What Does Conservatism Offer?

[Clayton Moore]

I only know that they are passing thousands of provisions. For people who don't care they sure act as if they do.

Um, it's not as if I don't think you have a point. I actually think you do. However, it's far more nuanced than you suggest and your point doesn't really address my argument. There really is a right-wing and people to the left of that. That's not helping, oligarchy or not, that's another thread.

How can there be, in truth, a RIGHT wing(1/2) pro business wing when 90% of the population is working class?

I've read, over and over, over the years about the conservative religious right juggernaut controlling the Republican Party. Yet there never seemed to be any people/zealots speaking about their agendas. Only the media reporting on the wrath of the religious right.

I don't think "they" ever existed. But where did they go? Surely they would have balked at the Republicans putting Big Business first, ahead of working class America.

 

[thaiboxerken]

One good thing about Conservatism is that they are trying to make my life a little easier, by taking away my right to vote. Now I won't have to worry about registering and ballots and all of that.

 

[Clayton Moore]

One good thing about Conservatism is that they are trying to make my life a little easier, by taking away my right to vote. Now I won't have to worry about registering and ballots and all of that.

The core beliefs of the neoconservatives who hijacked the Republican party (and control the Democratic party) have Communist roots. See Irving Kristol.

Conservatism is not the conservatism of years long past.

 

[RandFan]

How can there be, in truth, a RIGHT wing(1/2) pro business wing when 90% of the population is working class?

I've no idea how on earth how your conclusion follows from the premise.

I've read, over and over, over the years about the conservative religious right juggernaut controlling the Republican Party. Yet there never seemed to be any people/zealots speaking about their agendas. Only the media reporting on the wrath of the religious right.

We only need to look to reality. Nothing else.

I don't think "they" ever existed. But where did they go? Surely they would have balked at the Republicans putting Big Business first, ahead of working class America.

Again, I've no clue whatsoever how your conclusion is supposed to follow from your premise. And I don't think I used the word "they", I said right-wing, you know, the people who want to restrict women's right to choose. They people who are attempting to pass thousands of provisions infringing on women's rights. I'm honestly not sure what you are even talking about anymore. It's seems I'm supposed to pretend that the real and malicious laws that place burdens on women for no good reason aren't happening. What is it you are talking about?

 

[AlBell]

Well, this seems to be the typical conservative viewpoint, I guess.

You would rather take care of things yourself, because you don't accept the risk involved with allowing others to take care of things.

It isn't the only option -- many people ( they are called "liberals" ) are OK with a more social approach, in particular they tend to accept that everyone pitching in and planning for the caca in everyone else's life is a decent ( and often superior ) alternative. I don't mind spending a little effort fixing up everyone else's caca if I feel the favor will be returned.

Could it be that conservatives just tend to have less faith in their fellow man?

No, it's that conservatives have full faith human nature remains the same as it has been historically. "Me First. screw you."

 

[RandFan]

No, it's that conservatives have full faith human nature remains the same as it has been historically. "Me First. screw you."

This isn't true. Well, it's at best half true. To quote Pvt Joker, "It's the Jungian thing.", "The duality of man."

Selfishness is part of our nature. The other part is altruism. We know this because we have a robust theoretical model that is confirmed by a lot of field research. We are in essence controlled by opposing drives, empathy/ the desire to help our fellow man and selfishness. This was understood thousands of years ago by the likes of Eastern philosophers and even Christ.

 

[Tony]

No, it's that conservatives have full faith human nature remains the same as it has been historically. "Me First. screw you."

In otherwords, they project their own worldview onto others.

 

[dc1971]

Only the media reporting on the wrath of the religious right.

Oh yeah, let's not forget about that evil media. We should not have a media - they're just too evil!

Let's live without a media like North Korea, eh Clayton?

 

[xjx388]

I believe that the best way to help someone is to teach them how to provide for themselves rather than simply give handouts indefinitely. Sure, everyone needs a hand now and then but enabling people to provide for themselves solves not only the immediate problem but also enables that person to help others.

Therefore, encouraging dependence is not what we should be doing. Instead, we should be emphasizing personal responsibility.

 

[RandFan]

When I was Conservative I thought most people didn't understand the importance of personal responsibility, and maybe some don't. But by and large people on both sides of the aisle believe in personal responsibility. Both sides also believe in providing social services. We just need to figure out how much help before we start taking away personal responsibility and how much does that harm society?

I think we can have both.

 

[Tony]

I believe that the best way to help someone is to teach them how to provide for themselves rather than simply give handouts indefinitely. Sure, everyone needs a hand now and then but enabling people to provide for themselves solves not only the immediate problem but also enables that person to help others.

Therefore, encouraging dependence is not what we should be doing. Instead, we should be emphasizing personal responsibility.

So do I. Is it your contention that this is exclusive to, or exists in conservatism?

 

[xjx388]

So do I. Is it your contention that this is exclusive to, or exists in conservatism?

I would say the sides define the terms differently.

 

[Clayton Moore]

When I was Conservative I thought most people didn't understand the importance of personal responsibility, and maybe some don't. But by and large people on both sides of the aisle believe in personal responsibility. Both sides also believe in providing social services. We just need to figure out how much help before we start taking away personal responsibility and how much does that harm society?

I think we can have both.

That's fine and dandy if a man can manage his destiny within the working competition. If the working pie shrinks there is little opportunity to resaddle-up a new career steed midstream. The decision makers of America are beyond the control of the government. In fact the decision makers provide good cop bad cop choices to further their own agendas.

 

[Clayton Moore]

I've no idea how on earth how your conclusion follows from the premise.

We only need to look to reality. Nothing else.

[qimg]http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/7591/abortionrestrictions.jpg[/qimg]

Again, I've no clue whatsoever how your conclusion is supposed to follow from your premise. And I don't think I used the word "they", I said right-wing, you know, the people who want to restrict women's right to choose. They people who are attempting to pass thousands of provisions infringing on women's rights. I'm honestly not sure what you are even talking about anymore. It's seems I'm supposed to pretend that the real and malicious laws that place burdens on women for no good reason aren't happening. What is it you are talking about?

Women's issues are the reason America is in an economic abyss?

I'm sure the scapegoat religious right is not a group that instigates and gets things done in Congress.

 

[Bill Thompson]

• Free markets
• Less regulation
• Peace through superior firepower
• The knowlege that our enemies will not love them if we show them love
• Free or freer speech
• True progress (there is a reason why none of the faces on Mt. Rushmore are from the Democratic Party)
• Making wealth instead of distributing wealth thus making more jobs

 

[Bill Thompson]

• A political ideology that is not like a religion

Everything you believe is wrong. It is not the Neocons that are religious wack jobs. Liberalism is a faith. The reasons why religious people tend to be Neocons is because they already have a religion and liberalism is like a religion and that turns people off who have not given up on a faith they were raised to believe.

 

[RedIbis]

[*]Free markets

Do these markets regulate and police themselves? Or are we supposed to believe that corporations left to their own devices will act ethically?

[*]Less regulation

This is similar to the one above. How does less regulation avoid the kinds of banking crises we've seen recently?

[*]Peace through superior firepower

What defines "superior"? We already have the most powerful military in the world. At what point does it become wasteful? Ever?

[*]The knowlege that our enemies will not love them if we show them love

The idea that we could win the hearts and minds of Iraqis and Afghanis originates from the most misguided passel of conservatives this world has ever seen. What makes you think they won't try it again?

[*]Free or freer speech

What evidence is there that conservatives want this?

[*]True progress (there is a reason why none of the faces on Mt. Rushmore are from the Democratic Party)

Another platitude that is far too abstract to implement practically.

[*]Making wealth instead of distributing wealth thus making more jobs
[/LIST]

Trickle down economonics has proven to be a fantasy. Wealthy people do not create jobs when they save money. They send it offshore where the country cannot access its tax revenue.

Now clearly I'm no economist, but your post illustrated for me why I think Conservatism offers nothing but a fantasy filled with platitudes that has brilliantly worked to get middle class and rural people to vote against their own best interests.

 

[uke2se]

Do these markets regulate and police themselves? Or are we supposed to believe that corporations left to their own devices will act ethically?


This is similar to the one above. How does less regulation avoid the kinds of banking crises we've seen recently?


What defines "superior"? We already have the most powerful military in the world. At what point does it become wasteful? Ever?


The idea that we could win the hearts and minds of Iraqis and Afghanis originates from the most misguided passel of conservatives this world has ever seen. What makes you think they won't try it again?

What evidence is there that conservatives want this?


Another platitude that is far too abstract to implement practically.



Trickle down economonics has proven to be a fantasy. Wealthy people do not create jobs when they save money. They send it offshore where the country cannot access its tax revenue.

Now clearly I'm no economist, but your post illustrated for me why I think Conservatism offers nothing but a fantasy filled with platitudes that has brilliantly worked to get middle class and rural people to vote against their own best interests.

Jebus Christ, I agree fully with Red Ibis.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Do these markets regulate and police themselves? Or are we supposed to believe that corporations left to their own devices will act ethically?


This is similar to the one above. How does less regulation avoid the kinds of banking crises we've seen recently?


What defines "superior"? We already have the most powerful military in the world. At what point does it become wasteful? Ever?


The idea that we could win the hearts and minds of Iraqis and Afghanis originates from the most misguided passel of conservatives this world has ever seen. What makes you think they won't try it again?

What evidence is there that conservatives want this?


Another platitude that is far too abstract to implement practically.



Trickle down economonics has proven to be a fantasy. Wealthy people do not create jobs when they save money. They send it offshore where the country cannot access its tax revenue.

Now clearly I'm no economist, but your post illustrated for me why I think Conservatism offers nothing but a fantasy filled with platitudes that has brilliantly worked to get middle class and rural people to vote against their own best interests.

Actual conservatism and liberalism, no matter how seemingly opposite, are avenues intended for the common good. The "currant" so called conservatism is nothing more than feudalistic greed.

 

[RandFan]

• A political ideology that is not like a religion

Everything you believe is wrong. It is not the Neocons that are religious wack jobs. Liberalism is a faith. The reasons why religious people tend to be Neocons is because they already have a religion and liberalism is like a religion and that turns people off who have not given up on a faith they were raised to believe.

Laissez-fair capitalism is probably the most like a religious faith. BTW: Having grown up a right-wing conservative, IMO, conservatism mixes easily with religion (god and guns). As an atheist conservative, IMO, atheism does not mix well with American brand of conservatism.