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.
I have to play devil's advocate here. In the latter half of the twentieth century, conservatives were on the "right" side of history (no pun intended) considering that the New Right basically took over all three branches of the federal government, most executive branches of state government, and have controlled the conversation on the nation's most salient issues.
The New Right coalesced several factions within conservatism to foment a stranglehold on the American federalist system of governance. The New Right began emerging following the New Deal and joined later with southern massive resisters and Hayekian east coast free market conservaties, libertarians and individualists, as well as the so-called Moral Majority. Since the "Reagan" revolution, conservatives in politics and media have dictated the terms of the debate and the rules of the debate. The most influential people in society today are generally the ones who rely on emotion and vitriol rather than reason and deliberation. This has affected the American public, which is largely unconcerned with politicians' toying with facts and presenting misinformation as "fact."
Conservatives have controlled most functions of the government and have generated cozy relationships with the private sector, which led us to the enormous bailout of, basically, the whole economic system in 2008.
I'm not saying this is right side of history, but it's definitely Right. I mean, another case in point here, but even the term "liberal" is viewed as a negative term by most Americans, which is why liberals increasingly call themselves "progressives."
In this sense here, conservatives have won and have controlled history. In this sense, the New Right has been on the "winning" side even though the political transformations of the past 40 to 60 years don't seem like a "win" to the liberals (because it's not the direction they wanted for the country).
Another example that you bring up is the American revolution. It was indeed a time in which the patriots were on the side of the "liberal" vein in wanting to experiment with republican government (republican in the sense of a governmental system and not a political party). Yet by the time of the Constitutional Convention, the government's framers had largely become more conservative and had checked the more liberal passions evident among the "rabble" and the "commoners." The U.S. Constitution sets up a very conservative government. Blacks, women, Indians were marginalized by this document and other founding documents of the United States. The social and economic status of the common people, following the revolution, hardly changed. This is why a great number of historians consider the American Revolution to be on that was very conservative in nature. The goal of the founders was to sever ties from Britain, not to foment a revolution in the society in which they lived.
Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened, rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule – not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.[7] Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people.
Note: In this essay when Hayek refers to a socialist he is referring to the modern liberal.
What Hayek argues is that both the modern liberal and the conservative have one thing in common; the desire for government to force his values on others. The classical liberal promotes individual liberty.
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.
The silliest threads by the leftist fanatics, always start with lies about the most basic things.
This one is clearly no exception.Which premise is false?
Don't you love the way he tries to pretend I meant only ONE of them was false?
He was a leftist libertarian. Fiscally conservative, but socially very liberal.
Says who, you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sci Fi Fan
Monarchy's very existence is based on heritage and tradition. The king is determined by his familial ties. It was defended on the basis of stability and tradition. It was the status quo. It was very conservative.
It was also based on the fact that there were no known alternatives to monarchy that were applicable.
Are you suggesting there was a well-educated electorate in the 18th Century? I sure hope not, because that would be silly.
If you're a Liberal, then why are you looking at heritage and tradition anyway?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sci Fi Fan
You really do not want to enter a Jefferson quote-battle. It won't end in your favor.
I bet it does. I'd put my money on WCH.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sci Fi Fan
It means to preserve the status quo, yes. But not necessarily small. Monarchy was the status quo, it derived its very power from heritage and tradition, and the very terms Left and Right came from Rightists who supported the monarchy, and leftists who opposed it!
In France. And no where else.
When you are finally graduated from high school, maybe you can get some student loans and take political science course at university so you know what you're talking about.
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.
"I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is." -- Ronald Reagan
Quote:
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?
Absolutely, Ron Paul is an intellectual. Can't get more conservative than him. Also, look up William F Buckley and Robert Taft.
Quote:
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.
True conservatives oppose slavery and all forms of racism.
Quote:
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.
You left out the part where they banned booze and ignited the worst organized crime war in American history.
Um, I stopped reading your jibborish the minute you tried to re-write history to proclaim conservatives supposed slavery.. Al Gore Sr, voted against the civil rights movement, and Byrd, was a KKK member..
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.
The silliest threads by the leftist fanatics, always start with lies about the most basic things.
This one is clearly no exception.
Those premises are pretty sound. If a conservative is by definition a person who wants the status quo and a liberal is a person uprooting the status quo, then it follows that liberals caused change. It's pretty simple.
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.
