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]
The man could find no comfort in contradiction.
I wish it was as easy as having a liberal vs conservative arguement politically. In Texas Republicans (supposedly conservative) are giving us a massive tax increase.
These discussions are useful.
Clearly the Republicans are the party most capable of implementing a conservative agenda but there are too many moderates.
To me its fairly simple - Conservative believes in:
Limited government and Strong defense
While we are getting strong defense from current conservatives we are NOT getting limited government.
A new group of candidates needs to be drafted to challenge RINOs in all races.
Pro-Life.
That is a reasonable description. But strong defense does tug against limited government. I'm for strong defense too, but not so strong it can conscript me or rob me blind.
"restore the essence of goodness that pervaded this great nation from the time of "Happy Days," American Graffetti" and "Mayberry RFD!"
Now I want some smartalec to come on here and try to tell me what's wrong with that!!!"
I know what you are saying but it wouldn't work. The 1950's had too much liberalism left over from the New Deal. If you could return America to that time then you would just have a 1960's counterculture in a few years time.
The 1920's on the other hand was a time when the population rejected the liberalism of Wilson and much of the Progressive expansion of government was cut back such as the Income Tax rates. On the other hand the morals of the 1920's was looser than the 1950's.
Heck compared with today's popular culture I at times wish we could return to the 1980's when Olvia Newton John songs was banned for being too suggestive.
Of course I believe that everything started going downhill when the Great William McKinley was killed and that damn cowboy Teddy Roosevelt got in.
"Listen to Democratic politicians when they wax righteous about social policy. Invariably it goes something like this: “I simply reject the notion that in a good society X should have to come at the expense of Y.”
It is a shame that "Dawn to Decadence" by Barzun has faded so rapidly from public discourse, and seems to have been read by so few. Without intending in any way to take sides, Barzun thoroughly tracks the history of what he calls "Eutopians" (Europeans with a utopian vision) over the past 500 years.
I think this book should be on the reading list for anyone seeking understanding of the points Goldberg's article raises.
The book left me with the sense that what we are faced with now is a war against those who "reject the notion that in a good society X should have to come at the expense of Y" -- that is, utopians of various stripes -- and the rest of everybody else.
People are in some ways simpler and in some ways more complicated than labels make them.
They are more complicated in that the spectrum of values an individual has is tailored by his own experiences, and is not likely to match perfectly with anyone else.
They are simpler in that there is a very small number of values that nearly everyone considers important, and a very small number of judgements on those values that describes virtually everyone's position on them.
That's why the two-party political system usually works for society, and why presumptuousness about individuals often does not.
>>Now I want some smartalec to come on here and try to tell me what's wrong with that!!!
You rang? LOL. Just kidding!
Great rant, Waspman. You have a way with words!
"if I label myself as "conservative", then anyone who doesn't believe exactly as I do on every single issue must ipso facto not be a conservative."
I visualize two amorphous and shifting constellations of beliefs and proposed responses to circumstances. Sometimes the beliefs involved are not economic or political, but moral or philosophical, and most people tend to mix and match.
For instance, a person may accept liberal economic and political notions, but think himself a centrist because he supports the death penalty and thinks the pre-born should only be killed in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother.
Another person may be conservative economically and politically but regard himself as a moderate because he supports affirmative action and special privileges for victims of same-sex attraction disorder.
In my view, a label of conservative or liberal becomes useful when a person accepts X number of the points in one constellation of beliefs and rejects the corresponding beliefs of the other. This is not to say, of course, that there is any agreement on what that level is. I'd tend to say that 70% or better is clearly over the line, but others might disagree.
And, of course, the thinking of some people seems to be such a jumble of the two as to make it impossible to put them clearly in one category or the other.
However, a person is unlikely to be accepted by those who fall solidly in one or the other camp unless he accepts their view on the "deal breakers." Liberals are not going to accept you if you hold that abortion is never permissible, or that women should not work unless it's absolutely necessary to sustain life. Conservatives are unlikely to accept you as conservative if you favor eliminating the age of consent, or high taxes and cradle-to-grave welfare.
All in all, I think it most useful to draw the line between those with a utopian vision and those who, as Goldberg says, recognize that everything is a trade-off.
Dog Gone and Pelham, I sincerely thank you for your compliments, but as Dog Gone knows, it's unwise to give me any ranting encouragement, lest I go too far and step on too many toes, right D.G?
By the way... Rush was callin today a real "puke" day!!! Starr & Gingrich turning to the dark side in the same week really put him off and gave him a "dark 'hump-day'!!!"
It didn't exactly make my day either!!!
You silly calcowgirl, sometimes I cain't evun spel wurds!!!
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
This is the one that really gags me. How could a 'free-marketer' be a conservative? To buy your goods from your enemies at the expense of your friends is hardly a conservative virtue.
"Most of all, with the exception of the Cold War, I wish to conserve the greatest of American traditions from the days of my youth and turn back most of the crappola that's been imposed on us by liberal Demonicrats since Kennedy was assassinated!!! Or maybe to before Ike anointed the Governor of CA, Earl Warren to the US Supreme Court!!!
What we need is an 'undo button' and that is what these RINOs are trying to prevent. More bullets / less ballots sounds better every day.
I only mentioned Kennedy as by today's standards, he's such a hard over conservative that he'd make Zell Miller blush!!!
Tax-cutter, Pro-Life, expand the military, free-trade, amnesty for illegals, huge budget deficits. Sounds like Reagan. Of course Prez Reagan, a life long rat, twice president of his union, fan of FDR never really called himself a conservative anyways. The media always did that to scare moderate and liberal voters. Conservatives like Buckley hated Reagan when he was in office...he was too cozy with Gorbachev.
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.