? It is the Left in the USA that blames the corporations, blames the rich, blames income inequity, blames polluters, blames white people, blames history, blames Christianity and/or religion in general, blames George Bush, etc. etc. etc. for societies' ills. The thief would not be a thief if others would redistribute their wealth more equitably. The kid in the inner city would not grow up stupid, angry, and lawless if the rich would just contribute more, through the government, to his welfare. There would be much fewer children in poverty if there was more distribution of condoms and less resistance to abortion on demand, etc. etc. etc.

I imagine a liberal finds little wrong with society that the liberal attributes to his/her own values, outlook, and conscience and that is not blamed on somebody else.

Now you've gone and built a bunch of straw men; I should be careful when I issue compliments

No, not straw men. Generic examples to illustrate. There is a difference between these two things. There are a few on this thread who can get beyond the social issues and get to the core principles that define what a modern American conservative is.

Funny... I did exactly that, at which point Wry (and others) started talking about how they'd rather impose their morality on eveyrone.

 

[Foxfyre]

Now you've gone and built a bunch of straw men; I should be careful when I issue compliments

No, not straw men. Generic examples to illustrate. There is a difference between these two things. There are a few on this thread who can get beyond the social issues and get to the core principles that define what a modern American conservative is.

Funny... I did exactly that, at which point Wry (and others) started talking about how they'd rather impose their morality on eveyrone.

The key is in directing the focus to the very central core of the matter.

The children among us continue to spout the accusations against conservatives, Republicans, wealthy people, etc. etc. etc. framed in ridiculous accusations of their 'demonic' views. And there are some among us who do the same to the Left.

But if you strip away all that nonsense and really focus on the very central core of the matter:

Modern American conservatives want their rights secured so that they can govern themselves.

Modern American liberals want a 'king' or 'central authority' to assign the rights and order a 'proper' society for them.

I think it is as simple as that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, not straw men. Generic examples to illustrate. There is a difference between these two things. There are a few on this thread who can get beyond the social issues and get to the core principles that define what a modern American conservative is.

Funny... I did exactly that, at which point Wry (and others) started talking about how they'd rather impose their morality on eveyrone.

The key is in directing the focus to the very central core of the matter.

The children among us continue to spout the accusations against conservatives, Republicans, wealthy people, etc. etc. etc. framed in ridiculous accusations of their 'demonic' views. And there are some among us who do the same to the Left.
But if you strip away all that nonsense and really focus on the very central core of the matter:
Modern American conservatives want their rights secured so that they can govern themselves.
Modern American liberals want a 'king' or 'central authority' to assign the rights and order a 'proper' society for them.
I think it is as simple as that.

Yep. Agree. An effective comnparison.

 

[kaz]

I guess most conservatives would wonder why I have turned against the new republican party.

...

I also see how this country is being taken over by those with the most wealth

Not really, you're not a conservative. You're yet another wealth envy liberal who calls himself a conservative and you fooled only yourself. This board has several of you, enjoy...

I don't know that init is necessarily a 'wealth envy' liberal. What makes him a liberal is the implication--I say implication because I may be misinterpreting what he wrote--that those who accumulate wealth are automatically responsible to take care of those who don't, and what is wrong with America is that some accumulate much wealth.

A conservative would say that, while charity is commendable and even necessary in a moral society, it is an individual choice and not to be decided by others. A conservative would say that those who honorably and ethically acquire wealth by any means do not need to be ashamed of or hold contempt for that wealth.

I would need to know what specifically he objects to re Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum to further evaluate that.

All liberals would say that hard work and living within your means is a virtue. So would all conseratives. So that alone defines neither group.

Though it is certainly a worthy goal and an asset, I disagree that a college education is essential for making your way in the world these days. A number of my family members in the younger generation with no more or little more than a highschool education are quite successful in their respective careers. A couple of them only have G.E.D.s. Success usually does require self confidence, a vision, a work ethic, and marketable skills whether acquired or via inate talent.

Again conservatism is a state of mind. It is personal responsibility and accountablity within a system of self governance. The modern American conservative wants no king or ruling authority to dictate what he shall be or what he may accomplish and feels entitled to nothing he has not earned by his own labor and ability.

He's certainly able to clarify what he means, but he starts with the tired liberal talking point the "wealthy" are taking over the country as an explanation of why he's not a Republican. We have a Marxist in the White House and as Senate Majority leader and spent a bunch more with a Marxist as Speaker of the House and they rammed through a major step towards government control over our healthcare system. Half the country now pay zero Federal taxes and 1% pay 40% of the taxes. The rich are doing that? Sure we are. It's idiotic. This country is driving job creators out as we become my home State of Michigan, a workers paradise...with no jobs....

 

[Foxfyre]

Not really, you're not a conservative. You're yet another wealth envy liberal who calls himself a conservative and you fooled only yourself. This board has several of you, enjoy...

I don't know that init is necessarily a 'wealth envy' liberal. What makes him a liberal is the implication--I say implication because I may be misinterpreting what he wrote--that those who accumulate wealth are automatically responsible to take care of those who don't, and what is wrong with America is that some accumulate much wealth.

A conservative would say that, while charity is commendable and even necessary in a moral society, it is an individual choice and not to be decided by others. A conservative would say that those who honorably and ethically acquire wealth by any means do not need to be ashamed of or hold contempt for that wealth.

I would need to know what specifically he objects to re Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum to further evaluate that.

All liberals would say that hard work and living within your means is a virtue. So would all conseratives. So that alone defines neither group.

Though it is certainly a worthy goal and an asset, I disagree that a college education is essential for making your way in the world these days. A number of my family members in the younger generation with no more or little more than a highschool education are quite successful in their respective careers. A couple of them only have G.E.D.s. Success usually does require self confidence, a vision, a work ethic, and marketable skills whether acquired or via inate talent.

Again conservatism is a state of mind. It is personal responsibility and accountablity within a system of self governance. The modern American conservative wants no king or ruling authority to dictate what he shall be or what he may accomplish and feels entitled to nothing he has not earned by his own labor and ability.

He's certainly able to clarify what he means, but he starts with the tired liberal talking point the "wealthy" are taking over the country as an explanation of why he's not a Republican. We have a Marxist in the White House and as Senate Majority leader and spent a bunch more with a Marxist as Speaker of the House and they rammed through a major step towards government control over our healthcare system. Half the country now pay zero Federal taxes and 1% pay 40% of the taxes. The rich are doing that? Sure we are. It's idiotic. This country is driving job creators out as we become my home State of Michigan, a workers paradise...with no jobs....

It all comes down to not whether somebody is a 'blame somebody else' liberal or the dictionary definition of 'conservative' or a modern American conservative who is neither. In the most simple terms it comes down to whether somebody is capable of critical thinking to the point that they can get past all the controversial stuff to the big picture:

1. Do you want a 'king' or 'central authoritarian government' to rule society?
2. Or do you want your rights secured and govern yourself?

And therein is the core difference between liberalism and conservatism in America today.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And what evidence do you have that anybody would starve if the government didn't feed them? Why are you so sure that if the federal government got out of the charity business altogether than that the local community would not pick up the slack?

I no longer review crime reports but when the economy goes south the level of petty and not so petty crimes increased. Auto Burgs, petty thefts, mail theft, and residential burglary's. Domestic violence calls increase as do assaults, including aggressive pan- handeling and homelessness, defrauding inn keepers and suicides.

Many fine charities have "soup lines" so many do not starve. But on the streets of every major city the homeless die in doorways and on benches every year, they fill the emergency rooms of county hospitals and the jails, courts and social service agencies - all of which nationwide have lost staff and funding. They ride public transportation and use the seat as a place to rest and sleep.

That is not the America in which I was raised. The conservative agenda will only create greater gaps in service and more women and children will be left to the mean streets.

First, you admit that you do not review crime reports, then you make specious claims based no that lack of review. Funny thing is, most police departments reported that crime either stayed constant or went down during the recession.

If this is not the America you were raised in I suggest you look any mirror and blame the person you see there. The problem with America is not that people steal when they are poor, it is that people think that other people steal because they are poor. The progressive agenda that you support is based on lies, and you blame conservatives for the fact that your lies fall flat.

Grow the **** up.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

1. Do you want a 'king' or 'central authoritarian government' to rule society?
2. Or do you want your rights secured and govern yourself?

And therein is the core difference between liberalism and conservatism in America today.

yes that was the subject of the election of 1800 and will be the subject of the election of 2012.

In fact, the progression from government to freedom is the subject of all human history.

 

[Foxfyre]

And what evidence do you have that anybody would starve if the government didn't feed them? Why are you so sure that if the federal government got out of the charity business altogether than that the local community would not pick up the slack?

I no longer review crime reports but when the economy goes south the level of petty and not so petty crimes increased. Auto Burgs, petty thefts, mail theft, and residential burglary's. Domestic violence calls increase as do assaults, including aggressive pan- handeling and homelessness, defrauding inn keepers and suicides.

Many fine charities have "soup lines" so many do not starve. But on the streets of every major city the homeless die in doorways and on benches every year, they fill the emergency rooms of county hospitals and the jails, courts and social service agencies - all of which nationwide have lost staff and funding. They ride public transportation and use the seat as a place to rest and sleep.

That is not the America in which I was raised. The conservative agenda will only create greater gaps in service and more women and children will be left to the mean streets.

First, you admit that you do not review crime reports, then you make specious claims based no that lack of review. Funny thing is, most police departments reported that crime either stayed constant or went down during the recession.

If this is not the America you were raised in I suggest you look any mirror and blame the person you see there. The problem with America is not that people steal when they are poor, it is that people think that other people steal because they are poor. The progressive agenda that you support is based on lies, and you blame conservatives for the fact that your lies fall flat.

Grow the **** up.

The proof goes back to the earlier Twentieth Century during the Great Depression and other severe economic downturns resulting in much more poverty than now. And yet there was much less crime. This only illustrates that the poor, as well as the rich, do not hang their morality on their economic holdings but rather on some higher principle.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

when the economy goes south the level of petty and not so petty crimes increased.

of course thats liberal and so perfectly idiotic. Blacks are now 50% of the criminal population despite $trillions in liberal welfare programs.
60 years ago they were 10 times poorer, without liberal programs, and only 8% of the criminal population.

Liberalism creates criminality and now even you can understand it!