Posted on 05/11/2005 6:39:25 PM PDT by neverdem
Edited on 05/11/2005 8:46:27 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
"Holding on to the past"
This is liberal trickery.
Conservatives don't hold on to the past just for the sake of maintaining the status quo (this is a key piece of liberal propaganda).
Instead conservatives hold on the the past because quite frankly the past (any time before exactly right now) is the distillation of historical and lessons learned has resulted in best practices that if deviated from lead to deviancy and death.
If you like that sort of thing and want to live in the exceedingly happy transition period before rock bottom which could take generations then you call yourself progressive and get on with the party.
...readable version
"Holding on to the past"
This is liberal trickery.
Conservatives don't hold on to the past just for the sake of maintaining the status quo (this is a key piece of liberal propaganda).
Instead conservatives hold on the the past because quite frankly the distillation of historical lessons learned has resulted in best practices that if deviated from lead to deviancy and death. (I like that kind of past. It's the stuff of text books.)
However, if you like that sort of thing (deviancy and death) and want to live in the exceedingly happy transition period before rock bottom which could take generations then you call yourself progressive and get on with the party.
What? How did I get labeled as anti-civil rights?? I just din't like LBJ's "Great Society!!!" (The welfare state part)
That was the only thing that I could get out of the 'Jim Crow' comment. I could be mistaken. I don't see you as anti 'civil' rights, but to me there is a big question:
How can rights be civil? Rights are bestowed upon us by our creator, not by government. Government is our creation, thus it cannot bestow anything on us that we don't already have.
This is an interesting essay on conservative diversity and the utopians. It's a little long, but it recieved a number of compliments.
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
My thoughts about welfare for farmers, there shouldn't be any.
Who in their right mind would? I find it humorous the NRO provides Kirk's definition for conservatism and yet I haven't seen any of those supported in the pages of the NRO for more than a few years. The NRO is basically run now by hawkish social and fiscal liberals
Good question!!!
serious good stuff
Dewey believed that society could be made whole if we jettisoned dogma and embraced a natural, organic understanding of the society where everyone worked together.
Can anyone name one?
And now back to the article.
True libertarianism is not a fringe, but the essence of conservatism. One must of course cull out the libertines from this moniker, as they seek only license, not liberty. Liberty carries with it responsibility. This is why I gag at the cruel misrepresentation of Newt Gingrich as a conservative. He loves government, and balks at the idea of liberty.
I agree. Farmers wanting tonnes of taxpayer loot for "protecting our way of life" aren't conservatives at all ..no matter how strongly they oppose abortion or any other social moral issue. But the rural parts of America are a big part of the GOP base. I guess GOP doesn't mean conservative.
If you're looking for total consistancy I'd recomend you look someplace other than politics. Otherwise you're going to be very disappointed.
"The NRO is basically run now by hawkish social and fiscal liberals"
Dear God - what do you call "social and fiscal liberals"?!
Is Kathryn Jean Lopez not pro-life enough for you?
Know a lot of people who've fleshed out the intellectual argument against gay marriage more than Stanley Kurtz?
Rich Lowry getting too snuggly with feminists for you?
Mark Steyn too enamoured with socialists?
Donald Luskin remains a fiscal liberal because he only eviscerates Paul Krugman two or three times a week, when he could do so every day?
I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, NRO has remained remarkably unsquishy, and deserves huge kudos for it (given how difficult it apparently is for our own Senators to remain unsquished). Do they allow dissent within their pages? Of course - and they should. Each writer there probably does dissent on a single issue or two, but taken altogether, if you asked the various writers and contributors to vote on any conservative policy, the solid right position would win almost constantly. In fact, I can't think of a single "social or fiscal liberal" policy that would garner majority support there, with the -possible- exception of opposition to the drug war, but I for one don't consider that a necessarily liberal position. Please, do share on what other subject matters you've observed that they've all become liberals now if you've observed otherwise.
Qwinn
bump
It seems that Starr's remarks were taken completely out of context. He was referring to the 'nuclear' option. He was talking about the Dems blocking the judges, but that didn't stop the them (I think it was cBS again) from lying about his remarks.
Which is exactly why Conservatives rarely win while waiting on Republicans who stop short against Demonicrats who NEVER stop at ANYTHING!!!
Conservatives of all types and stripes are being taken totally for granted now... and it needs to STOP, NOW!!!
Oh Sister! What a conclusion to jump to!! Fergediboutit!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.