What beliefs define a 21st Century American conservative?

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you talk often with the founders?

Apparently -you- do as you claim thay if they were around today, their view on the right to arms would be very different.

Nope, if I made such a claim in the heat of 'battle' I was wrong. I have no idea what a founder might believe if exposed to the 21st Century. I do know that the weapons of today and the weapons commonly in use in the 18th Century are quite different.

One might infer from that truth a sane person from the 18th century who saw a vision of Virginia Tech, the Texas Tower, 101 California St, or the dozens of other mass murders would have a different perspective. But I suspect the same arguments would occur, some back then would salivate at the thought of weapons able to kill so efficiently and other would be appalled.

One would think that a sane person from the 21st century would know that people routinely died from violence when the founders were alive.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

One might infer from that truth a sane person from the 18th century who saw a vision of Virginia Tech, the Texas Tower, 101 California St, or the dozens of other mass murders would have a different perspective. But I suspect the same arguments would occur, some back then would salivate at the thought of weapons able to kill so efficiently and other would be appalled.

If the founders had been able to see Virginia Tech they would have thought:

1) freedom, welfare, wealth, and the death of religion produces many crazy violent people

2) we must as always preserve the right to bear arms or the only ones with arms will be the violent coercive government liberals.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Do you talk often with the founders?

not literally of course but a literalist understanding of what they said appears in the Constitution for example and is used by all in lieu of actually talking with them.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Do you talk often with the founders?

not literally of course but a literalist understanding of what they said appears in the Constitution for example and is used by all in lieu of actually talking with them.

I suggest you go back to see what you posted to prompt my question. As for a literal understanding of our Constitution, I wonder how you come to such a conclusion given the amount and depth of debate on much of the document?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

As for a literal understanding of our Constitution, I wonder how you come to such a conclusion given the amount and depth of debate on much of the document?

Judge Scalia is famous for saying over and over that it is easy for him. If its literally and clearly there in the Constitution then its the law.

All the debate and consternation comes from the liberals who have in effect said that anything can emanate from the penumbras of the Constitution; most famously the right to abortion.

Scalia would say, as a judge I have no opinion or interpretation about abortion, its not in the Constitution. If you want an abortion get a law passed through the legislature, its not a function of the court to legislate.

 

[Wry Catcher]

As for a literal understanding of our Constitution, I wonder how you come to such a conclusion given the amount and depth of debate on much of the document?

Judge Scalia is famous for saying over and over that it is easy for him. If its literally and clearly there in the Constitution then its the law.

All the debate and consternation comes from the liberals who have in effect said that anything can emanate from the penumbras of the Constitution; most famously the right to abortion.

Scalia would say, as a judge I have no opinion or interpretation about abortion, its not in the Constitution. If you want an abortion get a law passed through the legislature, its not a function of the court to legislate.

Good for Scalia, his opinion is his opinion, no matter how learned he is. And, if I'm not mistaken Scalia has (ruled, suggested) there are limits to the Second Amendment. Where is the literal exception in the Second?

As for abortion, when asked during his confirmation, Chief Justice Roberts stated, "It is settled law".

I still want to know how you can write that (all) the founders were conservative - most consider them radicals - and how morality should be codified and enforced?

Do you believe contraception ought to be illegal?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm out of here. Check back in on Tuesday.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Good for Scalia, his opinion is his opinion, no matter how learned he is.

it not his opinion!! As a conservative he goes by what the Constitution says, not its emanations and penumbras. This is because as a conservative he is intelligent and so thinks the court should be a court not a legislature.

And, if I'm not mistaken Scalia has (ruled, suggested) there are limits to the Second Amendment. Where is the literal exception in the Second?

I'm sure he'd be ok with ban on the private possession of nuclear weapons. See what happens when a liberal tries to think? Why not become a conservative so you can learn many many logical arguments?

As for abortion, when asked during his confirmation, Chief Justice Roberts stated, "It is settled law".

so????????????????

I still want to know how you can write that (all) the founders were conservative - most consider them radicals -

yes radical conservatives who like modern conservative wanted to radically limit liberal government

and how morality should be codified and enforced?

a law against murder is a good start.

Do you believe contraception ought to be illegal?

No I don't . Please , as a liberal you should spend your time learning to be a conservative.

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you talk often with the founders?

not literally of course but a literalist understanding of what they said appears in the Constitution for example and is used by all in lieu of actually talking with them.

I suggest you go back to see what you posted to prompt my question. As for a literal understanding of our Constitution, I wonder how you come to such a conclusion given the amount and depth of debate on much of the document?

The Founders left a wealth of material in the form of letters, speeches, proclamation, and other writings to inform us of what they literally intended via the U.S. Constitution that they gave us. Informed people on this subject have read a good deal of or all of that material with an open mind, have reflected on it, have considered it, and have understood it.

Those who have not and who now reject those very literal concepts while not developing similar concepts out of common sense conclusion based on historical experience are probably mostly modern American liberals.

 

[Gadawg73]

First thing a conservative should be is someone that does not support and help pass the largest social program in 70 years like George Bush did.
Secondly, a conservative should fight government when there are attempts to pass Constitutional amendments that seek to take rights away from people.
Thirdly, a conservative minds their own business and does not meddle into the private lives of others.

 

[Gadawg73]

not literally of course but a literalist understanding of what they said appears in the Constitution for example and is used by all in lieu of actually talking with them.

I suggest you go back to see what you posted to prompt my question. As for a literal understanding of our Constitution, I wonder how you come to such a conclusion given the amount and depth of debate on much of the document?

The Founders left a wealth of material in the form of letters, speeches, proclamation, and other writings to inform us of what they literally intended via the U.S. Constitution that they gave us. Informed people on this subject have read a good deal of or all of that material with an open mind, have reflected on it, have considered it, and have understood it.

Those who have not and who now reject those very literal concepts while not developing similar concepts out of common sense conclusion based on historical experience are probably mostly modern American liberals.

Why would a liberal object to the letters of Jefferson and Madison that clearly state their objections to any and all religous influences in government?

 

[Foxfyre]

I suggest you go back to see what you posted to prompt my question. As for a literal understanding of our Constitution, I wonder how you come to such a conclusion given the amount and depth of debate on much of the document?

The Founders left a wealth of material in the form of letters, speeches, proclamation, and other writings to inform us of what they literally intended via the U.S. Constitution that they gave us. Informed people on this subject have read a good deal of or all of that material with an open mind, have reflected on it, have considered it, and have understood it.

Those who have not and who now reject those very literal concepts while not developing similar concepts out of common sense conclusion based on historical experience are probably mostly modern American liberals.

Why would a liberal object to the letters of Jefferson and Madison that clearly state their objections to any and all religous influences in government?

Except that the Founders did not object to religious influences in government. They objected to any religious group having power in government or in government having power over the religious beliefs of any person or group.

They actually encouraged religion among those in government, however, even going so far as to sanction and attend worship services right in the halls of Congress as long as such were voluntary and nobody was pressured in any way to attend them. The Founders, to a man, were convinced the Constitution would work only for a mostly moral and religious people. Which is why they though Bible reading to be appropriate in schools and they even put the Congressional Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on a particular Biblical translation as a reliable one and therefore encouraged its use in the schools.

A Conservative makes his/her religious faith or lack thereof his/her business and his/her business only while allowing everybody else free to believe and express their faith however they choose. The Founders did not interpret freedom of religion or no government establishment of religion as no religious expression at all.

 

[Gadawg73]

The Founders left a wealth of material in the form of letters, speeches, proclamation, and other writings to inform us of what they literally intended via the U.S. Constitution that they gave us. Informed people on this subject have read a good deal of or all of that material with an open mind, have reflected on it, have considered it, and have understood it.

Those who have not and who now reject those very literal concepts while not developing similar concepts out of common sense conclusion based on historical experience are probably mostly modern American liberals.

Why would a liberal object to the letters of Jefferson and Madison that clearly state their objections to any and all religous influences in government?

Except that the Founders did not object to religious influences in government. They objected to any religious group having power in government or in government having power over the religious beliefs of any person or group.

They actually encouraged religion among those in government, however, even going so far as to sanction and attend worship services right in the halls of Congress as long as such were voluntary and nobody was pressured in any way to attend them. The Founders, to a man, were convinced the Constitution would work only for a mostly moral and religious people. Which is why they though Bible reading to be appropriate in schools and they even put the Congressional Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on a particular Biblical translation as a reliable one and therefore encouraged its use in the schools.

A Conservative makes his/her religious faith or lack thereof his/her business and his/her business only while allowing everybody else free to believe and express their faith however they choose. The Founders did not interpret freedom of religion or no government establishment of religion as no religious expression at all.

So those that want to influence government with their religion do so not for any power?
Without power how does one accomplish their attempts to influence?
You can not have it both ways.
The Founders RAN LIKE HELL from the influences religion had in government and the power that gave the rulers.
As they had a thousand years of evidence to back them up.
As usual, attempts to make this a liberal/conservative argument are absurd and without any fact or foundation.

 

[Dragon]

My post earlier, which was ignored, played on the fact that there is no consistent set of beliefs that can be called "conservative." In the late 18th century, conservatives believed in strong central government and distrusted democracy. Liberals like Jefferson and Madison believed the people could be trusted to determine government policy, and that only a basic minimum central government was required, more being likely to be used by rich men to oppress the common people. (The period of our history that began with the Boston Tea Party was, like the present, a time of institutional turmoil in which liberal to radical movements gained a lot of strength. It was a measure of their success, to the point of needing a check, that even a liberal like Madison came over to favoring a strengthening of the central government.)

In the mid nineteenth century, conservatives favored slavery, while liberals wanted to abolish it. (Yes, that means the Republicans were a liberal party initially.)

In the early 20th century, liberals favored government intervention against the harshness of capitalism, while conservatives favored a more laissez-faire approach. In the mid 20th century, after World War II, conservatives had come around to favoring the New Deal reforms, but opposed further expansion such as Medicare. Conservatives opposed racial equality and civil rights while liberals advocated them.

On social issues just as on political and economic ones, conservatism has changed. Conservatives once opposed votes for women. Today's conservatives don't. Conservatives once opposed women entering the workforce. Conservatives today are somewhat muddled about that, but on the whole do not object to women being doctors, lawyers, or politicians.

We are in a state of flux right now, a Crisis era. Our institutions have failed us. We don't know exactly where to go, but you can be sure it will be towards greater equality, greater empowerment for ordinary people, because that's what always happens in a Crisis. That means the conservatives will lose the political battle badly over the next couple of decades. Future conservatives will make their peace with that loss and create a new conservatism for the 21st century (or the next phase of it anyway) just as they did in the 1940s and 1950s.

 

[Foxfyre]

My post earlier, which was ignored, played on the fact that there is no consistent set of beliefs that can be called "conservative." In the late 18th century, conservatives believed in strong central government and distrusted democracy. Liberals like Jefferson and Madison believed the people could be trusted to determine government policy, and that only a basic minimum central government was required, more being likely to be used by rich men to oppress the common people. (The period of our history that began with the Boston Tea Party was, like the present, a time of institutional turmoil in which liberal to radical movements gained a lot of strength. It was a measure of their success, to the point of needing a check, that even a liberal like Madison came over to favoring a strengthening of the central government.)

In the mid nineteenth century, conservatives favored slavery, while liberals wanted to abolish it. (Yes, that means the Republicans were a liberal party initially.)

In the early 20th century, liberals favored government intervention against the harshness of capitalism, while conservatives favored a more laissez-faire approach. In the mid 20th century, after World War II, conservatives had come around to favoring the New Deal reforms, but opposed further expansion such as Medicare. Conservatives opposed racial equality and civil rights while liberals advocated them.

On social issues just as on political and economic ones, conservatism has changed. Conservatives once opposed votes for women. Today's conservatives don't. Conservatives once opposed women entering the workforce. Conservatives today are somewhat muddled about that, but on the whole do not object to women being doctors, lawyers, or politicians.

We are in a state of flux right now, a Crisis era. Our institutions have failed us. We don't know exactly where to go, but you can be sure it will be towards greater equality, greater empowerment for ordinary people, because that's what always happens in a Crisis. That means the conservatives will lose the political battle badly over the next couple of decades. Future conservatives will make their peace with that loss and create a new conservatism for the 21st century (or the next phase of it anyway) just as they did in the 1940s and 1950s.

However, if you had been paying attention to anybody else's posts, you would know that your thesis here has been fully vetted in this thread. We are NOT talking about European conservatism, dictionary definitions of conservatism, how anybody defined conservatism in the past, or what liberals want the definition of conservatism to be.

We ARE discussing what defines the Modern American Conservative or 21st Century American Conservative and the core beliefs among that group. On social issues, concepts can be as diverse as they are with any other group so social issues do not define the current American Conservative.

In my opinion, what DOES define the current American Conservative is a deep appreciation and value for the original intent of the Constitution, a belief that assigning non-Constitutional responsibilities to the Federal government is a dangerous and foolish practice that will inevitably take rights from the people and weaken the Republic.

Further the Modern American Conservative (MAC) understands and defends the concept of unalienable rights, property rights, a free market system, and personal responsibility, accountablility, fiscal integrity, and a conviction that the value of his/her labor is an individual's property.

 

[Dragon]

We ARE discussing what defines the Modern American Conservative or 21st Century American Conservative and the core beliefs among that group.

That group will cease to exist as a political force within the next few decades. It already has no traction with the Millennial generation. It will disappear simply because those who believe in it will grow old and die, and not be replaced.

 

[Foxfyre]

We ARE discussing what defines the Modern American Conservative or 21st Century American Conservative and the core beliefs among that group.

That group will cease to exist as a political force within the next few decades. It already has no traction with the Millennial generation. It will disappear simply because those who believe in it will grow old and die, and not be replaced.

Not according to Rasmussen who has polled exhaustively on the subject and put out his own book on the subject not long ago. A large majority of Americans still want to govern themselves rather than be governed which is essentially what modern American conservatism is.

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.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...m/press_releases/in_search_of_self_governance

And because American exceptionalism is the hope of the world if it should catch on--modern American liberals are doing their damndest to destroy it--I hope our conservatives will help me keep beating the drum to defend, support, and promote it.

 

[Dr.Drock]

We ARE discussing what defines the Modern American Conservative or 21st Century American Conservative and the core beliefs among that group.

That group will cease to exist as a political force within the next few decades. It already has no traction with the Millennial generation. It will disappear simply because those who believe in it will grow old and die, and not be replaced.

True to a point, most everyone between the ages of 18 and 50 have been taught that big gov't, big spending and never ending military intervention is a good thing.

There's a small pocket of us who believe the opposite, but I agree even that small pocket will just get smaller and smaller.

 

[Dragon]

Not according to Rasmussen who has polled exhaustively on the subject and put out his own book on the subject not long ago. A large majority of Americans still want to govern themselves rather than be governed which is essentially what modern American conservatism is.

Everyone, or nearly everyone, is going to be answering "yes" to that question, which in no way, shape or form fully encompasses the range of beliefs you were referring to. Break it down into specifics if you REALLY, TRULY want to KNOW the answer to this question, and not to merely make yourself feel good.

 

[Dragon]

We ARE discussing what defines the Modern American Conservative or 21st Century American Conservative and the core beliefs among that group.

That group will cease to exist as a political force within the next few decades. It already has no traction with the Millennial generation. It will disappear simply because those who believe in it will grow old and die, and not be replaced.

True to a point, most everyone between the ages of 18 and 50 have been taught that big gov't, big spending and never ending military intervention is a good thing.

That isn't what I'm talking about, nor does the opposite to them equate to what Foxfyre meant. Conservatism by the dictionary definition will never disappear. Conservatives are the skeletal structure of any society, necessary for its cohesion. But the particular set of beliefs that define the "conservative" movement are unique to these times, and will cease to be a political force within thirty years.

Actually, the "conservative movement" isn't uniformly against big government or big spending, and tends to be in favor of military intervention most of the time. We should judge it by the specific policies that are supported and not by its slogans.