What Does Conservatism Offer?

[respect]

Is that sarcastic strawman directed at me? Can you find a single sensible argument in what LSSBB wrote? I appreciate his/her civil attitude, but nothing s/he wrote is reasonable.

No, it has to do with nonsense earlier in the thread.

 

[respect]

I think it is telling that conservatives haven't made much of an effort to defend their ideology thus far.

I doubt many of the self described conservatives here identify themselves exactly with the Republican Party, want to put gays in concentration camps, want to eliminate civil rights for women and minorities or any of the other stupid crap posted in this thread.

Perhaps it isn't that they are unwilling to defend their ideological views, it is that they don't feel the need to defend against a bunch of strawmen.

This thread should be retitled: Scarecrow Convention.

 

[TimCallahan]

To understand what conservatism offer or does not offer, you have to differentiate between old style type conservatives, which includes people like Theodore Roosevelt, secular neo-cons of the Newt Gingrich type, who sort of fade into Libertarians, and the religious right, whose agenda carries a load of religious baggage such as creationism, and whose beliefs often border on reconstructionism.

 

[LSSBB]

"[Your]self and possibly others" must be remarkably fragile people, emotionally.

I can barely fathom how you wrote the above with any kind of seriousness. Are you really going to argue that you would rather deny a swath of American citizens the same rights as other American citizens because some people are uncomfortable with and confused by change? Would you consider this incredible point of view typical among conservatives?

I'm not arguing to deny rights. I guess it could be a weak argument in light of the instability of a two category system maintaining the same rights, I just feel that as long as civil unions offer exactly the same rights as marriage, that is what I prefer. I'm not terribly invested in the argument anyway, there are other issues more important to me.

That said, I don't think its a question of mental fragility. There is a difference between the existence of a stressor and resiliency in dealing with it. The resiliency would vary from individual to individual.

 

[Brainster]

To understand what conservatism offer or does not offer, you have to differentiate between old style type conservatives, which includes people like Theodore Roosevelt, secular neo-cons of the Newt Gingrich type, who sort of fade into Libertarians, and the religious right, whose agenda carries a load of religious baggage such as creationism, and whose beliefs often border on reconstructionism.

I'm guessing you don't know what reconstructionism is.

 

[Tony]

I doubt many of the self described conservatives here identify themselves exactly with the Republican Party, want to put gays in concentration camps, want to eliminate civil rights for women and minorities or any of the other stupid crap posted in this thread.

Perhaps it isn't that they are unwilling to defend their ideological views, it is that they don't feel the need to defend against a bunch of strawmen.

This thread should be retitled: Scarecrow Convention.

The straw is all yours. Look at my OP. I never made any of the charges you claim. Are you going to defend conservatism?

 

[respect]

The straw is all yours. Look at my OP. I never made any of the charges you claim. Are you going to defend conservatism?

I don't care to defend conservatism, way too broad, some ideas identified with conservatism I agree with, some I do not, however I will take a look at your ridiculous OP:

Aside from a religious and pro-upper class agenda, conservatism has shown itself to be a totally bankrupt set of principles. If we go back to the height of conservatism, we find talk about small government, low government spending and personal freedom as bedrock conservative principles. This makes for good talk during election time, but these goals are almost never pursued when conservatives actually get elected. I will offer some examples:

- No conservative president has ever shrunk the size of government. Not Reagan, not Bush I and not Bush II.

The Republican Party does not equal conservatism. It is certainly more identified with conservatives than the Democratic Party, but it does not automatically represent all conservatives and all conservatives do not automatically agree with everything it does. The actions of Republican politicians do not mean that conservatives do not want government to spend less.

Your attempts to refute an ideological position by pointing out that politicians who often advocate it while campaigning don't carry it out in office are nonsense. News flash, politicians often lie to get elected. And farther, many cynical voters recognize this and just go with who they consider to be the lesser of two evils.

- Conservatives are rarely, if ever, on the side of personal freedom. To take the biggest such issue today, a majority of conservatives and conservative politicians consistently stand against gay rights in general and gay marriage in particular. One glaring example is the conservative outcry to the decision in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.

Certainly many oppose gay marriage, what other gay rights to the majority oppose and how have you determined that this is the biggest issue of the day?

This also belies their small government cred. If a government is big enough to regulate such a fundamental matter as sex between consenting adults,

Now opposition to gay marriage is identical to opposition to gay sex? What a bunch of crap.

Don't get me wrong, I couldn't care less if gays want to get married, but I cannot think of a single example of a conservative demanding that they not be allowed to have consenting sex. Presumably such people do exist, but it is certainly not a majority viewpoint. You are just making things up.

you automatically concede that it is big enough to regulate almost anything else.

No, you don't. Phony (or real) opposition to allowing gays to have sex does not automatically concede that you believe in infinite governmental powers. You are just spewing made up crap again.

- There has never been a conservative administration that spent less coming out of office than did coming into office. Reagan increased military spending, so did both Bush's. Having never vetoed a spending bill, Bush II was especially bad in this regard.

Back to conflating the actions of politicians with an ideological viewpoint that they did not carry out I see.

Did you know that Obama and other Democrats have carried on many of the anti-terror tactics from the Bush Administration that were heavily criticized by liberals. Do you think that this means that liberals now all agree with them? Do you conflate every action by Democrats with liberalism as an ideology?

These points barely scratch the surface and more issues will come up later in the thread, but I wanted to get a conversation started by asking: Since conservatives have shown a disinterest in actually putting these ideas into practice and since the conservatives who do care have been incapable of finding a remedy, when do you conclude that conservatism itself is either an empty shell or a pipe dream? Aside from a religious or pro-upper class agenda, what does it offer?

Yeah, this thread got even more ridiculous about nonsense that conservatives supposedly believe, like that gays should be thrown in concentration camps.

 

[Tony]

I don't care to defend conservatism, way too broad, some ideas identified with conservatism I agree with, some I do not, however I will take a look at your ridiculous OP:

You're already signalling that you're not able to have a reasonable discussion, but I'll address your points nevertheless.

The Republican Party does not equal conservatism. It is certainly more identified with conservatives than the Democratic Party, but it does not automatically represent all conservatives and all conservatives do not automatically agree with everything it does. The actions of Republican politicians do not mean that conservatives do not want government to spend less.

I never mentioned the Republican party. You're seeing what you want instead of reading what I wrote.

Your attempts to refute an ideological position by pointing out that politicians who often advocate it while campaigning don't carry it out in office are nonsense. News flash, politicians often lie to get elected. And farther, many cynical voters recognize this and just go with who they consider to be the lesser of two evils.

You're completely misunderstanding. I'm not trying to refute anything, I'm actually saying that there is no substance to refute.

Certainly many oppose gay marriage, what other gay rights to the majority oppose and how have you determined that this is the biggest issue of the day?

They oppose gay adoption and gays in the military. And they've opposed gay rights in every advancement they've made. You haven't been paying attention if you think conservatives have supported gay rights over the last few decades.

I've only labeled it as the biggest issue of the day because there is no other singular issue dealing with personal freedom that commands such attention. If you have a bigger issue, I would be happy to address it.

Now opposition to gay marriage is identical to opposition to gay sex? What a bunch of crap.

You need to read up on the case I cited before you continue to make fool of yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

Don't get me wrong, I couldn't care less if gays want to get married, but I cannot think of a single example of a conservative demanding that they not be allowed to have consenting sex.

I'm sorry you can't think of it. But they have. Your incredulity/ignorance doesn't change that.

Presumably such people do exist, but it is certainly not a majority viewpoint. You are just making things up.

Translation: I'm ignorant of this issue, therefore you're making it up.

No, you don't. Phony (or real) opposition to allowing gays to have sex does not automatically concede that you believe in infinite governmental powers.

Yes you do. It stands to reason that a government who can regulate what sex consenting adults have in the privacy of their homes can regulate matters not as private and personal.

Back to conflating the actions of politicians with an ideological viewpoint that they did not carry out I see.

Dodge noted.


I noticed you failed to answer the questions I asked at the end of my post. Again, another conservative failed to offer a cogent defense of conservatism.

 

[respect]

You're already signalling that you're not able to have a reasonable discussion, but I'll address your points nevertheless.

An interesting way to lead off considering that most of your "points" are just insults to me.

I never mentioned the Republican party. You're seeing what you want instead of reading what I wrote.

You mentioned Republican politicians and pretended that they speak for all conservatives.

You're completely misunderstanding. I'm not trying to refute anything, I'm actually saying that there is no substance to refute.

There is no substance to a view that the government should spend less money? Really? That's your argument? How embarrassing for you.

They oppose gay adoption and gays in the military. And they've opposed gay rights in every advancement they've made. You haven't been paying attention if you think conservatives have supported gay rights over the last few decades.

I've only labeled it as the biggest issue of the day because there is no other singular issue dealing with personal freedom that commands such attention. If you have a bigger issue, I would be happy to address it.

I'll grant that gay adoption point, gays in the military is less clear, the Bible thumper crowd seemed to be at least content with "don't ask, don't tell".

And you may want to consider that conservatism covers more views than just religious conservatism, some of them are even contradictory. For example, fiscal conservatives often demand a smaller less invasive government while religious conservatives often demand a larger more invasive government, even if they don't seem to realize that that is what they are advocating. That the Republican Party has strayed heavily into the religious conservative arena does not mean that the more libertarian leaning conservatives out there suddenly agree with them. Your blanket claims about what conservatives believe are dishonest or foolish.

You need to read up on the case I cited before you continue to make fool of yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

An outdated law means that a majority of conservatives oppose gays being allowed to have sex? What is wrong with you?

I'm sorry you can't think of it. But they have. Your incredulity/ignorance doesn't change that.

Give examples then.

Translation: I'm ignorant of this issue, therefore you're making it up.

Show that it is a majority viewpoint then. Surely if I am just ignorant of the issue and you aren't just making things up, you can provide evidence to support your claim that a majority of conservatives wish to outlaw consensual sex between gay adults.

Yes you do. It stands to reason that a government who can regulate what sex consenting adults have in the privacy of their homes can regulate matters not as private and personal.

No, it doesn't. As you pointed out, such laws have existed previously, and they were not used to demand and justify totalitarian government powers.

Dodge noted.

You did all the dodging here.

I noticed you failed to answer the questions I asked at the end of my post. Again, another conservative failed to offer a cogent defense of conservatism.

Your nonsense questions had already been answered earlier in the post.

 

[bikerdruid]

respect:
queers can be fired today in 29 states, simply for being queer.
how's that for conservative suppression?

 

[respect]

respect:
queers can be fired today in 29 states, simply for being queer.
how's that for conservative suppression?

Evidence?

 

[jj]

Evidence?

So, you doubt the repeated, common summaries of state laws?

Do you have something against evidence?

 

[bikerdruid]

Evidence?

http://www.friendfactor.org/WW

learn about other things that can happen to queers , just for being queer, in the 'land of the free'.

 

[TimCallahan]

I'm guessing you don't know what reconstructionism is.

Pardon me if I used the wrong word. I was actually referring to Christian Reconstructionists, also called dominionists.

 

[respect]

So, you doubt the repeated, common summaries of state laws?

Do you have something against evidence?

Yes, I doubt it. And no, the burden of proof is not on me.

 

[respect]

http://www.friendfactor.org/WW

learn about other things that can happen to queers , just for being queer, in the 'land of the free'.

Do you have any real evidence? Perhaps you could show these laws and how they override federal laws?

I read about this some time back and the gist of what I saw, accurate or not, was that these claims are nonsense, at the time 29 states did not have specific legislation outlawing firing for someone for being gay which is considerably different than allowing it. I don't recall the source, but am certainly open to seeing opposing information. But I would ask that it be from a serious source that explains what the states have actually said, not just vague claims. I tried Googling this a few minutes ago and saw claims of it being 29, 31 and 33 states as well as rebuttals but it was on message boards and yahoo answers and the like, not serious sources.

 

[Travis]

For some reason it doesn't at all surprise me that you would actually argue (and believe) that crap.

Are you going to risk your "Conservative" credibility and be against the idea of prison camps for gay people?

Who calls for putting gays in prison camps?

Some people do and in some cases they already exist.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm not arguing to deny rights. I guess it could be a weak argument in light of the instability of a two category system maintaining the same rights, I just feel that as long as civil unions offer exactly the same rights as marriage, that is what I prefer.

Again, I am baffled. On the one hand, you lead with an argument by tradition. On the other, when that fails, you ignore a proven historical, and hard learned, lesson that "separate but equal" is anything but when put into practice.

As history has shown, it is very much about denying rights. One set of laws for the privileged class. One set of laws for the second class citizens. And what reason is there for maintaining two sets of "identical" laws, with different terminology?

That said, I don't think its a question of mental fragility. There is a difference between the existence of a stressor and resiliency in dealing with it. The resiliency would vary from individual to individual.

But you argued that those stressors would be the impact worthy of denying rights (yes, rights) to others. In essence, you apply more importance to one group's emotional burden than to another group's legal, financial, social, and emotional burdens. You are, in essence, more concerned that conservatives might feel uncomfortable than doing the right thing.

 

[Virus]

I know someone who threw gays in concentration camps. Fidel Castro.

 

[Upchurch]

I know someone who threw gays in concentration camps. Fidel Castro.

At the risk of Godwin'ing, so did Hitler.