Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lastly George Wallace was not a conservative by any stretch of imagination. He is usually labeled as a 'populist' (whatever that means), but definitely not a conservative. In fact, far-left George McGovern made sure to give Wallace a nice shout-out in his 1972 nomination acceptance speech: https://www.c-span.org/video/?3437-1...peech&start=44
Go read a history book. You're setting records for 'number of errors per post.'
Speaking of record numbers of errors per post, you don't seem to have understood that McGovern was expressing sympathy for Wallace because he (Wallace) had been shot and was now in a wheelchair. It had nothing to do with political positions.
-- Segregationists wanted to preserve the cultural/institutional status quo of Southern segregation, a practice which went back to the Civil War (and prior to the Civil War, existed in an even stronger form in the institution of slavery). Eliminating segregation would eliminate this hundreds-years-old arrangement. This is why segregation was a conservative policy, and those wanting to preserve segregation were conservatives: They were seeking to preserve a hundreds-year-old societal arrangement.
-- The Somali Islamists are actually not much different. Islamic society in the Middle East for centuries had consisted of state governments run by theocracies, at least until modern times. Those promoting Islamic theocracies in the Middle East, thus, are also conservatives, because they want to return to an ancient form of government.
-- As for the limited government thing, that, too, is a conservative issue (in a US context, of course) because conservatives feel that limited government was how the US started out. Thus, the Reagan or Ted Cruz flavors of conservatism were also, well, conservative. It is a desire to preserve (or return to) a form of government from times in the past.
Granted, that is the dictionary definition, but that is not how the term 'conservative' is generally used in American political parlance. Note that by this definition, Ronald Reagan would not be 'conservative' since, as even President Obama pointed out, he was transformational, i.e. the opposite of your definition.
Likewise with Ted Cruz, who, according to his law prof Alan Dershowitz, is pretty close to being libertarian. Since there has never really been a true libertarian government in recorded human history, that is the extreme opposite of your definition.
When you play these semantic games, you end up with nonsense conclusions such as a denial that Reagan and Cruz are conservatives.
Speaking of record numbers of errors per post, you don't seem to have understood that McGovern was expressing sympathy for Wallace because he (Wallace) had been shot and was now in a wheelchair. It had nothing to do with political positions.
It was a nomination acceptance speech. It was political BY DEFINITION. Wallace was not a conservative, except in your crazy-kaleidoscope word-bending world.
When people talk about 'conservative' these days, they mean individualism and limited government, not resistance to change. Pick up a copy of National Review and read it to see what conservatism has come to mean....
-- As for the limited government thing, that, too, is a conservative issue (in a US context, of course) because conservatives feel that limited government was how the US started out. Thus, the Reagan or Ted Cruz flavors of conservatism were also, well, conservative. It is a desire to preserve (or return to) a form of government from times in the past.
As I said, I would call that a conservative movement, because they want(ed) to return to what they felt was a societal/governmental order of Days of Yore: Limited government.
It was a nomination acceptance speech. It was political BY DEFINITION. Wallace was not a conservative, except in your crazy-kaleidoscope word-bending world.
I should have used the term "policy positions" instead of "political positions." In the speech he is clearly referring to Wallace's being shot and in a wheelchair. The passage had nothing to do with policy positions.
As I said, I would call that a conservative movement, because they want(ed) to return to what they felt was a societal/governmental order of Days of Yore: Limited government.
So by that 'logic' someone like Elizabeth Warren would also be a 'conservative' because she wishes to go back to some of the liberal policies of the past, such as those of FDR, or even further back to early 20th century progressivism.
Is that right? You think Warren is a 'conservative?'
So by that 'logic' someone like Elizabeth Warren would also be a 'conservative' because she wishes to go back to some of the liberal policies of the past, such as those of FDR, or even further back to early 20th century progressivism.
Is that right? You think Warren is a 'conservative?'
I don't see her as wanting to go back to some policies of the past. Expand upon some existing policies (including some that may have been started by FDR)? Yes. Create new policies that have never been done before? Yes. But it's not like she wants to re-establish the WPA, or something.
If you persist in these weird semantic games, and no one is going to know what you're talking about but you. If you say that Islamist Somali war lords are 'conservatives,' people are going to say 'huh.'
I don't see her as wanting to go back to some policies of the past. Expand upon some existing policies (including some that may have been started by FDR)? Yes. Create new policies that have never been done before? Yes. But it's not like she wants to re-establish the WPA, or something.
She specifically has said that she wants to take the CFPB, which she helped create, back to it's original intent. Ergo, by your definition of 'conservative,' Warren is a conservative. There is no way around it. You've put yourself into a zugzwang with your semantic chicanery.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It had nothing to do with political positions. 
