What Does Conservatism Offer?

[Upchurch]

Which has what to do with the topic?

I dunno. I was merely expanding on what Virus had said.

Does the leader of the National Socialist German Workers' Party qualify as "conservative"? Why? Aren't we using the following:...

...small government, low government spending and personal freedom...

as the working definition of "conservative" for the present discussion?

Are we? It is hardly reflective of modern US conservatives.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...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...
- There has never been a conservative administration that spent less coming out of office than did coming into office...

False, if "conservative" means "pro-market". Calvin Coolidge. Table 1.

Conservatism doesn't mean pro-market, so no.

Why not? If "conservatism" means "small government", then non-State actors in "conservative" polities will perform functions that State actors perform in non-conservative polities. Seems to me the size of government will vary with the number of functions the State (government, generally) assumes.
Regardless, does Calvin Coolidge qualify as "conservative" in Tony's lexicon? Why or why not?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Are we? It is hardly reflective of modern US conservatives.

If we have not defined the term "conservative", how would anybody what is "reflective of modern US conservatives"? I thought we were using Tony's definition for the purposes of this discussion. If not, which?

 

[Upchurch]

If we have not defined the term "conservative", how would anybody what is "reflective of modern US conservatives"? I thought we were using Tony's definition for the purposes of this discussion. If not, which?

I'm saying that Tony's definition is not reflective of modern US conservatives. As such, I reject it. Do you disagree?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I'm saying that Tony's definition is not reflective of modern US conservatives. As such, I reject it. Do you disagree?

II have Tony's definition of "conservative". Whether or not Tony's definition "is reflective of" "modern US conservative" will depend on the people in the set described by the phrase "modern US conservatives". If we restrict this set to "conservatives" (by Tony's definition) and a standard interpretation of "modern" and "US", then the set described by "modern US conservatives" (call ths set A) is a subset of "conservaitves" (by Tony's definition). If we change the definition of "conservative" in the phrase "modern US conservative" to mean something other than "US resident who is 'conservative' (by Tony's definition)", then the set described by "modern US conservatives" (call this set B) will differ from A by the degree to which the definitions of "conservative" differ. This is obvious, seems to me.

I don't use the term "conservative" to describe "small government, low government spending and personal freedom". Market economies are disruptive of tradition, as William Jennings Bryan well understood. Europeans call the combination of free market-oriented policies and...

... belief in established traditions as a hard-won storehouse of wisdom...

"liberal conservative".

 

[respect]

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.

I agree that religious conservatives are often way out of line when it comes to gay people and their rights. I am disputing blanket claims about how this is what all conservatives believe, the word covers a broad category of ideological viewpoints, some of which are clearly not compatible with religious conservatism. And I am disputing the more ridiculous claims in this thread like that a majority of conservatives want to ban gay adults from having consensual sex and throw them in concentration camps. Religious conservative views on gay rights can be, and should be, effectively criticized without the strawmen.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I think you are hiding behind the federal principle.

I think you are unneccssarily personalizing the discussion.

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.

True. There is also no conflict with the federal principle if conservatives at the state level pursued traditional, "social conservative" restrictive policies. The federal principle allows local polities to define for themselves the scope of local government.

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.

With a little work, you could find lots of cases where State laws are more restrictive (some, indeed, where there is no Federal law) and lots of cases where State laws are less restrictive. This presents a conflict only where both levels of government claim jurisdiction. Lots of advocates for various policies at the State level (drug policy, education policy, business regulation, etc.) accept the federal principle and would not want to see their particular preference imposed nationally.

 

[Upchurch]

I agree that religious conservatives are often way out of line when it comes to gay people and their rights. I am disputing blanket claims about how this is what all conservatives believe, the word covers a broad category of ideological viewpoints, some of which are clearly not compatible with religious conservatism.

I am not making any blanket claims, other than "small government, low government spending and personal freedom" does not describe contemporary conservatives. I specifically asked LSSBB if s/he considers his/her ideas typical of conservatives.

I also realize that people don't like to equivocate political orientation with party affiliation. However, for all intents and purposes, conservatives vote largely for the Republicans and very few (if any, AFAIK) of the current Republican front-runners respect that gays can be US citizens and should be treated as such. It is not necessarily a causal effect, but if conservatives were truly for small government and personal freedom, Republicans who reflected that would (or should) bubble to the top. They do not.

And I am disputing the more ridiculous claims in this thread like that a majority of conservatives want to ban gay adults from having consensual sex and throw them in concentration camps. Religious conservative views on gay rights can be, and should be, effectively criticized without the strawmen.

Agreed.

However, if religious conservatives are not true conservatives and social conservatives are not true conservatives and even other flavors of conservatives are not true conservatives, who are the true conservatives and how can we know? What metric do we use? Numerical majority? I'm fairly certain that falls to the religious conservatives, these days.

 

[respect]

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



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



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.



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.



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.



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.



Not based on who they elect into office.



Nope. Try again.



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.



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



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.



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



Another dodge. Your failure to understand my position does not rendered my position nonsense.

Why do you assume that Republican pandering to religious conservatives is a permanent condition? They haven't always done it, and there is no particular reason to think that other conservative elements can reign them in in the future.

And why do you keep saying "conservative" when what you seem to mean is "religious conservative"?

 

[respect]

if you don't like my evidence, then disprove it.
i never mentioned federal law....you are on.

I can't find any evidence that such laws exist. The burden of proof is on you to show that state legislatures have passed such laws, not on me to read every single law ever passed to show an absence of them. If it is true, it shouldn't be that hard. All I see when looking for it is message board discussions and the like but no actual evidence that state legislatures have made it legal to fire someone for being gay.

 

[DavidJames]

...And why do you keep saying "conservative" when what you seem to mean is "religious conservative"?

To anyone who has followed politics the last twenty years, it's a distinction without a difference.

 

[respect]

I am not making any blanket claims, other than "small government, low government spending and personal freedom" does not describe contemporary conservatives. I specifically asked LSSBB if s/he considers his/her ideas typical of conservatives.

I also realize that people don't like to equivocate political orientation with party affiliation. However, for all intents and purposes, conservatives vote largely for the Republicans and very few (if any, AFAIK) of the current Republican front-runners respect that gays can be US citizens and should be treated as such. It is not necessarily a causal effect, but if conservatives were truly for small government and personal freedom, Republicans who reflected that would (or should) bubble to the top. They do not.


Agreed.

However, if religious conservatives are not true conservatives and social conservatives are not true conservatives and even other flavors of conservatives are not true conservatives, who are the true conservatives and how can we know? What metric do we use? Numerical majority? I'm fairly certain that falls to the religious conservatives, these days.

It isn't a matter of being "true conservatives," it is that there are different viewpoints that fall under the broad umbrella of the term "conservative". Religious and social conservatives are typically one and the same although they don't have to be. It is unfortunate that Republicans have chosen to pander to them so much, it has left the more libertarian leaning fiscal conservatives without much representation in Washington. That many will still vote Republican hardly means that they are satisfied with the party, just that they consider them to be the lesser of two evils. Many people vote Democrat for the same reason.

 

[Upchurch]

Then is there really any such thing as "conservatism"?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And why do you keep saying "conservative" when what you seem to mean is "religious conservative"?

To anyone who has followed politics the last twenty years, it's a distinction without a difference.

Not at all! American journalists routinely refer to advocates for privatization of various government functions (Social Security, Amtrack, the Postal Service, K-12 schooling) as "conservative". There is no necessary connection between advocacy for market provision of services and religious-based views on, say, sexual behavior or drugs. After the fall of the Evil Empire, US journalists referred to defenders of the old Soviet order as "conservatives". One wonders: how long must a policy be in place before its defenders merit the label "conservative"?

 

[respect]

To anyone who has followed politics the last twenty years, it's a distinction without a difference.

I guess I am disqualified from being considered a conservative then.

 

[respect]

Then is there really any such thing as "conservatism"?

Sure, but the term covers many ideas, it just doesn't cover one unified ideology.

 

[Upchurch]

Sure, but the term covers many ideas, it just doesn't cover one unified ideology.

Then, what is "conservatism"?

 

[Tony]

Why not?

I guess you would have to define "pro-market". I intentionally avoided that term in my OP because it is sloppy. I instead went with "pro-upper class". I think liberals could just as easily be described as pro-market. It all depends on what you mean. Does being against prostitution, and drug legalization (in general) make conservatives "anti-market"? I don't think so, but I would say it makes them pro-something before I would say pro-market.

Regardless, does Calvin Coolidge qualify as "conservative" in Tony's lexicon? Why or why not?

I don't know. I am aware of his fiscal policies, but where did he stand on the social issues of his day?

 

[Tony]

I'm saying that Tony's definition is not reflective of modern US conservatives. As such, I reject it. Do you disagree?

I feel like I should step in and clarify something here. The definition in the OP isn't strictly "my" definition, but instead it is how conservatives have defined and sold themselves to voters. It is that definition I am using as a yardstick.

 

[Tony]

I think you are unneccssarily personalizing the discussion.

Not intentionally. I meant that only as a critique and not an attack on you personally. Consider this my apology for that misunderstanding.

True. There is also no conflict with the federal principle if conservatives at the state level pursued traditional, "social conservative" restrictive policies. The federal principle allows local polities to define for themselves the scope of local government.

You're right, but as far as this discussion is concerned, I'm not concerned with federal/state issues.