U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-06-2012, 12:40 PM
 
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
66,493 posts, read 48,038,939 times
Reputation: 36669

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by RCCCB View Post
I don't need people to define what they want conservatism to be.

What it means these days is smaller government with a lot less government employees. Only long term support for the elderly and disabled. In other words, fiscal conservatism.
Nice theory

In practice it results in more government and more spending in areas that suit the conservative agenda.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-06-2012, 12:52 PM
 
Location: Maryland
628 posts, read 892,604 times
Reputation: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCCCB View Post
I don't need people to define what they want conservatism to be.

What it means these days is smaller government with a lot less government employees. Only long term support for the elderly and disabled. In other words, fiscal conservatism.
"Conservative" politicians may say, and may even think, smaller government is a good thing, but they want to run it, so they have two options:

1) fail to provide essential services and stability and therefore legislate (or fail to legislate) themselves out of a job. (Government can't run things well! Let us demonstrate to you how badly we can run them!)

2) make it bigger/keep it big & keep the pork flowing so they get reelected while talking smack about the government they run. Our economy is based enough on government spending that failing to provide it will probably cause the mother of all depressions. And when the LockheedMartinMcDonaldDouglasNorthropGrummanHughes plant shuts down, who are all the laid off employees going to blame? Congressman Didn'tBringHomeTheBacon. Not to mention all the $$ that corporations like that put toward political campaigns...

which is why they usually do #2 when push comes to shove.

WATCH THEM SQUIRM now on sequestration! (which, incidentally, they wish to get rid of defense cuts by cutting benefits for the needy. It's all WHERE you want your government to be big, really).

Most of the cuts from these budgets are pushed out to the future so in fact next year's budget (or continuing resolution with appropriations) can really override them anyway.

This is why Grover Norquist's stranglehold on the GOP is so malign--there's no flexibility there to increase tax revenue, so borrow and spend it is.

And for what it's worth, I think the above is VERY DYSFUNCTIONAL--but I don't think it is really conservativism either. Small government is essentially a libertarian point of view.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2012, 12:53 PM
 
Location: Maryland
628 posts, read 892,604 times
Reputation: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell View Post
Nice theory

In practice it results in more government and more spending in areas that suit the conservative agenda.
and you said in two sentences what took me 15 minutes to type out
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2012, 02:13 PM
 
Location: Michigan
12,712 posts, read 12,575,729 times
Reputation: 4165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joykins View Post
OK. Was there a popular resurgence or something in the 1930s or am I disremembering something?
No, but there was a resurgence among intellectuals and artists. Granville Hicks, John Steinbeck, Richard Wright, etc.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2012, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Maryland
628 posts, read 892,604 times
Reputation: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by djacques View Post
No, but there was a resurgence among intellectuals and artists. Granville Hicks, John Steinbeck, Richard Wright, etc.
Aha! Thanks-- that explains it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2012, 03:37 PM
 
8,391 posts, read 5,869,277 times
Reputation: 2314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sci Fi Fan View Post
Premise 1: Conservatism is defined as the relative support of tradition, of the status quo and opposition to change, while liberalism is opposition to the status quo and support of change.

Premise 2: Democrats were not always liberals, and Republicans were not always conservatives. Remember this now, please.


Revolutionary Era: Liberals fought for independence. Conservatives supported the crown.

  • The origins of the terms "Left" and "Right" in political context comes from the French National Assembly prior to the French Revolution, in which on the left sat revolutionaries and on the right sat monarchists. The first conservatives were monarchists.
  • By definition, he who supports a radical set of ideals listing the rights of all humankind and fights against the establishment is a liberal.
  • By definition, he who supports the traditional governmental system: monarchy, which derives its power from heritage and tradition, is a conservative.
  • The political theorists of what would become our set of inalienable rights: John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, for example, were intellectuals. Does that sound conservative to you?




Civil War: Liberals opposed slavery and supported women's suffrage. Conservatives fiercely defended slavery and almost destroyed the Union.

  • By definition, he who seeks to upset the status quo (slavery, the patriarchal society) is a liberal, and he who defends it is a conservative
  • Abolitionists were called "radicals" by southerners, and they resided largely in New England, historically a liberal bastion.
  • The short lived offshoot, the Liberal Republican Party -- real name.
  • The movement to end slavery and the movement for women's suffrage were very closely linked. Both of these goals are almost universally supported today, but they were also closely linked with the movement to create government welfare and government regulations.
  • There were very few women's suffragists in the South, a historically conservative location. They were very, very concerned with states' rights and tradition (read: conservative).
  • Basically all confederate sympathizers today are self identified conservatives.






Gilded Age: Empirical proof of the failure of laissez faire economics.



Progressive Era: Few would deny that the Progressives were liberals. They gave women suffrage. They ended child labor. They enacted the first big regulations on corporations that even conservatives today would agree with. Some helped advance civil rights. What did conservatives do? They opposed all of this, tooth and nail.



Civil Rights movement: ...was very liberal.

  • By definition, again, it sought to upset the status quo.
  • MLK Jr was a fervent liberal; I can present video evidence, if you wish, of him stating that the government should spend billions of dollars to combat poverty. Malcom X was obviously a fervent liberal. Indeed, all civil rights leaders were liberals.
  • The primary opposition to the movement came from pro states' rights, pro tradition southern politicians whose demographic support is almost a mirror image of today's republican party.
  • The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government power to regulate businesses -- sound conservative to you?
  • The Southern Manifesto, signed by southern politicians in conservative bastions such as Kentucky and Texas, cited strict constitutionalism, states' rights and tradition as arguments.
  • The Warren Court was the most liberal court in our history, and also the most friendly to civil rights.
Gay Rights movement: Many still oppose it to this day. But liberals won victories for gay rights in the right to be gay without going to jail and other liberties that even conservatives today would support.




As you can see, History has gradually shifted towards the left, not only over the American lifespan, but throughout all of civilization as well. If you don't believe me, list your major political stances, and compare them with the conservatives of, say, a century ago.

You'd be considered a leftist socialist loon.

Look at government spending then and now. Look at social programs then and now. Look at gay rights, feminism and civil rights then and now. Look at atheism statistics then and now.

Or, perhaps, you could answer this simple question:

Name one major accomplishment of conservatism.
Conservatives are fighting the tide of history and always losing. Their victories are temporary and fleeting.

Look tomorrows conservatives will be DEFENDING obamacare. Wait and see in 20 years you'll have so called conservative rallying to support Obamacare while denigrating the new government program as socialism and communism.

Today conservatives vehemently defend medicare and social security and unemployment benefits, medicaid, military benefits, these are all things that conservatives in the past were against, yet today's conservatives don't make the connection. It is hilarious really.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2012, 04:03 PM
 
4,280 posts, read 4,839,065 times
Reputation: 2356
Actually, Conservatives believe in self-reliance and small, efficient government. To which, they would not support a King.

One major victory for Conservatives and the modern world was defeating Communism, which to this day, Liberals cry about and wish to bring back.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2012, 04:13 PM
 
8,391 posts, read 5,869,277 times
Reputation: 2314
Quote:
Originally Posted by totsuka View Post
Actually, Conservatives believe in self-reliance and small, efficient government. To which, they would not support a King.

One major victory for Conservatives and the modern world was defeating Communism, which to this day, Liberals cry about and wish to bring back.
This is a fantasy. Conservatives are in favor of every big government program that exists. They favor social security, medicare, medicaid, military spending, military benefits for vets, they support unemployment benefits, etc.

Conservatives favor the state increasing its power to define marriage. Conservatives supported the expansion of government power of the Patriot Act. Conservatives support individual states giving the police more power to detain people based on their "appearance" based on the AZ immigration law, which specifically says the police can ask about someone's immigration status based on their appearance. This is a huge expansion of police power.

Conservatives have to stop lying. They don't favor smaller government. They just don't. JFK and LBJ were against communism, so was Jimmy Carter. Why do conservatives pretend so much fake history is correct?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2012, 04:30 PM
 
Location: Metairie, La.
1,156 posts, read 1,685,663 times
Reputation: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by totsuka View Post
Actually, Conservatives believe in self-reliance and small, efficient government. To which, they would not support a King.

One major victory for Conservatives and the modern world was defeating Communism, which to this day, Liberals cry about and wish to bring back.
Any specific examples of a liberal crying for a resurgence of communism? I'd like to know who's doing the crying.

Just to play devil's advocate, wouldn't a king be a small and efficient government? There's no judiciary independent of the king, there's no bureaus independent of the king, there's no legislature independent of the king, etc. and etc. Isn't a three-branch government like the U.S. federal system enormous compared to a divine right monarchy?

I mean, to clarify my point further, the king receives word from God, the king acts. Rather than debating the issue for months, as done in a legislature, an issue is settled rather quickly with a king. Thus, small and efficient government.

Also, think about the pay involved with a king--only the king and a few ministers. The kingly government would not need to pay bureaucrats because there wouldn't be any.

I'm not saying this is how monarchies actually governed, but based on your statement quoted above, neither are you. You just said conservatives interested in small, efficient government woulnd't have use for a king. I think a king is a much smaller government because the machinations of the government are vested into one person.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:04 PM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top