2012 Elections - Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death....

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Elections - Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death....

Sounds like quite a simplification...

yes, it is a simplification. Agree.

Very few people are monolithically any one thing.

Conservatives are concerned that society be a healthy organic entity; anything that threatens to disrupt communal cooperation, including too wide a disparity in wealth, is something about which they would be concerned. That's why charitable giving is an essential conservative value. Rich conservatives tend to give away their fortunes. Look at all the big-name foundations we have, Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller, etc.

One of the complications is that "conservative" and "radical" evolve over time, as they are more concerned with process rather than outcomes (again, an oversimplification). Martin Luther was radical for his time, yet he also was conservative in the sense that he challenged established orthodoxy in the name of timeless verities. Yet today we don't think of Lutherans when we think of radicals.

Jesus was a radical for his day (when you read what he purportedly said, he's probably still a radical!); yet now we tend to think of religious people as conservative.

Similarly with the Tea Party. They are radicals in the sense that they are fed up with our standard orthodoxies (Karl Marx would heartily approve: when he said "you have nothing to lose but your chains" he was describing an oppressive government that supported the well-connected at the expense of ordinary people, which is exactly the very same complaint that the Tea Party voices!); yet they also appeal to "timeless verities" to justify their radicalism.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Elections - Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death....

So, why don't all you conservatives who hate the GOP break off and start a new party?

um, haven't you been following the news for the past three years? It already happened! It's called the Tea Party. and rather than break off and start a new party, they tried to co-opt the GOP instead. Now the GOP is a bit schizophrenic.

Similarly, have you noticed the comments now coming out from Democrats who are not running for re-election to the House? Not big fans of their party's current direction either.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: 2012 Elections - Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death....

The Swiss have implemented a system that seems to work well for them, that is suggested as a model for us to follow as well.

Behold, a good idea from Europe: Spending in Switzerland can't increase by more than trendline tax revenue.

The US spends $2,141 per capita on its military - the Swiss $526. As a % of GDP it's 4.8 to 0.9.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2012 Elections - Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death....

The US spends $2,141 per capita on its military - the Swiss $526. As a % of GDP it's 4.8 to 0.9.

Defending the Vatican is important!!

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2012 Elections - Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death....

um, haven't you been following the news for the past three years? It already happened! It's called the Tea Party. and rather than break off and start a new party, they tried to co-opt the GOP instead. Now the GOP is a bit schizophrenic.

Yes, I have seen them. They're the ones that want the government to stay out of their Medicare.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Elections - Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death....

Defending the Vatican is important!!

"They spend four dollars and ninety cents on armaments for their defense.

Did you ever hear of such confidence, Andorra hip hooray."

An old Pete Seeger song

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Elections - Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death....

Yes, I have seen them. They're the ones that want the government to stay out of their Medicare.

True altruism is such a rare commodity. I recall fondly multiple prime time addresses to Democrat conventions by the "National Welfare Rights Organization."

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: 2012 Elections - Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death....

Conservatives are concerned that society be a healthy organic entity; anything that threatens to disrupt communal cooperation, including too wide a disparity in wealth, is something about which they would be concerned. That's why charitable giving is an essential conservative value. Rich conservatives tend to give away their fortunes. Look at all the big-name foundations we have, Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller, etc.

One of the complications is that "conservative" and "radical" evolve over time, as they are more concerned with process rather than outcomes (again, an oversimplification). Martin Luther was radical for his time, yet he also was conservative in the sense that he challenged established orthodoxy in the name of timeless verities. Yet today we don't think of Lutherans when we think of radicals.

Jesus was a radical for his day (when you read what he purportedly said, he's probably still a radical!); yet now we tend to think of religious people as conservative.

Similarly with the Tea Party.

Interesting topic. Conservatism has varied meaning to different folks. I would say that its very likely the majority of today's self proclaimed conservatives would wholly support the GOP (only questioning it in extreme cases as in 2008).

But it appears that both today's conservatives and yestergone's conservatives include several main principles:

- Desire to maintain or go back to 'the way things have been'...and when in doubt, be resistant to outcomes we have not seen before (this being the first sentence in wiki)
- Less public control of/leadership in society

I think some get pulled by the second issue...but the first issue seems to ultimately carry the day (and why I'm not in that camp). Examples of key figures and movements in this light:

Luther - not a conservative (religion is not part of the definition; radical change agent is)
Jesus - not a conservative (ditto)
Tea Party - conservative (moving us back to a status quo of government of the past)
Gay Marriage - not conservative

I'm a big believer in the value of bringing new change of all types. Some changes will turn out to be failures...and with our political system failures often die quickly (we'll see if FL's stand and defend law makes it). But the successes of liberalism lead to the most positive changes society such as Women's sufferage, end of slavery, founding of our country, equal rights, anti trust laws, etc.

Society is not perfect...but its much better for embracing opportunities for change. My strong belief in this is why although many of us don't label ourselves....I would be called a liberal by many.

 

[Foxton]

Re: 2012 Elections - Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death....

Luther - not a conservative (religion is not part of the definition; radical change agent is)

Actually he would be a conservative by your own (wiki) definition, since he wanted to roll back the changes that had taken place and go back to the good ol days. And don't think too much on it because thinking is bad. He was certainly an agent of change in a very highly charged political time, but he wanted to go backwards, not forwards. Since radical change is not inherently progressive or regressive it's hardly a good qualifier for liberal or conservative.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Elections - Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death....

that's part of what made Reagan great. he never once demonized people who disagreed with him. his first tax cut passed with heavily democratic majorities in both houses. he found a way to get what he wanted because he truly did not care who got the credit.

it's ironic (meant sincerely) to me that Obama wants to pattern himself after reagan yet seems to think that it was only rhetoric that made reagan great (note: NOT perfect). reagan had substance behind his rhetoric and meant what he said. he engaged others in his vision so that they too wanted to be part of it, and then he let them follow through, praising them throughout.

Reagan also did quite a bit of what Obama does: let the other side get too far ahead with their rhetoric, then come in as the voice of moderation and move the ball a bit. That's something that maddened liberals about Reagan and now it maddens conservatives about Obama. Both were called duplicitous because of that, when it was more a case of good political judo. And both were also "fortunate" to be opposed by overconfident pols who continually fell into the traps they set.

Both were also called empty vessels. I recall during the Reagan years I was amazed that anyone could fall for what was "obviously" just an actor's good reading of somebody else's well-written screenplay. Righty water carriers have tried to repeat that meme about Obama (all the teleprompter silliness, etc) though it hasn't stuck as much. The people that seems to resonate with are the ones who hate Obama anyway. Or perhaps that was the case with Reagan, too -- I certainly loathed him.

Finally, the affection each inspired was mocked as a religious spell by opponents. For all Pio's snarlings about "The One," there has never been such a cult of adoration in American politics as the Cons' thirty year hard-on for Saint Ron.

All these similarities are all the more funny in that the two are turning out to be almost identical presidencies: charismatic figures who inspire some, arouse the blind hatred of others, take the country from bad times to better times, benefit from the comparison to the complete failure of the prior president, and leave the country with an immense debt.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Elections - Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death....

This is great.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Elections - Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death....

Okay, all you unpaid Obama apologists, here is something else for you to explain away, please tell us how this behavior is actually benign....

This past week, one of [Obama's] campaign websites posted an item entitled "Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney's donors." In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having "less-than-reputable records," the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that "quite a few" have also been "on the wrong side of the law" and profiting at "the expense of so many Americans."

Nixon's "enemies' list" was a terrible invasion of privacy and a misuse of government power, yet Obama does the same thing publicly and it is okay how?

Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.

Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for "betting against America," and accuses you of having a "less-than-reputable" record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.

Are you worried?

Richard Nixon's "enemies list" appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers—to jail, to fine, to bankrupt—are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304723304577368280604524916.html?mod=opinion_newsreel

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: 2012 Elections - Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death....

Actually he would be a conservative by your own (wiki) definition, since he wanted to roll back the changes that had taken place and go back to the good ol days. And don't think too much on it because thinking is bad. He was certainly an agent of change in a very highly charged political time, but he wanted to go backwards, not forwards. Since radical change is not inherently progressive or regressive it's hardly a good qualifier for liberal or conservative.

Change can be either forward or backwards hence the importance of tradition to the definition whether it was stated with each point or not.

Regarding Luther (and no won't debate religion here). One shouldn't believe that just because he was religious he was conservative...a number of Christians I know have taking care of the poor as their top policy priority and many like me love to move on from tradition. Also just because he didn't sleep around doesn't mean he was a conservative.

It comes down to support of tradition (per wiki)...Luther was either for the traditions of the church or not. The existing traditions were that the church could sell freedom from sin and that ultimately the church owned the meaning of the Christian word. As Luther's life was about the fight against those traditions and as such its hard to believe that change agent Luther was any conservative.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Elections - Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death....

Change can be either forward or backwards hence the importance of tradition to the definition whether it was stated with each point or not.

Regarding Luther (and no won't debate religion here). One shouldn't believe that just because he was religious he was conservative...a number of Christians I know have taking care of the poor as their top policy priority and many like me love to move on from tradition. Also just because he didn't sleep around doesn't mean he was a conservative.

It comes down to support of tradition (per wiki)...Luther was either for the traditions of the church or not. The existing traditions were that the church could sell freedom from sin and that ultimately the church owned the meaning of the Christian word. As Luther's life was about the fight against those traditions and as such its hard to believe that change agent Luther was any conservative.

Yes, nicely put. You said it much better than I did.

I would add a bit more nuance to the definition of "conservative." I tend to phrase it more as "respect the wisdom of those who have gone before" and less as "tradition" because thoughtful conservatives (e.g., Burke) are not slavish devotees to "tradition" merely for the sake of tradition. It is more like Mark Twain's famous observation: "when I was 16, my father was an ignorant lout; but by the time I was 21, I was amazed at how much the old man had learned during those five years." It is more like "don't rush into anything rash without thinking it through first; there might be unintended consequences that are not yet apparent to you that are behind the reasons we currently do things as we do."

I do not consider myself a conservative; yet I have a great deal of respect for the conservative tradition, and I find conservative arguments useful in today's environment. Being a fan of expediency, I use them often because often they are effective.

At heart I am an old-fashioned liberal, and there are so few liberals left these days, we need to find allies wherever we can. People are getting frustrated and impatient, and want to take short cuts by "forcing" others to act "as they should" which is the antithesis of liberalism. Having that attitude egged on by cynical politicians on the left whose true agenda is to remain in power by any means possible adds a sense of urgency to my quest.

I find it sad and disturbing that so many people are fooled by this manipulation, yet knowing human nature as we do, the more you try to use reason to help them see what is going on, the more doggedly determined they become in their devotion. People generally would prefer to avoid the embarrassment of acknowledging that they were taken advantage of than admit they made a mistake, that's just human nature.

Also, we really need morality, self-discipine, and self-restraint as social virtues in this day and age, there is way too much self-indulgence to sustain a healthy and functional society for very long.

 

[geezer]

Re: 2012 Elections - Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death....

So, why don't all you conservatives who hate the GOP break off and start a new party? Or work from within to change the party?
You can't have it both ways: support the party at the ballot box (and parrot many of their talking points) and then say you hate the parties.

Hmmm. Maybe because it creates a wonderful diversionary tactic where you can support the GOP while claiming not to? Nah.

That's actually a good idea, but it sounds like a lot of work, and I'm kind of lazy. Maybe someone else will get a conservative party started, then I can vote again.

As for your other question: if you can't use words correctly, it's no skin off my nose. It just makes you look like an idiot.

You don't have an answer, huh? I thought so. You democrat.

 

[geezer]

Re: 2012 Elections - Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death....

I'm starting to think Foxton is actually a religion-bot. You mention religion at 5 in the morning on USCHO and DING there it is to argue.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Elections - Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death....

I'm starting to think Foxton is actually a religion-bot. You mention religion at 5 in the morning on USCHO and DING there it is to argue.

Argue? or proselytize?

he's one of the most fanatically religious people I've ever "met." he tries so hard to convert everyone to his "faith."

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Elections - Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death....

I find it sad and disturbing that so many people are fooled by this manipulation, yet knowing human nature as we do, the more you try to use reason to help them see what is going on, the more doggedly determined they become in their devotion. People generally would prefer to avoid the embarrassment of acknowledging that they were taken advantage of than admit they made a mistake, that's just human nature.

Careful. That sword is double edged, and the blade is very sharp.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Elections - Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death....

It comes down to support of tradition (per wiki)...Luther was either for the traditions of the church or not. The existing traditions were that the church could sell freedom from sin and that ultimately the church owned the meaning of the Christian word. As Luther's life was about the fight against those traditions and as such its hard to believe that change agent Luther was any conservative.

In From Dawn to Decadence, Jacques Barzun calls this "primitivism" and maintains it is one of the enduring themes recapitulated throughout the history of civilization. It's the longing to return to the pure root of things. We see this in a lot of religious reform movements, and even in things like Constitutional originalism. The basic idea is that time has corrupted an originally pristine state. The Fall of Man.

The biggest ideas are neither liberal nor conservative nor left nor right. They're much more important than those shorthand terms.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2012 Elections - Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death....

Why is it every knuckledragger out here wants to label themselves as some so called mythical traditional conservative and then claim the modern Republican party has nothing to do with them. Give it up people. Conservativism = George W Bush, The Boner, McConnell, DeLay, Gingrich, etc etc etc. These people and their policies (tax cuts for campaign contributors paid for by borrowing money, govt in your bedroom, massive military spending, do as I say not as a I do religious pandering) ARE conservatism. Any other former version is now dead and buried, as nobody is practicing it.

So by all means keep telling yourself that there's some old school Republican Jesus out there who will get you guys back to your traditional values, whatever the hell that means. However, when Mittens gets his head handed to him come election day this year, be assured you will be held to account for that.