Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 10/9/2007 9:11:20 AM EST
It used to be that if someone was pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, supported a strong national defense and supported low taxes they were considered to be a staunch conservative.

But somehow, around here anyways, I always find myself being called things like commie, liberal, socialist, democrat, marxist, protectionist, etc.

When did the definition of conservatism change?
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 9:21:49 AM EST
It's been steadily moving left since 1861.

Someone wrote once: "Conservative? Conserve what?" IIRC, it was the Rev. R.L. Dabney.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 9:28:19 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2007 9:31:33 AM EST by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
It used to be that if someone was pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, supported a strong national defense and supported low taxes they were considered to be a staunch conservative.

But somehow, around here anyways, I always find myself being called things like commie, liberal, socialist, democrat, marxist, protectionist, etc.

When did the definition of conservatism change?


Well it might just be the collective, anti-business, anti-free trade stuff you post that causes that… from reading it you are not a really conservative in the modern sense.

ETA: You seem to be a social conservative but that is all.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 9:30:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
It used to be that if someone was pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, supported a strong national defense and supported low taxes they were considered to be a staunch conservative.



That is still the definition of conservative.

BigDozer66
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 9:48:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
...conservative in the modern sense.


AKA: Neocon
AKA: Fabian socialist*

Thanks for being honest, Mike.

*Look up the origin of the term "neocon" and those who espouse the platform before disagreeing.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 10:03:55 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2007 10:05:44 AM EST by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By FMD:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
...conservative in the modern sense.


AKA: Neocon
AKA: Fabian socialist*

Thanks for being honest, Mike.



*Look up the origin of the term "neocon" and those who espouse the platform before disagreeing.




No thanks for trying to pull a fast one.

Uh no I mean a Reagan or Goldwater conservative a real modern conservative and not a radical libertarian pretending to be a conservative.

Neocon is now a meaningless term used by nuts.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 10:07:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2007 10:07:55 AM EST by MTUSA]
When Nixon created affirmative action.
Both Bush's changed it too.
(in my lifetime anyway)
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 10:16:16 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2007 10:27:41 AM EST by FMD]

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Neocon is now a meaningless term used by nuts.




This is a long read, but I think it answers the disconnect that you might be having, Mowtown Steve:

From the horse's own mouth (parts in blue are important, but I left the rest for context):

The Neoconservative Persuasion by Irving Kristol
© Copyright 2007, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.


WHAT EXACTLY IS NEOCONSERVATISM? Journalists, and now even presidential candidates, speak with an enviable confidence on who or what is "neoconservative," and seem to assume the meaning is fully revealed in the name. Those of us who are designated as "neocons" are amused, flattered, or dismissive, depending on the context. It is reasonable to wonder: Is there any "there" there?

Even I, frequently referred to as the "godfather" of all those neocons, have had my moments of wonderment. A few years ago I said (and, alas, wrote) that neoconservatism had had its own distinctive qualities in its early years, but by now had been absorbed into the mainstream of American conservatism. I was wrong, and the reason I was wrong is that, ever since its origin among disillusioned liberal intellectuals in the 1970s, what we call neoconservatism has been one of those intellectual undercurrents that surface only intermittently. It is not a "movement," as the conspiratorial critics would have it. Neoconservatism is what the late historian of Jacksonian America, Marvin Meyers, called a "persuasion," one that manifests itself over time, but erratically, and one whose meaning we clearly glimpse only in retrospect.

Viewed in this way, one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy
. That this new conservative politics is distinctly American is beyond doubt. There is nothing like neoconservatism in Europe, and most European conservatives are highly skeptical of its legitimacy. The fact that conservatism in the United States is so much healthier than in Europe, so much more politically effective, surely has something to do with the existence of neoconservatism. But Europeans, who think it absurd to look to the United States for lessons in political innovation, resolutely refuse to consider this possibility.

Neoconservatism is the first variant of American conservatism in the past century that is in the "American grain." It is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic. Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked. Of course, those worthies are in no way overlooked by a large, probably the largest, segment of the Republican party, with the result that most Republican politicians know nothing and could not care less about neoconservatism. Nevertheless, they cannot be blind to the fact that neoconservative policies, reaching out beyond the traditional political and financial base, have helped make the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters. Nor has it passed official notice that it is the neoconservative public policies, not the traditional Republican ones, that result in popular Republican presidencies.

One of these policies, most visible and controversial, is cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth. Neocons are familiar with intellectual history and aware that it is only in the last two centuries that democracy has become a respectable option among political thinkers. In earlier times, democracy meant an inherently turbulent political regime, with the "have-nots" and the "haves" engaged in a perpetual and utterly destructive class struggle. It was only the prospect of economic growth in which everyone prospered, if not equally or simultaneously, that gave modern democracies their legitimacy and durability.

The cost of this emphasis on economic growth has been an attitude toward public finance that is far less risk averse than is the case among more traditional conservatives. Neocons would prefer not to have large budget deficits, but it is in the nature of democracy--because it seems to be in the nature of human nature--that political demagogy will frequently result in economic recklessness, so that one sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth. It is a basic assumption of neoconservatism that, as a consequence of the spread of affluence among all classes, a property-owning and tax-paying population will, in time, become less vulnerable to egalitarian illusions and demagogic appeals and more sensible about the fundamentals of economic reckoning.

This leads to the issue of the role of the state. Neocons do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state and are happy to study alternative ways of delivering these services. But they are impatient with the Hayekian notion that we are on "the road to serfdom." Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his "The Man Versus the State," was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today's America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not. Though they find much to be critical about, they tend to seek intellectual guidance in the democratic wisdom of Tocqueville, rather than in the Tory nostalgia of, say, Russell Kirk.

But it is only to a degree that neocons are comfortable in modern America. The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives--though not with those libertarian conservatives who are conservative in economics but unmindful of the culture. The upshot is a quite unexpected alliance between neocons, who include a fair proportion of secular intellectuals, and religious traditionalists. They are united on issues concerning the quality of education, the relations of church and state, the regulation of pornography, and the like, all of which they regard as proper candidates for the government's attention. And since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power.
Because religious conservatism is so feeble in Europe, the neoconservative potential there is correspondingly weak.


AND THEN, of course, there is foreign policy, the area of American politics where neoconservatism has recently been the focus of media attention. This is surprising since there is no set of neoconservative beliefs concerning foreign policy, only a set of attitudes derived from historical experience. (The favorite neoconservative text on foreign affairs, thanks to professors Leo Strauss of Chicago and Donald Kagan of Yale, is Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War.) These attitudes can be summarized in the following "theses" (as a Marxist would say): First, patriotism is a natural and healthy sentiment and should be encouraged by both private and public institutions. Precisely because we are a nation of immigrants, this is a powerful American sentiment. Second, world government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. International institutions that point to an ultimate world government should be regarded with the deepest suspicion. Third, statesmen should, above all, have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies. This is not as easy as it sounds, as the history of the Cold War revealed. The number of intelligent men who could not count the Soviet Union as an enemy, even though this was its own self-definition, was absolutely astonishing.

Finally, for a great power, the "national interest" is not a geographical term, except for fairly prosaic matters like trade and environmental regulation. A smaller nation might appropriately feel that its national interest begins and ends at its borders, so that its foreign policy is almost always in a defensive mode. A larger nation has more extensive interests. And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns. Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal. That is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II. That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.

Behind all this is a fact: the incredible military superiority of the United States vis-à-vis the nations of the rest of the world, in any imaginable combination.
This superiority was planned by no one, and even today there are many Americans who are in denial. To a large extent, it all happened as a result of our bad luck. During the 50 years after World War II, while Europe was at peace and the Soviet Union largely relied on surrogates to do its fighting, the United States was involved in a whole series of wars: the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Kosovo conflict, the Afghan War, and the Iraq War. The result was that our military spending expanded more or less in line with our economic growth, while Europe's democracies cut back their military spending in favor of social welfare programs. The Soviet Union spent profusely but wastefully, so that its military collapsed along with its economy.

Suddenly, after two decades during which "imperial decline" and "imperial overstretch" were the academic and journalistic watchwords, the United States emerged as uniquely powerful. The "magic" of compound interest over half a century had its effect on our military budget, as did the cumulative scientific and technological research of our armed forces. With power come responsibilities, whether sought or not, whether welcome or not. And it is a fact that if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you.

The older, traditional elements in the Republican party have difficulty coming to terms with this new reality in foreign affairs, just as they cannot reconcile economic conservatism with social and cultural conservatism. But by one of those accidents historians ponder, our current president and his administration turn out to be quite at home in this new political environment, although it is clear they did not anticipate this role any more than their party as a whole did. As a result, neoconservatism began enjoying a second life, at a time when its obituaries were still being published.


Irving Kristol is author of "Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea."



ETA: Some more "nuts": Paul Weyrich, Paul Gigot, and George Will

2nd edit: I might give you Weyrich, but the Editor of the NY Times and a respected writer for the Washington Post? C'mon Mike. You know I'm right: Neoconservatisim (under ANY name) is NOT traditional, nor it is "nuts" to call a spade a spade.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 10:21:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
It used to be that if someone was pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, supported a strong national defense and supported low taxes they were considered to be a staunch conservative.

But somehow, around here anyways, I always find myself being called things like commie, liberal, socialist, democrat, marxist, protectionist, etc.

When did the definition of conservatism change?


You are a social conservative, but you agree with the socialists about things such as government regulations of trade, taxes, anti-business, and pro-union.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 10:27:33 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2007 10:28:54 AM EST by badfish274]
Reagan/Goldwater conservatism has been hijacked by the social right.

There aren't any of what Mike calls "modern conservatives" left, in the white house, congress, or in the public at large.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 10:30:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By FMD:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
...conservative in the modern sense.


AKA: Neocon
AKA: Fabian socialist*

Thanks for being honest, Mike.



*Look up the origin of the term "neocon" and those who espouse the platform before disagreeing.




No thanks for trying to pull a fast one.

Uh no I mean a Reagan or Goldwater conservative a real modern conservative and not a radical libertarian pretending to be a conservative.

Neocon is now a meaningless term used by nuts.


I think if you did some research on that "radical libertarian" you might learn he is really a true conservative.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 10:31:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By igorthesmall:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By FMD:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
...conservative in the modern sense.


AKA: Neocon
AKA: Fabian socialist*

Thanks for being honest, Mike.



*Look up the origin of the term "neocon" and those who espouse the platform before disagreeing.




No thanks for trying to pull a fast one.

Uh no I mean a Reagan or Goldwater conservative a real modern conservative and not a radical libertarian pretending to be a conservative.

Neocon is now a meaningless term used by nuts.


I think if you did some research on that "radical libertarian" you might learn he is really a true conservative.


Goldwater was about as libertarian as they come. Note the "small L".
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 10:35:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
It used to be that if someone was pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, supported a strong national defense and supported low taxes they were considered to be a staunch conservative.

But somehow, around here anyways, I always find myself being called things like commie, liberal, socialist, democrat, marxist, protectionist, etc.

When did the definition of conservatism change?


Well it might just be the collective, anti-business, anti-free trade stuff you post that causes that… from reading it you are not a really conservative in the modern sense.

ETA: You seem to be a social conservative but that is all.



Obviously, I am not the only one who thinks this Steve.

TXL
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 10:51:22 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2007 10:56:01 AM EST by FMD]

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By igorthesmall:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Uh no I mean a Reagan or Goldwater conservative a real modern conservative and not a radical libertarian pretending to be a conservative.

Neocon is now a meaningless term used by nuts.


I think if you did some research on that "radical libertarian" you might learn he is really a true conservative.


Goldwater was about as libertarian as they come. Note the "small L".


You might want to revisit Goldwater's early take on any number of policies before linking him to the libertarians completely [ETA: Read his acceptance speech for the 64 nomination]. Compare it to the Bush 1 or 2 administrations' view and/or the Libertarian Party's take on any given subject, and I think you'd come to the conclusion that the (early) Goldwater/Reagan ideas were closer to "paleoconservative", while Reagan's later administration struggled with neocon-inspired deficit spending policies.

Re-read the article I posted above. As someone who rejects the "modern conservative" ideas, it's kind of funny that I posted an article written by Kristol. That said, if anyone can be quoted as an authority on what the Neocons are, and how they've affected the Republican "conservative" platform, it's him.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 11:26:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2007 11:31:59 AM EST by motown_steve]

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
It used to be that if someone was pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, supported a strong national defense and supported low taxes they were considered to be a staunch conservative.

But somehow, around here anyways, I always find myself being called things like commie, liberal, socialist, democrat, marxist, protectionist, etc.

When did the definition of conservatism change?


Well it might just be the collective, anti-business, anti-free trade stuff you post that causes that… from reading it you are not a really conservative in the modern sense.

ETA: You seem to be a social conservative but that is all.


I disagree with your assertion that I am anti-business. I have no problem with for profit enterprises, in fact I believe very strongly that they are an essential pillar in the strength of this nation. I just happen to agree fully with this statement by Theodore Roosevelt:


We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community.


To me this means that in our world that while doing things like moving the means production overseas, selling management rights to our infrastructure, offshoring jobs and free trade may be economically beneficial to some businesses they do more damage to the nation as whole then they benefit. Government has the power and the mandate to regulate commerce and they should regulate it in such a way to ensure that those who are engaging in commerce are not doing so to the detriment of the country.

ETA - I would remind you that Ronald Reagan himself engaged in many economic policies that would be demonized today as protectionism. Reagan slapped tariffs on Jamaican sugar, Japanese electronics, British motorcycles and several other imports in order to help defend the strength of our economy and our infrastructure. The tariffs placed on Japanese automobiles are the reason that so many thousands of Americans who work for Toyota, Honda, Nissan and other foreign automakers have jobs today.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 11:29:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
It used to be that if someone was pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, supported a strong national defense and supported low taxes they were considered to be a staunch conservative.

But somehow, around here anyways, I always find myself being called things like commie, liberal, socialist, democrat, marxist, protectionist, etc.

When did the definition of conservatism change?


Well it might just be the collective, anti-business, anti-free trade stuff you post that causes that… from reading it you are not a really conservative in the modern sense.

ETA: You seem to be a social conservative but that is all.


I disagree with your assertion that I am anti-business. I have no problem with for profit enterprises, in fact I believe very strongly that they are an essential pillar in the strength of this nation. I just happen to agree fully with this statement by Theodore Roosevelt:


We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community.


To me this means that in our world that while doing things like moving the means production overseas, selling management rights to our infrastructure, offshoring jobs and free trade may be economically beneficial to some businesses they do more damage to the nation as whole then they benefit. Government has the power and the mandate to regulate commerce and they should regulate it in such a way to ensure that those who are engaging in commerce are not doing so to the detriment of the country.


Funny that you think government should regulate business, but you think that Unions are great and government should continue to allow them to exist.

Link Posted: 10/9/2007 11:49:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By FMD:

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By igorthesmall:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Uh no I mean a Reagan or Goldwater conservative a real modern conservative and not a radical libertarian pretending to be a conservative.

Neocon is now a meaningless term used by nuts.


I think if you did some research on that "radical libertarian" you might learn he is really a true conservative.


Goldwater was about as libertarian as they come. Note the "small L".


You might want to revisit Goldwater's early take on any number of policies before linking him to the libertarians completely [ETA: Read his acceptance speech for the 64 nomination]. Compare it to the Bush 1 or 2 administrations' view and/or the Libertarian Party's take on any given subject, and I think you'd come to the conclusion that the (early) Goldwater/Reagan ideas were closer to "paleoconservative", while Reagan's later administration struggled with neocon-inspired deficit spending policies.

RIF. That means Goldwater != Libertarian party.


Re-read the article I posted above. As someone who rejects the "modern conservative" ideas, it's kind of funny that I posted an article written by Kristol. That said, if anyone can be quoted as an authority on what the Neocons are, and how they've affected the Republican "conservative" platform, it's him.

I couldn't care less about "neocons" or any of that other pigeon-holing bullshit. You either want the government small and out of peoples lives with a strong national defense (to put it simply) or you dont.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 11:56:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
To me this means that in our world that while doing things like moving the means production overseas, selling management rights to our infrastructure, offshoring jobs and free trade may be economically beneficial to some businesses they do more damage to the nation as whole then they benefit. Government has the power and the mandate to regulate commerce and they should regulate it in such a way to ensure that those who are engaging in commerce are not doing so to the detriment of the country.


Apparently you missed the whole point of American Grand Strategy from 1945 onward:

Prosperity and Freedom anywhere is good for the United States.

Our nation's GDP is rising. Jobs are currently being created.

Other nations GDPs are rising. Jobs are being created.

Good.

Just because some industries are shifting labor forces around doesn't mean much. Thats more of an effect of the bullshit economic, tax, and union policies of this nation than anything else.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 12:09:24 PM EST
Which kind of conservative are you talking about?

Social consecrative - Little government intrusion, states rights, anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, pro constitution, pro gun rights, pro free speech, pro family values.

Fiscal conservative - Low individual taxes, low corporate taxes, no death tax, low or no property tax, balanced budget, only the absolute necessary social programs, little or no welfare except for those who really need it, no paying people to have babies.

Global conservative - Get the UN out of the USA, no foreign aid to countries that hate us, build the goddam fence already, pro-preemptive strikes, strong military, reward our friends, punish our enemies, bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.

Well, which do you claim to be?
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 12:11:36 PM EST

Originally Posted By 3rdpig:
Which kind of conservative are you talking about?

Social consecrative - Little government intrusion, states rights, anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, pro constitution, pro gun rights, pro free speech, pro family values.

Fiscal conservative - Low individual taxes, low corporate taxes, no death tax, low or no property tax, balanced budget, only the absolute necessary social programs, little or no welfare except for those who really need it, no paying people to have babies.

Global conservative - Get the UN out of the USA, no foreign aid to countries that hate us, build the goddam fence already, pro-preemptive strikes, strong military, reward our friends, punish our enemies, bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.

Well, which do you claim to be?


Which one do you claim to be? I was under the impression that a conservative is all three.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 12:12:41 PM EST

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
To me this means that in our world that while doing things like moving the means production overseas, selling management rights to our infrastructure, offshoring jobs and free trade may be economically beneficial to some businesses they do more damage to the nation as whole then they benefit. Government has the power and the mandate to regulate commerce and they should regulate it in such a way to ensure that those who are engaging in commerce are not doing so to the detriment of the country.


Apparently you missed the whole point of American Grand Strategy from 1945 onward:

Prosperity and Freedom anywhere is good for the United States.

Our nation's GDP is rising. Jobs are currently being created.

Other nations GDPs are rising. Jobs are being created.

Good.

Just because some industries are shifting labor forces around doesn't mean much. Thats more of an effect of the bullshit economic, tax, and union policies of this nation than anything else.


Lat time I checked, our trade deficit was growing exponentially and the value of our currency was plummeting as a result. Also, unemployment has going up for each of the last two months, Americans are in debt up to their eyeballs and they can't repay the money they've borrowed. All while energy prices shoot through the roof.

Yep, sounds like a strong economy to me.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 12:14:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By 3rdpig:
Which kind of conservative are you talking about?

Social consecrative - Little government intrusion, states rights, anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, pro constitution, pro gun rights, pro free speech, pro family values.

Fiscal conservative - Low individual taxes, low corporate taxes, no death tax, low or no property tax, balanced budget, only the absolute necessary social programs, little or no welfare except for those who really need it, no paying people to have babies.

Global conservative - Get the UN out of the USA, no foreign aid to countries that hate us, build the goddam fence already, pro-preemptive strikes, strong military, reward our friends, punish our enemies, bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.

Well, which do you claim to be?


Which one do you claim to be? I was under the impression that a conservative is all three.


Really? Because I don't see a single item on that list that I disagree with.

I did notice that free trade and offshoring are completely absent though.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 12:16:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
To me this means that in our world that while doing things like moving the means production overseas, selling management rights to our infrastructure, offshoring jobs and free trade may be economically beneficial to some businesses they do more damage to the nation as whole then they benefit. Government has the power and the mandate to regulate commerce and they should regulate it in such a way to ensure that those who are engaging in commerce are not doing so to the detriment of the country.


Apparently you missed the whole point of American Grand Strategy from 1945 onward:

Prosperity and Freedom anywhere is good for the United States.

Our nation's GDP is rising. Jobs are currently being created.

Other nations GDPs are rising. Jobs are being created.

Good.

Just because some industries are shifting labor forces around doesn't mean much. Thats more of an effect of the bullshit economic, tax, and union policies of this nation than anything else.


Lat time I checked, our trade deficit was growing exponentially and the value of our currency was plummeting as a result. Also, unemployment has going up for each of the last two months, Americans are in debt up to their eyeballs and they can't repay the money they've borrowed. All while energy prices shoot through the roof.

Yep, sounds like a strong economy to me.


What does any of that have to do with outsourcing jobs?

Serious question, I'll readily admit I'm not an economist.

Our currency is plummeting because the government isn't being a good creditor. We're borrowing obscene amounts of money with no end in sight. The credit situation isn't helping at all. Energy prices are a result of the asshats in the commodity market shitting a cow every time a gun goes off in saudi arabia.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 12:18:32 PM EST

Originally Posted By igorthesmall:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
It used to be that if someone was pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, supported a strong national defense and supported low taxes they were considered to be a staunch conservative.

But somehow, around here anyways, I always find myself being called things like commie, liberal, socialist, democrat, marxist, protectionist, etc.

When did the definition of conservatism change?


Well it might just be the collective, anti-business, anti-free trade stuff you post that causes that… from reading it you are not a really conservative in the modern sense.

ETA: You seem to be a social conservative but that is all.


I disagree with your assertion that I am anti-business. I have no problem with for profit enterprises, in fact I believe very strongly that they are an essential pillar in the strength of this nation. I just happen to agree fully with this statement by Theodore Roosevelt:


We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community.


To me this means that in our world that while doing things like moving the means production overseas, selling management rights to our infrastructure, offshoring jobs and free trade may be economically beneficial to some businesses they do more damage to the nation as whole then they benefit. Government has the power and the mandate to regulate commerce and they should regulate it in such a way to ensure that those who are engaging in commerce are not doing so to the detriment of the country.


Funny that you think government should regulate business, but you think that Unions are great and government should continue to allow them to exist.



To say that I think that Unions are great is dishonest. I don't think that unions are great and I have never said so.

I absolutely think that government should allow them to exist. If employees want to organize and use their collective strength to negotiate compensation with their employer then that is fine with me.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 12:26:36 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2007 12:29:35 PM EST by motown_steve]

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
To me this means that in our world that while doing things like moving the means production overseas, selling management rights to our infrastructure, offshoring jobs and free trade may be economically beneficial to some businesses they do more damage to the nation as whole then they benefit. Government has the power and the mandate to regulate commerce and they should regulate it in such a way to ensure that those who are engaging in commerce are not doing so to the detriment of the country.


Apparently you missed the whole point of American Grand Strategy from 1945 onward:

Prosperity and Freedom anywhere is good for the United States.

Our nation's GDP is rising. Jobs are currently being created.

Other nations GDPs are rising. Jobs are being created.

Good.

Just because some industries are shifting labor forces around doesn't mean much. Thats more of an effect of the bullshit economic, tax, and union policies of this nation than anything else.


Lat time I checked, our trade deficit was growing exponentially and the value of our currency was plummeting as a result. Also, unemployment has going up for each of the last two months, Americans are in debt up to their eyeballs and they can't repay the money they've borrowed. All while energy prices shoot through the roof.

Yep, sounds like a strong economy to me.


What does any of that have to do with outsourcing jobs?

Serious question, I'll readily admit I'm not an economist.

Our currency is plummeting because the government isn't being a good creditor. We're borrowing obscene amounts of money with no end in sight. The credit situation isn't helping at all. Energy prices are a result of the asshats in the commodity market shitting a cow every time a gun goes off in saudi arabia.


My understanding from what I have read is that the foreign investors who have been investing in our currency view our enormous trade deficits, our rising unemployment and our credit crunch as signs that our consumer driven low production economy is unsustainable and as a result they are dumping their dollars in favor of other currencies. This along with the fact that the Federal Reserve has the money printers on overdrive (in order to keep the flow of cash available for Americans to borrow) has increased the supply of our currency and caused it's devaluation. When you as an individual spend more than you earn then it doesn't take a genius to figure out that you will not be able to keep up that lifestyle for long. The same is true with nations in the global economy. When a nation consumes in quantities that are vastly higher than what it produces then it is also unsustainable. Balance is everything.

As for the rising costs of energy, this is one point where I readily admit that government regulation has gone sour. If we started ignoring the envirowackos and started pumping oil from our own huge reserves then we could increase the supply available and decrease the price.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 12:46:57 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2007 12:47:36 PM EST by StudentofLiberty]

Originally Posted By igorthesmall:
but you think that Unions are great and government should continue to allow them to exist.




That's a funny view of "conservitive". If the gov't will "allow them to exist"? Individuals dont' have a RIGHT to get together?
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 12:50:22 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2007 12:51:31 PM EST by StudentofLiberty]
"Conservitive" now means staus quo. While "liberal" now means opposition to that status quo.

Neither term have anything to do with traditional use of those words. Labels for fools and sheep.

Left and right have no meaning either. Dem and Repub are almost the exact same. I challenge anyone to show me the differnce between Rudy and Hillary.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 12:58:02 PM EST
height=8
Originally Posted By StudentofLiberty:
"Conservitive" now means staus quo. While "liberal" now means opposition to that status quo.

Neither term have anything to do with traditional use of those words. Labels for fools and sheep.

Left and right have no meaning either. Dem and Repub are almost the exact same. I challenge anyone to show me the differnce between Rudy and Hillary.



I strongly agree with you. Labels have no use unless one understands the historical application and different uses of the label.

For example, liberalism has many ideological branches. If people understood the type of liberalism they disagree/agree with, then perhaps people could better analyze their own beliefs.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 12:58:38 PM EST

Originally Posted By StudentofLiberty:
"Conservitive" now means staus quo. While "liberal" now means opposition to that status quo.

Neither term have anything to do with traditional use of those words. Labels for fools and sheep.

Left and right have no meaning either. Dem and Repub are almost the exact same. I challenge anyone to show me the differnce between Rudy and Hillary.


Fiscal policy and SCOTUS nominees.

It aint much, but its the best I got.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 1:14:41 PM EST
The only thing wrong with the term Neocon is that it implies they are "conservative" in any way.

The louder they bitch about the term Neocon, the more certain you can be they are one.

These threads are predominately a Neocon roll call.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 1:21:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By badfish274:
RIF. That means Goldwater != Libertarian party.


I read you loud and clear. Unfortunately you ignored my point: The 1964 Goldwater platform is classically conservative without a "little 'L'" libertarian slant. His later stances meet your definition, but by then most conservatives (including Regan) were distancing themselves...

Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.


I couldn't care less about "neocons" or any of that other pigeon-holing bullshit. You either want the government small and out of peoples lives with a strong national defense (to put it simply) or you dont.


Steve wanted to understand why he was being called a "socialist" despite supporting (largely) traditional conservative principals. I simply pointed out that the folks who are doing the name calling are themselves descended in philosophy from self-proclaimed "liberal intellectuals" with an admitted Fabian strategy of co-opting the Republican party. Hardly what anyone would call conservative. Welcome to Orwell's newspeak.

If you ignore the fact that the folks pushing this agenda wish to position themselves as the architects of a "Benevolent Global Hegemony” simply because I labeled them as neoconservative, then I guess there's no hope. In plain terms without the big words, their ideal is an America where:

  • ..."Free Trade" is simply another word for Mercantilism administered by international bureaucracy.

  • ..."Strong National Defense" means that while our military is "winning hearts and minds", our borders are unguarded from terrorists crossing over (don’t worry the Department of Homeland Security will get ‘em).

  • ..."Limited Government" means a little less intrusion on your RKBA, a slight reduction in welfare spending, and where a Gay Marriage amendment is a priority, all while your library habits are subject to scrutinization for "terroristic activities", the country's trade and spending deficits spiral out of control, and you have to enjoy life as an employee of McDonalds (or start your own business) to avoid the unemployment line.


If it's "pigeon-holing" to expose the folks who would create that America, then I guess I fail to see why anyone who calls themselves conservative (or a patriot) wouldn’t want to do it.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 1:51:28 PM EST



"Conservitive" now means staus quo. While "liberal" now means opposition to that status quo.

Neither term have anything to do with traditional use of those words. Labels for fools and sheep.

Left and right have no meaning either. Dem and Repub are almost the exact same. I challenge anyone to show me the differnce between Rudy and Hillary.


I was with you until that last part in red.
And while I think I know what you mean, you gotta admit, there's one difference. Rudy isn't married to Bill.

Plus, as far as I am concerned, "conservative" has always meant "status quo". I finally gave up and just started to try to understand what a conservative is supposed to be these days.

Thanks to this thread, I now have some further illumination as to the meaning of neoconservative.

But I gotta admit, big government isn't necessarily bad government.


Link Posted: 10/9/2007 2:16:30 PM EST
To quote the great Robert A. Heinlein:

Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 2:24:08 PM EST
When it moved from being more about fiscal conservatism and minding your own business to social authoritarianism, corporate buddying, and using military force as a tool to achieve political agendas which serve the first two ends.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 2:28:30 PM EST
height=8
Originally Posted By maximumbob_tx:
But I gotta admit, big government isn't necessarily bad government.



According to a classical/neoclassical liberal or an individualistic conservative, big government is always bad government. Government, in other words, is a necessary evil, and the larger a government grows the more evil it becomes.

If government is a barrier against individual liberty, then a larger government equates to a larger barrier.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 3:17:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Last time I checked, the value of our currency was plummeting trade deficit was growing exponentially and the trade deficit was growing exponentially value of our currency was plummeting as a result. Also, unemployment has going up for each of the last two months, Americans are in debt up to their eyeballs and they can't repay the money they've borrowed. All while energy prices shoot through the roof.

Yep, sounds like a strong economy to me.


fixed it...you have the causes and effects switched. you did allude to the fed causing currency devaluation/inflation later so I won't go there...
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 5:30:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By FMD:

Originally Posted By badfish274:
RIF. That means Goldwater != Libertarian party.


I read you loud and clear. Unfortunately you ignored my point: The 1964 Goldwater platform is classically conservative without a "little 'L'" libertarian slant. His later stances meet your definition, but by then most conservatives (including Regan) were distancing themselves...

Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.

You'll have to explain to me what you mean by "classically conservative", then. Best I can glean from my sources is that his '64 platform can be boiled down into A) Militant anti-communist, B) less government domestic spending and C) that wonderful "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." phrase. I'm still trying to find something to disagree with. I mean, he was critical of Eisenhower's spending, and that mans about as spendthrift as they come.



I couldn't care less about "neocons" or any of that other pigeon-holing bullshit. You either want the government small and out of peoples lives with a strong national defense (to put it simply) or you dont.


Steve wanted to understand why he was being called a "socialist" despite supporting (largely) traditional conservative principals. I simply pointed out that the folks who are doing the name calling are themselves descended in philosophy from self-proclaimed "liberal intellectuals" with an admitted Fabian strategy of co-opting the Republican party. Hardly what anyone would call conservative. Welcome to Orwell's newspeak.

No argument here.


If you ignore the fact that the folks pushing this agenda wish to position themselves as the architects of a "Benevolent Global Hegemony” simply because I labeled them as neoconservative, then I guess there's no hope. In plain terms without the big words, their ideal is an America where:

  • ..."Free Trade" is simply another word for Mercantilism administered by international bureaucracy.

  • ..."Strong National Defense" means that while our military is "winning hearts and minds", our borders are unguarded from terrorists crossing over (don’t worry the Department of Homeland Security will get ‘em).

  • ..."Limited Government" means a little less intrusion on your RKBA, a slight reduction in welfare spending, and where a Gay Marriage amendment is a priority, all while your library habits are subject to scrutinization for "terroristic activities", the country's trade and spending deficits spiral out of control, and you have to enjoy life as an employee of McDonalds (or start your own business) to avoid the unemployment line.


If it's "pigeon-holing" to expose the folks who would create that America, then I guess I fail to see why anyone who calls themselves conservative (or a patriot) wouldn’t want to do it.

I agree, to an extent. I really don't have much of a problem with free trade. I'll support open markets as far as I can take it.

I'm just so damn sick of wrangling over political pseudonyms, thats all.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 5:34:07 PM EST
Conservative means you want things to stay the same.

Liberal means you favor freedom.

Progressive means you value change.


These are the literal definitions. Of course, different groups have appropriated these terms for their own causes, causing them to bear no relation to the beliefs espoused by their so called members.
Top Top