Today's republican party couldn't list themselves by the myriad of loosely connected planks in their platform by any other moniker. Conservative sounds better than most other tags
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
- Status
Today's republican party couldn't list themselves by the myriad of loosely connected planks in their platform by any other moniker. Conservative sounds better than most other tags
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
Hey I have some sympathy for this dilemna. What I always tell people is that there aren't more than 5 "traditional conservatives" left in GOP politics and the ones that are hanging on like Lugar are in the fight of their lives for no apparent reason. I'm not saying people like yourself should go out and join the ACLU and put Little Ralphie Nader stickers on your car, but voting Dem this time around sends a strong message to the GOP to shape the $%%^ up and stop nominating lunatics.
I read that awhile back a key win for the Reagan coaltion was the hawkish anti-Communist JFK or Truman types who felt outnumbered by the post Vietnam doves who dominated the party. Once Carter's troubled foreign policy took shape, they went GOP and never looked back. Similarly I'd like to see the Dems now reach out to the people who are horrified by the idiocy of today's Republican party which has little to do with conservatism circa 1980 and have them come over as ConservaDems. Really is there that much difference between Collins, Snowe, Nelson, Dorgan, Graham or Johnson in the Senate that they couldn't all exist in the same caucus?
Hey I have some sympathy for this dilemna. What I always tell people is that there aren't more than 5 "traditional conservatives" left in GOP politics and the ones that are hanging on like Lugar are in the fight of their lives for no apparent reason. I'm not saying people like yourself should go out and join the ACLU and put Little Ralphie Nader stickers on your car, but voting Dem this time around sends a strong message to the GOP to shape the $%%^ up and stop nominating lunatics.
I read that awhile back a key win for the Reagan coaltion was the hawkish anti-Communist JFK or Truman types who felt outnumbered by the post Vietnam doves who dominated the party. Once Carter's troubled foreign policy took shape, they went GOP and never looked back. Similarly I'd like to see the Dems now reach out to the people who are horrified by the idiocy of today's Republican party which has little to do with conservatism circa 1980 and have them come over as ConservaDems. Really is there that much difference between Collins, Snowe, Nelson, Dorgan, Graham or Johnson in the Senate that they couldn't all exist in the same caucus?
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
It's smart branding. Most people think of themselves as "conserving" something, even when the things are completely different. Most people consider themselves to be protecting core American values. You can go up and down the Bill of Rights and find something each person will fight for, even people who will fight each other. So "conservative" is like saying "healthy" on a fast food wrapper -- everybody interprets it relative to themselves and everybody is attracted. Brilliant marketing.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
The neocons are the people like Robert Kagan, VDH and the Poderholtz family who want to beat the world to a pulp, drink its milk shake, and pacify its populations, all while humming a mash up of the Marine Corp Hymn, the Star Spangled Banner and Hatikvah and nattering on about American Exceptionalism and the White Man's burden. They aren't hypocrites, they're psychotics.
The corporate cons voted for Dubya because he was a plutocrat's wet dream. They immediately went into the business of rigging energy policy, environmental policy and the tax code for their cronies. Dubya himself is probably best described as a corporate con because he's too ignorant to know what the Battle of Milvian Bridge was but he marinated for fifty years in the sauce of Texas oil wealth and he puts his class interest first and foremost.
The fiscal cons held their nose and voted for Bush because he was a Republican and that's their best bet. The Pharm giveaway (to the corporate cons) and the Imperial March (for the neocons) disgusted them, and they pulled out of the coalition first. Some of them went Libertarian. Some of them went Tea Party until they realized that was turning into a fascist movement.
I think you're conflating neocons, corporate cons, and fiscal cons.
The neocons are the people like Robert Kagan, VDH and the Poderholtz family who want to beat the world to a pulp, drink its milk shake, and pacify its populations, all while humming a mash up of the Marine Corp Hymn, the Star Spangled Banner and Hatikvah and nattering on about American Exceptionalism and the White Man's burden. They aren't hypocrites, they're psychotics.
The corporate cons voted for Dubya because he was a plutocrat's wet dream. They immediately went into the business of rigging energy policy, environmental policy and the tax code for their cronies. Dubya himself is probably best described as a corporate con because he's too ignorant to know what the Battle of Milvian Bridge was but he marinated for fifty years in the sauce of Texas oil wealth and he puts his class interest first and foremost.
The fiscal cons held their nose and voted for Bush because he was a Republican and that's their best bet. The Pharm giveaway (to the corporate cons) and the Imperial March (for the neocons) disgusted them, and they pulled out of the coalition first. Some of them went Libertarian. Some of them went Tea Party until they realized that was turning into a fascist movement.
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
For the record:
The GOP is conservative - ask the greater part of their voters
The 'classical/theoretical' conservative is pretty much gone in the US - people who say they are vote consistently for the GOP...what else is there?
Everyone spends - liberals, conservatives and people who claim that they are 'classical' consevatives...they each have their own pet issues
When spending at least liberals spend on more worthy causes - I'll take investing in US education over tanks that sit in Germany any day
Yet conservatives of all stripes claim they hate spending when running...and then change their emphasis to rolling back social progress once in office
In fact, I think there's probably evidence that conservative leadership has resulted in worse US economies overall
Except for possibly immigration policy, I have yet to hear a plausable case where W was liberal in any way
For the record:
The GOP is conservative - ask the greater part of their voters
The 'classical/theoretical' conservative is pretty much gone in the US - people who say they are vote consistently for the GOP...what else is there?
Everyone spends - liberals, conservatives and people who claim that they are 'classical' consevatives...they each have their own pet issues
When spending at least liberals spend on more worthy causes - I'll take investing in US education over tanks that sit in Germany any day
Yet conservatives of all stripes claim they hate spending when running...and then change their emphasis to rolling back social progress once in office
In fact, I think there's probably evidence that conservative leadership has resulted in worse US economies overall
Except for possibly immigration policy, I have yet to hear a plausable case where W was liberal in any way
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
However we want to define the various wings of the party, I find it interesting how they come together not just this year but going forward.
Corporate conservatives obviously aren't going anywhere, nor are social conservatives in the long term (although I can see some staying home this election). However, where does the military wing of the party go? If you look at the candidates positions on Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, or the nuclear arms treaty with Russia, they are far, far to the right of the country. Boiled down to its basic form, Romney's positions are to stay in Iraq for an open ended commitment, stay in Afghanistan indefinitely, bomb Iran whenever Israel asks us to and not sign onto any reduction and verification program with Russia even though US Presidents have been doing so for decades. Can anyone make the case that Romney/Santorum would do a better job on international affairs than Obama? If so, in what areas?
However we want to define the various wings of the party, I find it interesting how they come together not just this year but going forward.
Corporate conservatives obviously aren't going anywhere, nor are social conservatives in the long term (although I can see some staying home this election). However, where does the military wing of the party go? If you look at the candidates positions on Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, or the nuclear arms treaty with Russia, they are far, far to the right of the country. Boiled down to its basic form, Romney's positions are to stay in Iraq for an open ended commitment, stay in Afghanistan indefinitely, bomb Iran whenever Israel asks us to and not sign onto any reduction and verification program with Russia even though US Presidents have been doing so for decades. Can anyone make the case that Romney/Santorum would do a better job on international affairs than Obama? If so, in what areas?
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
In general fiscal policy, he ran up more of a debt than any of his predecessors. Liberal being the opposite of conserve regarding fiscal policy.
In general fiscal policy, he ran up more of a debt than any of his predecessors. Liberal being the opposite of conserve regarding fiscal policy.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
1972 was a long time ago.
1972 was a long time ago.
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
Depends on how radically liberal you want to go.
1972 was a long time ago.
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
Debt under...
Ford: increased
Carter: decreased
Reagan: increased
Bush I: increased
Clinton: decreased
W: increased
Obama: increased (govt revenues were destroyed for much of his admin)
So no GOP president since Nixon was a conservative?
And yes, all conservatives have their spending projects...they just complain more about others' pet projects.
Debt under...
Ford: increased
Carter: decreased
Reagan: increased
Bush I: increased
Clinton: decreased
W: increased
Obama: increased (govt revenues were destroyed for much of his admin)
So no GOP president since Nixon was a conservative?
And yes, all conservatives have their spending projects...they just complain more about others' pet projects.
XYZ
Smoking in the selection room.
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
Deficit, not debt.
Deficit, not debt.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
Bernie Sanders is not walking through that door.
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
relax. You said, immigrationally was the ONLY way in which GW was liberal. I said, take a look at fiscally where he was also extremely liberal. That's all. That much is not really disputable. I'm not interested in debating how liberal (generally) other GOP presidents have been.
relax. You said, immigrationally was the ONLY way in which GW was liberal. I said, take a look at fiscally where he was also extremely liberal. That's all. That much is not really disputable. I'm not interested in debating how liberal (generally) other GOP presidents have been.
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
You seem the excitable one.
Facts show that GOP and conservative administrations spend at least as much as liberal administrations...if not more.
So what is beyond dispute is that W's spending is at minimum not at all 'liberal'...and while not totally aligned, liberals were against the vast majority of Bush's positions including Iraq, oil subsidies, constitutional amendments to restrict freedoms, and on it goes.
If you want to make an indisputable case...provide evidence.
You seem the excitable one.
Facts show that GOP and conservative administrations spend at least as much as liberal administrations...if not more.
So what is beyond dispute is that W's spending is at minimum not at all 'liberal'...and while not totally aligned, liberals were against the vast majority of Bush's positions including Iraq, oil subsidies, constitutional amendments to restrict freedoms, and on it goes.
If you want to make an indisputable case...provide evidence.
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
GWB behaved like a classic traditional liberal in many ways:
> The reasons he gave for the liberation of Iraq were based on classical liberal theory (many people disbelieve those reasons which is a distinctly separate issue), and he worked mightily to get international backing. Russia and China agreed; it was France who vetoed UN action (after which it was discovered that a significant portion of the French government was on Saddam's payroll). About 30 countries sent some troops or military assistance.
> The Medicare part D prescription drug benefit was a liberal expansion of entitlement benefits (although it was designed using conservative economic principles; it remains the only entitlement program in which actual spending was actually lower than projected spending).
> His collaboration with Bono on AIDs aid to Africa.
> His collaboration with Ted Kennedy on No Child Left Behind.
"Liberal" and "conservative" are not mutually exclusive as they fundamentally focus on different sets of issues most of the time: liberals tend to be more concerned with who while conservatives tend to be more concerned with how.
GWB behaved like a classic traditional liberal in many ways:
> The reasons he gave for the liberation of Iraq were based on classical liberal theory (many people disbelieve those reasons which is a distinctly separate issue), and he worked mightily to get international backing. Russia and China agreed; it was France who vetoed UN action (after which it was discovered that a significant portion of the French government was on Saddam's payroll). About 30 countries sent some troops or military assistance.
> The Medicare part D prescription drug benefit was a liberal expansion of entitlement benefits (although it was designed using conservative economic principles; it remains the only entitlement program in which actual spending was actually lower than projected spending).
> His collaboration with Bono on AIDs aid to Africa.
> His collaboration with Ted Kennedy on No Child Left Behind.
"Liberal" and "conservative" are not mutually exclusive as they fundamentally focus on different sets of issues most of the time: liberals tend to be more concerned with who while conservatives tend to be more concerned with how.
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
How quickly we edit our memories!
How do you explain the overwhelming votes in Congress in favor of the initial Iraq action? Something like 96 - 2 in the Senate.
And how do you explain that BHO basically has continued all of GWB's anti-terror policies unchanged?
How quickly we edit our memories!
How do you explain the overwhelming votes in Congress in favor of the initial Iraq action? Something like 96 - 2 in the Senate.
And how do you explain that BHO basically has continued all of GWB's anti-terror policies unchanged?
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
Whoa, whoa, whoa... there's a LOT of confusion in that post. Let's start with your conflation of two sets of oppositional concepts, liberal:conservative and radical:conservative. The former is a left-right divide, the latter is a fringe-center divide. Majorities tend to favor "liberal" policy, but self-identify with the "conservative" label of the latter based on the normal distribution of political opinion in this country (as opposed to some countries that are bi-modal).
Secondly, I get what you're trying to convey with the who:how distinction, but generally the classical liberal:classical conservative dichotomy is an ends:means difference. That would agree with your larger picture in some ways, however, it brings up...
Thirdly, you have a problem with time and the moving target of what has been called American "conservatism." The classical definitions of liberal and conservative, cited above, have not held in US politics for a long time. So for example "conservatives" in America have gotten very gung-ho on certain reformist, "do gooder" projects. The most dramatic (and most recent) is the migration of aggressive, unilateralist foreign policy from the "liberal" political wing to the "conservative" wing beginning with the collapse of the JKF "Cold War Liberal" regime (and not coincidentally with the migration of the neoconservative movement from 50's leftism to 80's rightwingitude). You could disown those guys with a No True Scotsman argument, but that's who has been carrying your flag since Reagan -- "you are what your record says you are."
You are also making the classic mistake of confusing the fiscal spender:saver distinction with left:right policy preferences. This is completely refuted by Republican policies of the last 30 years -- the two sides are spending neutral, the real dichotomy is taxer:borrower. Hence, the modern GOP is fine with driving up the deficit on military adventures. That goes double for maintaining a global empire to protect corporate elites. The kind of people who used to assassinate democratically-elected leaders to protect United Fruit's profits in Central America used to be on the left. Now they come from the right. I guess blood for oil is at least somewhat more palatable than blood for bananas.
Likewise, the party apparatus cheers on crony giveaways like Medicare D, energy policy, and environmental destruction. I won't defend the Dems, either, since both sides seem to have become utterly corrupted by their paymasters. But the "fiscal conservative" fig leaf fell off the GOP dong a long time ago.
Whoa, whoa, whoa... there's a LOT of confusion in that post. Let's start with your conflation of two sets of oppositional concepts, liberal:conservative and radical:conservative. The former is a left-right divide, the latter is a fringe-center divide. Majorities tend to favor "liberal" policy, but self-identify with the "conservative" label of the latter based on the normal distribution of political opinion in this country (as opposed to some countries that are bi-modal).
Secondly, I get what you're trying to convey with the who:how distinction, but generally the classical liberal:classical conservative dichotomy is an ends:means difference. That would agree with your larger picture in some ways, however, it brings up...
Thirdly, you have a problem with time and the moving target of what has been called American "conservatism." The classical definitions of liberal and conservative, cited above, have not held in US politics for a long time. So for example "conservatives" in America have gotten very gung-ho on certain reformist, "do gooder" projects. The most dramatic (and most recent) is the migration of aggressive, unilateralist foreign policy from the "liberal" political wing to the "conservative" wing beginning with the collapse of the JKF "Cold War Liberal" regime (and not coincidentally with the migration of the neoconservative movement from 50's leftism to 80's rightwingitude). You could disown those guys with a No True Scotsman argument, but that's who has been carrying your flag since Reagan -- "you are what your record says you are."
You are also making the classic mistake of confusing the fiscal spender:saver distinction with left:right policy preferences. This is completely refuted by Republican policies of the last 30 years -- the two sides are spending neutral, the real dichotomy is taxer:borrower. Hence, the modern GOP is fine with driving up the deficit on military adventures. That goes double for maintaining a global empire to protect corporate elites. The kind of people who used to assassinate democratically-elected leaders to protect United Fruit's profits in Central America used to be on the left. Now they come from the right. I guess blood for oil is at least somewhat more palatable than blood for bananas.
Likewise, the party apparatus cheers on crony giveaways like Medicare D, energy policy, and environmental destruction. I won't defend the Dems, either, since both sides seem to have become utterly corrupted by their paymasters. But the "fiscal conservative" fig leaf fell off the GOP dong a long time ago.
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
wrong starting point.
yes, the "how" is Radical <--> Conservative (or as you put it, the "means").
but the "who" (or as you put it, the "ends") is Liberal <--> Progressive.
or to bring more clarity,
Individual liberty <--> government authority
Free markets <--> centralized control
"Each person is endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights" <--> "The needs of the many outweigh the prerogatives of the few"
The liberal tradition is rich and textured, from Magna Carta through Locke and Jefferson to Martin Luther King Jr. and Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
The progressive tradition is generally tracked from Upton Sinclair's 1905 book The Jungle, Theodore Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson, though its philosophical justification can be traced all the way back to Plato and his "philosopher king."
In other words, there are centuries of lineage here for all of these four themes.
Perhaps my vocabulary is a bit stilted and formal (maybe even archaic?) which I'm told happens when one reads (and writes) in a language more frequently than one speaks in it. I am not as glib as many here and perhaps that contributes to my difficulties in expressing my thoughts in English.
PS an afterthought....each of the four traditions has something valuable if not essential to offer. Everyone can benefit from the conservative's insistence on personal integrity and reminders about human fallibility (if all people are fallible then all governments also can be fallible as they are run by people); just as everyone can benefit from the radical's insistence that we be suspicious of tradition for tradition's sake. The radical abolitionist, the radical suffragette, played essential roles in our historical advancement. The liberal's insistence on human dignity was essential to civil rights; the progressive's insistence on public health and sanitation led to dramatic improvements in human welfare. No one of the four is always right or always wrong; it seems to me a grave error in thinking to identify so strongly with only one of the four that one disregards what the other three have to offer. *
PPS it seems to me that you want to identify these four modes of political operation (which to me appear over and over again throughout history) with specific contemporary political parties. It seems to me that political parties shift allegiances based on the perceived likelihood of winning elections; which is a very different calculus entirely.
* unless one is a career politician!
wrong starting point.
yes, the "how" is Radical <--> Conservative (or as you put it, the "means").
but the "who" (or as you put it, the "ends") is Liberal <--> Progressive.
or to bring more clarity,
Individual liberty <--> government authority
Free markets <--> centralized control
"Each person is endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights" <--> "The needs of the many outweigh the prerogatives of the few"
The liberal tradition is rich and textured, from Magna Carta through Locke and Jefferson to Martin Luther King Jr. and Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
The progressive tradition is generally tracked from Upton Sinclair's 1905 book The Jungle, Theodore Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson, though its philosophical justification can be traced all the way back to Plato and his "philosopher king."
In other words, there are centuries of lineage here for all of these four themes.
Perhaps my vocabulary is a bit stilted and formal (maybe even archaic?) which I'm told happens when one reads (and writes) in a language more frequently than one speaks in it. I am not as glib as many here and perhaps that contributes to my difficulties in expressing my thoughts in English.
PS an afterthought....each of the four traditions has something valuable if not essential to offer. Everyone can benefit from the conservative's insistence on personal integrity and reminders about human fallibility (if all people are fallible then all governments also can be fallible as they are run by people); just as everyone can benefit from the radical's insistence that we be suspicious of tradition for tradition's sake. The radical abolitionist, the radical suffragette, played essential roles in our historical advancement. The liberal's insistence on human dignity was essential to civil rights; the progressive's insistence on public health and sanitation led to dramatic improvements in human welfare. No one of the four is always right or always wrong; it seems to me a grave error in thinking to identify so strongly with only one of the four that one disregards what the other three have to offer. *
PPS it seems to me that you want to identify these four modes of political operation (which to me appear over and over again throughout history) with specific contemporary political parties. It seems to me that political parties shift allegiances based on the perceived likelihood of winning elections; which is a very different calculus entirely.
* unless one is a career politician!
Last edited:
- Status