'Conservatism Understood' Another in a series of Midcan's insights into contemporary

[Truthmatters]

There you have it.

He is an enemy of democracy.

 

[JWBooth]

And they are?

Limited Federal Government
Living within our means
Providing individuals with freedom to succeed or fail without government interference
Following the Constitution of the United States
Federalism and the Separation of powers

Simple concepts.

Very simple, thanks for the reply, now tell me a 'conservative' president who has followed these so called core tenets? And while I don't want to reply till I hear of that conservative, they are a bit too vague for use in the real world as each depends on lots of other facts, including what limits we are willing to set. Or even tell me a time in America when these were followed?

Grover Cleveland has been dead a long time. A few before, none since.
It seems you are using the faulty device of using Conservative and Republican interchangeably.

 

[The T]

And you have said twice that I have seen that you want to return to a monarchy.

you HATE democracy

Monarchy is preferable to democracy, hands down. Under monarchy government took about 5% of GDP. Under democracy, government takes 50%. Crime, drug use, prostitution and illegitimacy were all much lower under monarchy. GDP growth was much higher.

However, that being said, I prefer what some call "natural order." That involves eliminating government entirely from human affairs.

So that would portend that what the Founders gave us (a Republic), is a stop-gap go between the two examples you cite? (Just an off the cuff question).

 

[JWBooth]

And you have said twice that I have seen that you want to return to a monarchy.

you HATE democracy

Monarchy is preferable to democracy, hands down. Under monarchy government took about 5% of GDP. Under democracy, government takes 50%. Crime, drug use, prostitution and illegitimacy were all much lower under monarchy. GDP growth was much higher.

However, that being said, I prefer what some call "natural order." That involves eliminating government entirely from human affairs.

Kinda depends on the monarch doesn't it?

Victoria or Longshanks
Henry Tudor or Henry III

 

[The T]

Limited Federal Government
Living within our means
Providing individuals with freedom to succeed or fail without government interference
Following the Constitution of the United States
Federalism and the Separation of powers

Simple concepts.

Very simple, thanks for the reply, now tell me a 'conservative' president who has followed these so called core tenets? And while I don't want to reply till I hear of that conservative, they are a bit too vague for use in the real world as each depends on lots of other facts, including what limits we are willing to set. Or even tell me a time in America when these were followed?

Grover Cleveland has been dead a long time. A few before, none since.
It seems you are using the faulty device of using Conservative and Republican interchangeably.

Indeed. Republican does not or has never suggested Conservative. There are quite a few Repubican Statists out there masquerading as Conservatives.

 

[bripat9643]

Monarchy is preferable to democracy, hands down. Under monarchy government took about 5% of GDP. Under democracy, government takes 50%. Crime, drug use, prostitution and illegitimacy were all much lower under monarchy. GDP growth was much higher.

However, that being said, I prefer what some call "natural order." That involves eliminating government entirely from human affairs.

Kinda depends on the monarch doesn't it?

Victoria or Longshanks
Henry Tudor or Henry III

Not really. They were all better than the current reign of the boobosie. However, they got progressively better through time. Democracy is rule by the bottom 51%. The results of that were predictable.

 

[bripat9643]

There you have it.

He is an enemy of democracy.

I despise democracy. I've never been shy about saying so.

 

[JWBooth]

Not really. They were all better than the current reign of the boobosie. However, they got progressively better threw time. Democracy is rule by the bottom 51%. The results of that were predictable.

While its not all Cromwell, I cede your point.

 

[bripat9643]

Monarchy is preferable to democracy, hands down. Under monarchy government took about 5% of GDP. Under democracy, government takes 50%. Crime, drug use, prostitution and illegitimacy were all much lower under monarchy. GDP growth was much higher.

However, that being said, I prefer what some call "natural order." That involves eliminating government entirely from human affairs.

So that would portend that what the Founders gave us (a Republic), is a stop-gap go between the two examples you cite? (Just an off the cuff question).

I think the founders tried to implement what some call rule by a "natural aristocracy." That is, an aristocracy of merit. They didn't want to extend the franchise to every one who could manage to get himself born. They had no illusions about the ability of the common man to govern himself.

It worked quite well until Lincoln the tyrant abolished it and killed 700,000 Americans in the process.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is this 'lost' utopia that haunts the conservative today and galvanizes their opposition to any and all change. It is this dream world, that never was, that motivates the apostles of an imaginary past. Conservatives are like children longing for the comfort of some fairy tale world.

This is of course typical of reactionaries - indeed, they not only long for the past but for a past that never existed.

And however interesting it may be to study the phenomenon of conservatism, we must also realize that a significant number of our Nation’s leaders adhere to its failed and dangerous dogma, to the peril of future generations.

 

[uscitizen]

So is putting Japanese people in concentration camps is a liberal "core tenet?"

No and neither is Gitmo.

True, liberals would rather have terrorists bent on murdering millions of American running loose on the street.

Umm they at least deserve a trial.
It is the way of the USA.

 

[JWBooth]

I think the founders tried to implement what some call rule by a "natural aristocracy." That is, an aristocracy of merit. They didn't want to extend the franchise to every one who could manage to get himself born. They had no illusions about the ability of the common man to govern himself.

It worked quite well until Lincoln the tyrant abolished it and killed 700,000 Americans in the process.

Meritocracy, yes, that was the point of voters being male landholders. Something worthy of reconsideration, not so much the male part, the landholder part.

 

[Liability]

Midcan is utterly blinded by his partisan thinking. Thus he cannot be said (honestly at least) to have ANY "inSIGHT."

So much for his thread.

 

[Intense]

Another in a series of Midcan's insights into contemporary America.

I have always been fascinated by the modern day American conservative. When I grew up the word had none of the meaning it has today. The reactionary nature of conservative thought and activity is a given, but I am still amazed that an ideology that has no consistent core ideas can have such influence and also hold together so odd an assortment of apostles. It seemed to me for a long time that its only power lay in its oppositional force to change. Without liberalism conservatism would have to stand on its own legs, what would those legs consist of? George W. Bush was a conservative until he became president, then by some conservative magic he ceased to be what he claimed to be. Could it be he was just what he was, and then given power the legs just weren't up to the task? I'm sure he's still a conservative even as his revision goes on in the world of contemporary spin. Soon he will be canonized.

I was listening to Herman Cain at CPAC, and I have to admit seeing a Black man prattle on so vehemently about what we have lost or are in fear of losing just bewilders me. I'm old enough to remember separate facilities and the sixties riots. He didn't look like a spring chicken, but I guess he missed something I failed to miss like extreme prejudice and privilege. Most still miss this one. When 'Dreams' are under attack we're all in trouble. Whose dreams, I wonder? Dreams are hazy things, the CPAC crowd cheered this hazy observation. Picture in your mind that bucolic past we have lost. I'm sure most prefer the modern day. Corey Robin writes, "Onstage, the conservative waxes Byronic, moodily surveying the sum of his losses before an audience of the lovelorn and the starstruck. Offstage, and out of sight, his managers quietly compile the sum of their gains." It is this 'lost' utopia that haunts the conservative today and galvanizes their opposition to any and all change. It is this dream world, that never was, that motivates the apostles of an imaginary past. Conservatives are like children longing for the comfort of some fairy tale world.

"A consideration of this deeper strain of conservatism [a lost world] gives us a clearer sense of what conservatism is about. While conservatism is an ideology of reaction — originally against the French Revolution, more recently against the liberation movements of the sixties and seventies — the nature and dynamics of that reaction have not been well understood." When losing a democratic election brings such great cries of loss, doesn't anyone ever wonder what was lost? Or is loss just a trope?

Corey Robin quotations from: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/files/raritan-essay.pdf

Albert Hirschamn also covered this topic in his brilliant analysis of conservative reactionary politcs. The Rhetoric of Reaction - Albert O. Hirschman - Harvard University Press


"You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can’t say “******” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a by-product of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “******, ******.” Lee Atwater, Republican strategist Quoted in article above. And see my: http://www.usmessageboard.com/race-relations-racism/61091-life-in-a-parallel-universe.html

but I am still amazed that an ideology that has no consistent core ideas can have such influence and also hold together so odd an assortment of apostles.

False Premise. Reason must intervene here and ask why even read further. A thought to leave you with.....

We are united in strongly urging you, for the sake of our nation and its future, to go
before the American people jointly and present a unified vision of what this Republican victory
will stand for grounded upon these principles:
• A commitment to restoring free enterprise and implementing tax and spending
reduction, deregulation, and other policies that promote economic growth and
prosperity.
• A commitment to protect individual liberty by reducing the size and scope of the
Federal government and to reducing government spending to only those functions
entrusted to it in our great constitution.
• A commitment to restoring traditional moral values by passing laws that
recognize the sanctity of life, promote rather than penalize traditional marriage
and the family, and respect freedom of religion.
• A commitment to rebuilding our nation’s military and establishing a foreign
policy grounded upon America’s national interest, rewarding our allies, and
removing threats to freedom and security from abroad.
Now is the time for all Republican candidates and office holders to unite around these
principles and to lead boldly. You are in positions to lead Republicans in putting aside personal
ambitions and desires to retain positions of power and use the public offices entrusted to the
Republican Party to address the momentous economic, moral and national security challenges
our nation faces today, as our Founding Fathers did before us.
When you do that, you will have an opportunity to secure the blessings of liberty not only
for our generation, but also for those who come after us. And, we know that conservatives,
independents, Republicans and Democrats who love our country will be there with you.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/11/04/letter.to.gop.leaders.10-2-10-2.pdf

 

[Liability]

No and neither is Gitmo.

True, liberals would rather have terrorists bent on murdering millions of American running loose on the street.

Umm they at least deserve a trial.
It is the way of the USA.

To nobody's surprise, ussitnspin STILL views terrorism as constituting mere criminality.

 

[Intense]

No and neither is Gitmo.

True, liberals would rather have terrorists bent on murdering millions of American running loose on the street.

Umm they at least deserve a trial.
It is the way of the USA.

You are still recused.

 

[bripat9643]

It is this 'lost' utopia that haunts the conservative today and galvanizes their opposition to any and all change. It is this dream world, that never was, that motivates the apostles of an imaginary past. Conservatives are like children longing for the comfort of some fairy tale world.

This is of course typical of reactionaries - indeed, they not only long for the past but for a past that never existed.

And however interesting it may be to study the phenomenon of conservatism, we must also realize that a significant number of our Nation’s leaders adhere to its failed and dangerous dogma, to the peril of future generations.

That's complete horseshit, of course. The government we had in 1910 was far superior to the one we have now. Aside from the issue of slavery, the government we had in 1860 was far superior to both.

Libturds like to conflate the economic and scientific progress we have made in the last 150 years with their policies. Nothing could be further from the truth. Society has advanced despite liberal policies, not because of them. Capitalism ended child labor, not legislation. Capitalism created the 40 hour week, not legislation. Capitalism ended polio, small pox, typhus, yellow fever and countless other infectious diseases. Capitalism create the middle class and vastly improved our standard of living.

Almost everything that is good about modern life is the result of capitalism. Almost everything bad is the result of government.

 

[The T]

Monarchy is preferable to democracy, hands down. Under monarchy government took about 5% of GDP. Under democracy, government takes 50%. Crime, drug use, prostitution and illegitimacy were all much lower under monarchy. GDP growth was much higher.

However, that being said, I prefer what some call "natural order." That involves eliminating government entirely from human affairs.

So that would portend that what the Founders gave us (a Republic), is a stop-gap go between the two examples you cite? (Just an off the cuff question).

I think the founders tried to implement what some call rule by a "natural aristocracy." That is, an aristocracy of merit. They didn't want to extend the franchise to every one who could manage to get himself born. They had no illusions about the ability of the common man to govern himself.

It worked quite well until Lincoln the tyrant abolished it and killed 700,000 Americans in the process.

So in effect? Lincoln effectively killed the 9th and 10th Amendments? to preserve the Federal Union?

 

[whitehall]

Another in a series of Midcan's insights into contemporary America.

I have always been fascinated by the modern day American conservative. When I grew up the word had none of the meaning it has today. The reactionary nature of conservative thought and activity is a given, but I am still amazed that an ideology that has no consistent core ideas can have such influence and also hold together so odd an assortment of apostles. It seemed to me for a long time that its only power lay in its oppositional force to change. Without liberalism conservatism would have to stand on its own legs, what would those legs consist of? George W. Bush was a conservative until he became president, then by some conservative magic he ceased to be what he claimed to be. Could it be he was just what he was, and then given power the legs just weren't up to the task? I'm sure he's still a conservative even as his revision goes on in the world of contemporary spin. Soon he will be canonized.

I was listening to Herman Cain at CPAC, and I have to admit seeing a Black man prattle on so vehemently about what we have lost or are in fear of losing just bewilders me. I'm old enough to remember separate facilities and the sixties riots. He didn't look like a spring chicken, but I guess he missed something I failed to miss like extreme prejudice and privilege. Most still miss this one. When 'Dreams' are under attack we're all in trouble. Whose dreams, I wonder? Dreams are hazy things, the CPAC crowd cheered this hazy observation. Picture in your mind that bucolic past we have lost. I'm sure most prefer the modern day. Corey Robin writes, "Onstage, the conservative waxes Byronic, moodily surveying the sum of his losses before an audience of the lovelorn and the starstruck. Offstage, and out of sight, his managers quietly compile the sum of their gains." It is this 'lost' utopia that haunts the conservative today and galvanizes their opposition to any and all change. It is this dream world, that never was, that motivates the apostles of an imaginary past. Conservatives are like children longing for the comfort of some fairy tale world.

"A consideration of this deeper strain of conservatism [a lost world] gives us a clearer sense of what conservatism is about. While conservatism is an ideology of reaction — originally against the French Revolution, more recently against the liberation movements of the sixties and seventies — the nature and dynamics of that reaction have not been well understood." When losing a democratic election brings such great cries of loss, doesn't anyone ever wonder what was lost? Or is loss just a trope?

Corey Robin quotations from: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/files/raritan-essay.pdf

Albert Hirschamn also covered this topic in his brilliant analysis of conservative reactionary politcs. The Rhetoric of Reaction - Albert O. Hirschman - Harvard University Press


"You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can’t say “******” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a by-product of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “******, ******.” Lee Atwater, Republican strategist Quoted in article above. And see my: http://www.usmessageboard.com/race-relations-racism/61091-life-in-a-parallel-universe.html

Midcan? Is that middle Canada or the part of the can at which you consider whether or not to throw any more garbage? It's no secret that the radical left thinks any Black man who is a republican "is not down for the struggle". The radical Black left is still reliving those glory days when Van Jones led an arson and looting rampage. Why does the radical left hang on to the old racist plantation mentality that "blacks get hurt worse than whites"? Because they need to keep the races at each others throats. In their minds Black men are just tools of the old 60's revolution and there is still money and power to be made in the race game.

 

[JWBooth]

So that would portend that what the Founders gave us (a Republic), is a stop-gap go between the two examples you cite? (Just an off the cuff question).

I think the founders tried to implement what some call rule by a "natural aristocracy." That is, an aristocracy of merit. They didn't want to extend the franchise to every one who could manage to get himself born. They had no illusions about the ability of the common man to govern himself.

It worked quite well until Lincoln the tyrant abolished it and killed 700,000 Americans in the process.

So in effect? Lincoln effectively killed the 9th and 10th Amendments? to preserve the Federal Union?

Maintaining military or sovereign control over a fixed set of borders isn't the same as maintaining or saving a nation.