'Conservatism' -- Social movement or Political movement?

[Dominic Harr]

If I may, I'd like to ask for an informal 'poll' of FReepers:

There are 2 'Conservative' movements in this country.

• Social Conservatives -- concerned about moral and social issues like gay marriage, teaching of Darwinism, etc.

• Political Conservatives -- 'conservative' meant as in, "Conservative with my money". Careful. Careful with spending, with defense, careful not to jump to conclusions, careful not to put "solutions" in place that will make the problem worse.

All I would like to know is, what % of us are which? Please respond and say which, or both.

[markomalley]

Interesting test. They have me rated as an Extreme Conservative. That's nice.

• 0.3% had the same score as you.
• 83.9% were above you on the chart.
• 4.3% were below you on the chart.
• 7% were to your right on the chart.
• 91.3% were to your left on the chart.

See, I knew Bush was a liberal!!! ((Smile...))

[Pelayo]

...when a person comes along who promises not to push the 'social engineering' policies but instead focuses on the 'political C' ideas of govt accountability, etc . . .

How does smaller government translate to more government accountability? Accountable to what; more government, Or the people? The former means... well, more government, and the latter means more direct democratic populism; we might as well call ourselves democrats.

[Dominic Harr]

How does smaller government translate to more government accountability? Accountable to what; more government, Or the people? The former means... well, more government, and the latter means more direct democratic populism; we might as well call ourselves democrats.

By 'politically conservative', I mean 'politically careful'.

Smaller govt means less govt intrusion into private life and business.

Accountable means when someone is caught doing something wrong, they are fired/prosecuted, etc.

Which doesn't require any more govt, what an unusual suggestion.

This is an interesting conversation, one I didn't expect to need to have.

[michigander]

Reagan's Speech at the 4th Annual CPAC Convention: A New Republican Party

[Dominic Harr]

Wow -- outstanding.

In that speach, Reagan was saying all the same things we're talking about here.

Outstanding find, thank you.

This is the only way we can save the R party.

"Our first job is to get this message across to those who share most of our principles. If we allow ourselves to be portrayed as ideological shock troops without correcting this error we are doing ourselves and our cause a disservice. Wherever and whenever we can, we should gently but firmly correct our political and media friends who have been perpetuating the myth of conservatism as a narrow ideology. Whatever the word may have meant in the past, today conservatism means principles evolving from experience and a belief in change when necessary, but not just for the sake of change."

[DBeers]

Interesting test. They have me rated as an Extreme Conservative. That's nice.

Yes -very nice!

I found it to be a good test.

[Pelayo]

what solution would you propose? What words would best describe people who are 'politically' in favor of smaller govt and strong defense?

Well you have to understand where I'm coming from to understand my answer.

I'm an arch-conservative liberal. Smiler to a libertarian but with a great mistrust of humanity, and no faith at all in the politics of populism. And as such, as much as I like liberty I believe there are limits. As it's impossible for any democracy to be founded on a constitution so strong as to remain permanently inviolate from the effects of the system, so too, there are no guarantees on freedom. Thus I prefer a more organic solution to problems, ie, a solution that relies on natural human instincts and behavior as a fundamental element of its operation. That's the part of me that's conservative. I'm so far to the right in a traditional way that most people on FR are to the left of me.

Thus I'm wary of any popular reactionism, because any such movement would have its only justification in popular will, which however morally and politically orthodox it may be in its ideals at the moment, it is still morally ambiguous in the long run and prone to progressive ideology as a consequence of its form.

So as to your question, I'm not sure, but I do believe the modern political movement under discussion is, (based upon the thoughts and understandings I've gleaned from your posts, and assuming you are a fairly garden-variety example), an idealistic one. So perhaps “Idealistic Neo-Rightist Political-Populism.” Of course such as description doesn't beg but demands the question... so it can't be used in our modern political arena as it's to complicated. In any case “conservative” only describes part of it, and not the most significant vis-a-vis its modern ascendancy.

[Pelayo]

Accountable means when someone is caught doing something wrong, they are fired/prosecuted, etc.

Which doesn't require any more govt, what an unusual suggestion.

What you are talking about is some kind of governmental “oversight.” How do you implement oversight in a government without adding to said government? Note: I was talking in a general sense as a political philosophy, not the particulars of our system in which we have extra elements of government who handle that.

[Dominic Harr]

“Idealistic Neo-Rightist Political-Populism.”

Whew!

That is a mouthful.

Altho I'd quibble a bit -- no 'idealism' here at all. In fact, 'Idealism' is what I'm fighting against.

I'm suggesting that politically 'conservative' means careful. Careful to only push for policies and solutions which are proven solid workable systemic solutions.

As Reagan pointed out in that speach, it is the 'ideologues' who are the problem with the R party. The folks on this thread who say, "if you don't believe x and y, you aren't one of us, regardless of your other views".

How do you implement oversight in a government without adding to said government?

By voting the bums out, of course.

My point is we need to vote for politicians who aggressively police their own party. When they don't, when they turn their backs on misdeeds by "their own", we vote them out.

[x]

The balance of forces in US politics have changed. For most of the 20th century, change came from the left, and being a conservative meant opposing the plans of the left.

For the past generation, liberalism has become more identified with the status quo and change is seen as coming from the right. That's why I said that "fiscal conservatives" didn't seem to be playing the same game as traditionalists (social conservatives) or libertarians (economic conservatives).

There's a lot that's admirable in the older style of conservatism (which you apparently are calling "political conservatism"). I'm not a "movement" guy. But the problem is that such old style, centrist conservatives tend to accept liberal policies if they've been entrenched for a while.

I'm not talking about social security or environmental protection so much as about the judicially-imposed social changes of the the last thirty years or so. I don't think you're going to get any kind of major "rollback" of government economic and social policies (if such a thing ever does come, it will be part of a bigger shift that makes current left-right thinking irrelevant), but I don't trust the Rockefeller-Ford sort of Republicans who simply contented themselves with administering the policy changes imposed by the left.

[Pelayo]

My point is we need to vote for politicians who aggressively police their own party. When they don't, when they turn their backs on misdeeds by "their own", we vote them out.

Are you talking about accountability in a criminal sense, or as representatives of the people's will?

If the former, all that needs to be done is define what is unacceptable corruption and prosecute according to the law. But if you mean the latter, that could easily lead to government dependent on popular mandate for any action, and eventually government would devolve into rule by plebiscite. I don't see that as “careful.”

[B4Ranch]

"And if the town votes to allow prostitution or recreational drug use?"

In Nevada, all of the cities forbid prostitution but most (perhaps all) of the counties permit it. Cities do have strip joints.

Perhaps if someone wanted to open a club where you could go to smoke a joint I think there might be liability issues to think about. Might be solved with an overnight or 12 hour stay on premises required. Or usage of public transportation. I don't know I'm not a dope user.

[B4Ranch]

I suggest that you wait until Monday evening.

[tacticalogic]

So what do you classify a political conservative who tends to be a-social? Personally, I tend toward the conservative side socially. I'm not willing to compromise constitutional fundamentals on things like "regulating commerce" for social engineering. I don't think the end justifies the means, and will do more long term damage than can be offset by any anything to be gained from it.

If it needs done, then do it right. If it isn't worth the effort to do it right, then it didn't really need done.

[tacticalogic]

You have to be careful asking this because you have many looney libertarians around here.

Short answer it is both and inseperable.

The effort to split the two is a Moby product of the Lackoff "win with words" propaganda scam to try and revitalize the left by arguing the myth that the two are seperate.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

To: Dominic Harr

You guys like taking advantage of the organizational skills and the dedication of religious conservatives, but boy you hate it when it comes time to respect them for what they value!!!

Oh, you hit that one right between the eyes! Nice shooting...

Are all cultures equal? Hell no...

Only a cultural Marxist would think so.

Some just have an ax to grind with the Christians and the Jews... I do not. In fact, I have very little problem with the Hindu or the Buddhist (I have practiced the martial arts all my life, which is really a form of Buddhist movement meditation).

The Islamics and neo-pagans are another story. Their cultures exist only to tear things down.

Like a few quislings here and there, who have no other purpose but to tear down the conservatives in the Republican party and the culture that made this country what it is, I would rather just openly wage war upon them, just as I would unceremoniously nuke Mecca if given the opportunity.

It is no coincidence Islamic pagans hate Israel, Jews, Christians and Western Civilization. The entire basis of Western Civilization is Mosaic Law, something both the Neo-Pagan Left and the pagan Islamic thugs cannot abide and wish to destroy.

It is truly the only reason some are here now and within the Republican party, interlopers from the left who can only defeat America and the Republicans by rotting the party from the inside out.

They want more open primaries, non-partisan state legislatures (making it easier for them to hide and gut the primary process) for just this reason; like they want in Oregon, like the one Leon Puñetta tried to pull off in California, or some other electoral tampering scheme.

There are a few litmus issues you can tell who the enemy is. Just because they have a designer label, doesn't mean they can be trusted...

[hosepipe]

I defer that "conservatism" as meant by the meaning of the word conservative means "Same old, Same old".. i.e. more of the same.. and that RADICAL is a better term..

People that want radical change BACK to Americas roots..
And that "conservatives"(of all types) are in fact RINOs.. and FEAR the word radical..

When radical political change is what most/many "conservatives" what..
When the "center" is defacto leftist(and it is) radical change is needed.. Gutting the federal givernment is(has become) a radical political platform.. Just USING the word conservative IS disinformation.. Words are important.. and the left has bogarded the language we use for far too long..

Time for a CHANGE, a radical change, when the "right" decides what "the WORDS" mean.. ANY so'called conservative knows that radical change is needed and the Federal Givernment NEEDS to be downsized. gutted like a fish..

Any that DON'T believe that are either a democrat or a RINO.. and that to happen (the gutting) would take radical political change..

NO... conservative MEANS "more of the same".. "Conservative" in ANY of its iterations.. Gradations of the word "conservative" is defeatism masked as intelligent.. using the word DEMOCRATS/leftists have given us.. and its as incorrect as the word "progressive" is.. There is absolutely NOTHING progressive about socialism.. And absolutely NOTHING conservative about destroying it.. It is purely a radical quest..

There is a time for conservatism and a time to be radical.. NOW is NOT the time to be conservative.. So I think you're premise is WRONG.. UNless you are a RINO.. talking to RINOs.. in this thread.. In that case, sorry.. d;-)~',',

[SierraWasp]

Thank you for every well considered word of your reply to me! I may have hit between the eyes, but you swatted it out of the park and broke several park adjoining appartment windows!!!

Even your tagline has a super "ring" to it! The ring of solid American freedom and liberty. I just makes me wanna salute!!! Salutations to you, Sir Francis...