• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What Does Conservatism Offer?

Tony said:
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.

- 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. This also belies their small government cred. If a government is big enough to regulate such a fundamental matter as sex between consenting adults, you automatically concede that it is big enough to regulate almost anything else.

- 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.

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?
Click to expand...

A friend of mine has the classic explanation:

The problem with the left is they don't like guns. The problem with the right is they don't like rights.
 
Hitler's early inner-circle was well populated with homosexual men, at least early. The SA was run by Ernst Roehm and Edmund Heines, both openly-homosexual thugs "removed" only when they became threats to Hitler's leadership. I've not seen anything to suggest Hitler was gay himself.
 
Dessi said:
I hope I'm not the only one who finds these definitions suspicious. What single issue do conservatives support or oppose based on tradition?

- Gay rights and marriage: underlying opposition has nothing to do with "tradition", but rather a belief that homosexuality is immoral and gay marriage tacitly validates homosexuality.....
Click to expand...

Historically, that's ridiculous.

Social prejudice against homosexuality or at least overt practice of it likely originates in the ancient desires of kings or warlords to have the largest number of male babies for wars, hence to expand their kingdoms or at least have their country strong against things like famine, disease and invasion. Clearly this means active encouragement of male-female marriages and baby production. Essentially an optimization of that equation for the benefit of the state.

In turn there developed social standards partly embodied in religious practice which reflected those findings or beliefs.

I say "overt behavior" because until the Victorian era, we don't have evidence of "classification" of gays as a "type of people".

In any case, the previous definition of "conservative" as "resistant to change" is accurate.
 
Last edited:
Skepticemea said:
Hitler's early inner-circle was well populated with homosexual men, at least early. The SA was run by Ernst Roehm and Edmund Heines, both openly-homosexual thugs "removed" only when they became threats to Hitler's leadership. I've not seen anything to suggest Hitler was gay himself.
Click to expand...
But it is odd that the only person with whom Hitler spoke "auf Du und Du" was Roehm.

(Just sayin'.)
 
respect said:
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?
Click to expand...
Not to speak for Tony, but there are a bunch of rights that come along with marriage as well as the ability to serve in the military. It is not, perhaps, the biggest issue of the day, but it is indicative of a mindset that should not be given governmental power over others. When someone specifically aims to oppress a section of the citizenry based on their physical differences, they should not be given the opportunity to do so. History has shown over and over again that this is a bad idea.

"But they're just gays! It's not that big of a deal" is not a convincing counter argument. Replace "gays" with "Jews" or "Blacks" or "left-handed" to see just how ridiculous that argument is.
 
Back on the OP for a minute, I think a better question is what conservatism CAN offer, rather than what current conservatives tend to contribute.

I think that the idea of conservatism needs a voice and influence in our government in balance with liberalism, ideally. I have more of an affinity for liberal ideas, but I recognize the need for someone to say, "Would this really be better if you change it?" and who is motivated to look for unintended consequences. You do not want the cure to be worse than the disease, and it is conservatism that offers the restraint that may allow us to avoid that.

I also believe, despite considering myself a liberal, that government influence should be held in check and apply itself only in pursuit of roles that can be justified under the Constitution, and even then preferring the least intrusive methods. Where I stray to the liberal side is how much I'm willing to say falls under that role. But the idea of keeping government restrained in its intervention is a conservative idea.

So, I see an ideal political balance as some people seeking solutions that involve reducing government involvement, and others seeking solutions that involve increasing or changing government involvement.

We really can't go with just one of those.
 
gnome said:
Back on the OP for a minute, I think a better question is what conservatism CAN offer, rather than what current conservatives tend to contribute.

{snip}
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that. However, I would add that the push and pull between stasis and change are likely to come from both modern "liberals" and "conservatives".
 
respect said:
An interesting way to lead off considering that most of your "points" are just insults to me.
Click to expand...

No they weren't. You need to grow a thicker skin.

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

I mentioned conservative presidents conservatives supported. Keep up this line though, it makes you look desperate.

There is no substance to a view that the government should spend less money? Really? That's your argument?
Click to expand...

No, that's not my argument. My argument is stated clearly in the OP. Again, you're desperate to paint my position as something it isn't instead of dealing with it as it is.

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".
Click to expand...

Don't ask don't tell was a farce, and if gays made their gayness public, they were kicked out. So the effect was the same. My point stands, but thank you for acknowledging my point about gay adoption. A little progress is being made.

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.
Click to expand...

But conservatives sell conservatism as small, less intrusive government. That they NEVER actually try for small, less intrusive government and instead opting for intrusive religious government is my point.

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.
Click to expand...

I never said they did. I said they were impotent to find a remedy to the constant and almost universal fact of conservatives selling themselves as small government conservatives only to act like big government religious fanatics once they get elected.

I further went on to say that the inability to prevent this calls into question the reality of conservatism in general. It is like like the true believer communists who fail to prevent communist governments from turning into totalitarian oligarchical slave states yet continue to believe in communism. A reasonable person should eventually realize that communism itself is unlikely to produce the results they desire. This is what I am saying about conservatism. Now that I've made that clearer, maybe you can address that, which is the point of the OP, instead of complaining about trivial side issues.

Your blanket claims about what conservatives believe are dishonest or foolish.
Click to expand...

Not based on who they elect into office.

An outdated law means that a majority of conservatives oppose gays being allowed to have sex?
Click to expand...

Nope. Try again.

Give examples then.
Click to expand...

It isn't my job to cure your ignorance. But if you want to look them up, do a search for Jerry Fallwell, James Dobson, Sean Hannity, David Limbaugh, Tom Delay and the dissenting judges Thomas, Scalia and Rehnquist.

Show that it is a majority viewpoint then.
Click to expand...

No, I never claimed it was. But I did mention the outcry to Lawrence v Texas when it was decided.

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.
Click to expand...

Strawman. I never claimed it was a majority view. I used the conservative reaction to it as one example of conservatives wanting big, intrusive government. This is really incidental, I can use other examples if that will make you happy, there are many.

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.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. Your mistake is assuming government is reasonable, it isn't.

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

Another dodge. Your failure to understand my position does not rendered my position nonsense.
 
Last edited:
TimCallahan said:
Pardon me if I used the wrong word. I was actually referring to Christian Reconstructionists, also called dominionists.
Click to expand...
They aren't the same thing, though.

Both are dominionists in that they want white, Protestant Christians to run the country. But the Reconstructionists are only a subset of these. The smaller group don't merely want to change the personnel, they also want to change the structures of government into an Old Testament theonomy.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2005/12/5/10810/4239

Consider those Americans who think only Christians should hold office. You would probably find a fair number who would nevertheless balk at giving the death penalty to unruly children. And since many revere the Constitution, I doubt they would surrender their own freedom of religion in favor of the creation of ecclesiastical courts.

The theocracy Calvin created in Geneva, Switzerland in the 1500s is one of the political models Reconstructionists look to, along with Old Testament Israel and the Calvinist Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
Click to expand...
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html
 
Tony said:
"...small government, low government spending and personal freedom as bedrock conservative principles..."

"...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. This also belies their small government cred. If a government is big enough to regulate such a fundamental matter as sex between consenting adults, you automatically concede that it is big enough to regulate almost anything else."
Click to expand...
Federalism and markets institutionalize humility on the part of State (government, generally) actors. If a policy dispute turns on a matter of taste, numerous local policy regimes and competitive markets in goods and services allow for the expression of varied tastes, while the contest for control of a State-monopoly provider of goods or services, or for control of a national legal regime (e.g., one that regulates (or not) sexual behavior) must inevitably create unhappy losers. If a policy dispute turns on a matter of fact, where "What works?" is an empirical question, numerous local policy regimes and competitive markets in goods and services will generate more information than will a State-monopoly provider of goods and services. A State-monopoly system is like an experiment with one treatment and no control, a retarded experimental design.

Respect for the federal principle and respect for individual autonomy are separate principles. Therefore, on occasion (e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, Roe v. Wade), these principles will conflict. Conflict between separate principles is hardly unique to "conservative" ideology.

In the current legal environment, State recognition of homosexual marriage is a tax increase. That is, it extends to a new class of beneficiaries a State-mandated subsidy (access to legally-mandated spousal benefits). The cost/benefit considerations that (may) incline policymakers to mandate benefits, such as access at reduced cost to State-funded medical plans for spouses and children of government employees, for heterosexual couples may not apply to homosexual couples, who are far less likely to have children and are far more susceptible to a very expensive medical condition. This would not be an issue in a legal environment without legally-mandated employer-funded health insurance. Another significant benefit which marriage confers is tax-exempt inheritance. This would not be an issue in a legal environment without inheritance taxes, of course.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Respect for the federal principle and respect for individual autonomy are separate principles. Therefore, on occasion (e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, Roe v. Wade), these principles will conflict. Conflict between separate principles is hardly unique to "conservative" ideology.
Click to expand...

I think you are hiding behind the federal principle. If conservatives at the state level pursued policies in the spirit of individual autonomy, no conflict with the federal principle would exist on the cases you cited. It should be noted that in cases where the state offers individual autonomy while government at the federal level conflicts with it; gay marriage, marijuana legalization, and euthanasia being examples, conservatives usually side with, or support a crackdown at the federal level against the state extending individual autonomy in those areas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom