It is abundantly clear that you have no respect whatsoever for working people. A an arrogant distain for working people who stand up for themselves.
I would suggest this abundance of clarity only arises in your mind but if not, I invite you, and those that agree with you, to simply point out in my comments those posts (anywhere)which might suggest your claim is actually true.
It is also clear that you like to play the "French card", oh the French are all bad, anything French is wrong. In fact, the French are our greatest allies historically, espouse political values closest to the values of the American founding fathers- in some ways more so than Americans. After all wasn't it Thomas Paine that authored the French "Rights of Man"?
Two points here: First I would ask where did I say "oh the French are all bad, anything French is wrong"? Second: I do not consider the French "our greatest allies" and you might want to consider the "special relationship" that the U.S. has with the British (However much President Obama's returning the WH bust of Winston Churchill and an embarrassingly ungracious gift of an i-Pod to the Queen of England by our current President might argue otherwise). The French's help was a long time in coming (I assume you are referring to the American Revolution here). French help, secured in 1778, was not until almost two years after the Battle of Trenton (The Xmas/Hessian/Washington crossing the Delaware thingy). But even then, it is no historical secret that the French/American Alliance was a Balance of Power move by the French to weaken England. Not that there is anything wrong with Richelieus concept of raison detat, mind you. Another fact that might be mentioned is that this "great" American ally was running around the international scene shortly before the Iraq/Saddam War actively lobbying nations not to join in backing up American demands of Saddam to stand down. Given that France, and Europe in general, would have suffered more and before the U.S. had Saddam decided to go Iran-like, the French Prime Minister's and President's actions remind one of the confused and conflicted foreign policy mechanizations of Emperor Napoleon III. Many expert foreign policy experts simply labeled this as the French leaders' futile attempt to, somehow, regain past "glories" and/or attain mere international relevance.
In fact you are entirely ignorant (or shall we say, just plain full oof shit?), when you compare the American Conservatives to the founding fathers. NOT!
Word of advice here: Loose the ad Ad Hominem
attacks...They are red flags to look for regarding a weak argument or, often, just desperation.
The current American Conservative movement (as it has for the past 50 years), represents the philosohy and interests of the British Conservatives and Europe Royalty.
No, as I said in my initial post to this thread American Conservatism closely follows Classical Liberalism which is what the founders proposed and then codified in the U.S. Constitution. You can, of course, look it up. But here is John C. Goodman:
Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.
But you have brought up an excellent point that shows further that you, and many others, feel that European/British Conservatisim equates with that of American conservatism. The proof of your confusion is that you co-join British Conservatism with "Europ[ean] Royalty. Frankly, I remain unconvinced. You seem to be suggesting that American Conservatives are Monarchists. Such an argument simply must be fleshed out more appropriately.
Further, if you look at European history (British history excepted) any practical real world government representation of classical liberalism is non-existent. Excepting tribalism and feudalism the only types of political constructs are nationalism, socialism (and its perversion communism), and European Conservatism. But European Conservatism, up to and slightly past Bismarck, was simply an aversion to liberalism's perversion
socialism and specifically to the unrest that it provoked. The long and short of European Conservatism is simply the upholding of law and order. This conservatism, was in direct opposition to the tide of 'liberal revolutions' seen in Europe circa 1848 especially in France (see: French Revolution of 1848, European Revolutions of 1848, Spring of Nations, Springtime of the Peoples, or Year of Revolution). That liberalism we currently see in America today can be traced to this period in Europe. It is also the basic starting point of full blown socialism. There is nothing like American Conservatism (Classical Liberalism) in Europe's history regarding actual governance, nothing. Thus the term "American Exceptionalism"
This is especially evident in the anti-government, pro-wealthy sentiment of the American Conservative movement. Since the inception of modern government, the Europen Royalty had yearned for and worked for the destruction of these governements, so that they can resume absolute totalitarian power - especially that of absolute economic control.
Both charges in your first sentence need some evidence to back them up. Other than extreme libertarian groups out in Montana, say, what American Conservative movement expresses anti-government or pro-wealthy sentiment to the exclusion of other economic groups? Even these groups just cited are more, passively, get out of my life than actively anti-government Such charges call for quotes and links to buttress your claim. Again, are you trying to, somehow, link the American Conservatives with European Royalty? The Tea party recognizes the need for smaller less intrusive government but not
No government. They, additionally call for strict constitutionalism which explicitly proscribes Royalty. Tea partiers are overwhelmingly middleclass why would they promote the exclusive rights of your 'wealthy'? Your "resume absolute totalitarian power" sounds more like the actions of the present Obama administration which American conservatives, including the Tea Party and many independents, are presently protesting. Oh, and what exactly is so bad about the wealthy? True conservatives here are more concerned about individual rights for everyone and equal opportunity for all so that they themselves have a chance to become 'wealthy. Government picking favorites destroys this effort for all but those so favored.
While you accuse the Democrats of existing for a tiny group of patrons, each and everyone of these patrons represents the interest of common Americans. It is also true that the Democrats have supported the interests of the vast majority of Americans - through labor laws, Union support, Social Security, Medicare, industrial regulation, consumer protections. etc...
In fact, the Democrats have been the party "by the people and for the people".
My accusations are born out in the latest actions of the Democratic Party itself. One merely has to be open to the facts after seeking them out and then analyzing Dems intent via their actual actions. Note what they do, not what they say they will or, supposedly, want to do. It is important, however to point out that the problem is not with Union members but lies with their leaders. I would have much less of a problem with unions overall if their members were able to determine whether or not they wanted to give for political purposes and, then, direct that part of their dues to a specific candidate. That is not presently the case. Only Union leaders can make that choice. Would you agree with such an individual liberty? Alternatively, are you more of a
Card Check type of guy? Public employee unions (SEIU, AFSCME, etc) have the additional power where they actually have the ability to elect their Bosses (Democratic Politicians) and then 'bargain' with them for increased benefits. Let's not forget, also, that, during the 2008 election cycle Wall Street is proported to have given 63 % of the entire amount of political contributions by those firms to the Dems. This in addition to the Union's 400 million (USD) given to the Dems in the same election.
Honestly, your view of the Democratic Party is naïve, at best. It has been taken over by statists who strive to either receive or to redistribute wealth that they have not earned. President Clinton came from a now defunct arm of the Democratic Party that was wary of the Unions. The Dems 'Blue dog' caucus is gone as is the 'right to life' arm of the Dems. The Democratic Party that is 'for the people' is no longer. Obamacare and its statist proponents such as Pelosi and Obama have destroyed any remaining remnants of the party that might agree with, at least some, conservative ideals.
Come January of 2011 President Obama will have to demonstrate, by actions and not rhetoric, to the American people that his concerns are inline with a center right America and that he can work with them and not a leftist socialist Democratic party. The House will be overwhelmingly GOP that, in turn, will be influenced by American conservatism. If Reid loses his seat and the Dems keep a rump majority in the upper house its majority leader will think long and hard before bucking any conservative effort. That is simply the best situation the Dems will face come the seating of the 112th Congress
JM
Senior moment!
