Conservative vs Conservative

[PredFan]

I was having an argument with a fellow Conservative that started with the mention of gay marriage and went on to include other subjects.

Me: You are redefining "conservative", a true conservative would not want to use the police power of the Federal Government to force someone to act in a certain way, or refrain from doing some thing.

Other: No, "conservative" has always been about conserving traditional values. It is YOU who are changing the definition of "conservative".

Me: I'm using the Founding Fathers' definition. They didn't say "Freedom and Liberty except for gays and immoral people".

Other: They were Christians, and founded this country on Christian values."

Me: There were gays back then and I'm sure that they knew about gay people, why didn't they specifically say "except for Homosexuals"?

Other: Gays were not discussed openly back then like they are today.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---

Two questions for you:

1. Who is doing the redefining of "conservatism", which was the original definition?

2. Who won that discussion?

 

[PredFan]

So, which came first? The Total Liberty Chicken, or the Family Values Egg?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Two questions for you:

1. Who is doing the redefining of "conservatism", which was the original definition?

2. Who won that discussion?

Quite simply, you've got two distinct groups:

Conservatives: more-often referred-to as The Silent Majority; See: Dwight Eisenhower

&

"conservatives": fascists, in Conservative-clothing; See: Faux Noise/Porky Limbaugh fans.​

 

[G.T.]

Values traditionally refer to the public square, not the Law. Practice your traditional values all you like, but dont impose them unnecessarily on others. I wouldnt call that conservative.

 

[dblack]

So, which came first? The Total Liberty Chicken, or the Family Values Egg?

I'm not sure it matters which came first. FWIW, I agree with your friend. Which is why I don't call myself conservative. Regardless of original intent or meaning, what you're describing is now more accurately referred to as libertarianism. At some point we have to use words that carry meaning to the people we're talking to.

Also, the whole idea of being 'conservative' in a country nominally founded on radical liberal ideas is sort of a contradiction. Modern conservatives are - at the very least - selective on the traditions they choose to conserve. (eg. I don't see many conservatives demanding that we teach deism in public schools.)

 

[JoeB131]

So, which came first? The Total Liberty Chicken, or the Family Values Egg?

I think the question is, who are the bigger Rubes.

The "Total Liberty Rubes" or the "Family Values Rubes".

I'm going to go with the "Family Values Rubes", because they are a lot easier to fool.

The reality. The Puppetmasters of the Conservative Movement are about getting the working class to go along with the transfer of wealth from the working class to the investor class.

"Liberty" and "Family Values" are just how they fool the Rubes into voting against their own economic interests.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

So, which came first? The Total Liberty Chicken, or the Family Values Egg?

I'm not sure it matters which came first. FWIW, I agree with your friend. Which is why I don't call myself conservative. Regardless of original intent or meaning, what you're describing is now more accurately referred to as libertarianism. At some point we have to use words that carry meaning to the people we're talking to.

Also, the whole idea of being 'conservative' in a country nominally founded on radical liberal ideas is sort of a contradiction.

Exactly!!!

This Country was founded by (what were considered) "outlaws"....rule-breakers....risk-takers!!!!! Hell....we've also got a long-History of re-energizing that gene-pool, thru immigration!

NOW.....we've become a Country RUN by gutless, risk-averse, Corporate-WEENIES....who won't even CONSIDER taking any "risks".....unless there's a 1000% GUARANTEE they'll realize record-profits....that'll (eventually) STAY in THEIR pockets!!!​

 

[editec]

CONSERVATISM
It is important to think of conservatism as a set of ideas that is not necessarily the same as those upheld by political parties calling themselves ‘Conservative’. Some modern ‘Conservative’ parties are strongly associated with the idea of a reduced role for government (privatization, reduced social programs) and promotion of free markets. This perspective, however, is based on classical liberalism rather than conservatism. Conservative ideas do not welcome the unrestricted operations of a free market, but value social stability and the maintenance of traditional community bonds and social hierarchies. Conservatives assume that institutions and values that have lasted a long time embody the collective experience of the community. They have persisted because they have played a valuable and positive role in society. See: CLASSICAL LIBERALISM / NEO-CONSERVATISM / .

Online Dictionary of the Social Sciences

 

[jwoodie]

You demean the term "conservative" by squabbling over the purity of one's positions on various issues. A legitimate Conservative appreciates the value of a limited government whose actions are circumscribed by clearly defined problems and solutions.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Marriage laws apply to all people equally. If states want to change them, the states can do that. Gay caterwauling does nothing to advance their cause.

 

[bendog]

not to diss the topic at all, because it is the central issue for the gop: social or economic conservatism, or both?

imo there isn't really a right or wrong answer, at least philosophically. Being an opponent of gay rights, or even immigration reform that acknowledges these folks are not "self deporting," doesn't disqualify one from calling him/herself "conservative."

However, there is an issue of winning elections. We just lost an election to la Hah-vahd law professor with unemployment at 8% because we pissed off the blacks, latinos, women and the gays. We have also decided that govt has no role in finding a way to pay for healthcare for lower income workers. Truman used to say "give people a choice between two republicans, and they'll pick a republican everything." I think we're now at the point of "give a person a crazy person and a sane person, and in national elections they'll pick the sane one everytime."

 

[WorldWatcher]

Marriage laws apply to all people equally. If states want to change them, the states can do that.

That argument worked well for the Commonwealth of Virginia in Loving v. Virginia.

Gay caterwauling does nothing to advance their cause.

In the year 2000 there were zero legal entities in the United States with legal Same-sex Civil Marriage and Civil Unions and (IIRC) only about 25% of the people supported Same-sex Civil Marriage.

Now it's 2013, 10 legal entitites (9 States + DC) have Same-sex Civil Marriage and another 9 have Civil Unions and the support for Same-sex Civil Marriage (on a national basis) has become the majority opinion.

Seems like the "caterwauling" is doing just fine.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

not to diss the topic at all, because it is the central issue for the gop: social or economic conservatism, or both?

imo there isn't really a right or wrong answer, at least philosophically. Being an opponent of gay rights, or even immigration reform that acknowledges these folks are not "self deporting," doesn't disqualify one from calling him/herself "conservative."

However, there is an issue of winning elections. We just lost an election to la Hah-vahd law professor with unemployment at 8% because we pissed off the blacks, latinos, women and the gays. We have also decided that govt has no role in finding a way to pay for healthcare for lower income workers. Truman used to say "give people a choice between two republicans, and they'll pick a republican everything." I think we're now at the point of "give a person a crazy person and a sane person, and in national elections they'll pick the sane one everytime."

The problem, IMHO, is that to win a primary candidates are forced to assume extreme right position by Social Conservatives - that sets the state for candidates trying to "out conservative" each other - which then provides plenty of fodder for the democrats and the media once the election shifts from primary to general. The result is that those demographics (blacks, latinos, women, and supporters of equal treatment for homosexuals) are pushed away by the social issues. Two examples, any mention of immigration reform that included a transition process for current illegals was call "amnesty" and each of the candidates (except for Gary Johnson) was pushed into signing on the a commitment to push for a national Constitutional Amendment banning Same-sex Civil Marriage.


>>>>

 

[PredFan]

CONSERVATISM
It is important to think of conservatism as a set of ideas that is not necessarily the same as those upheld by political parties calling themselves ‘Conservative’. Some modern ‘Conservative’ parties are strongly associated with the idea of a reduced role for government (privatization, reduced social programs) and promotion of free markets. This perspective, however, is based on classical liberalism rather than conservatism. Conservative ideas do not welcome the unrestricted operations of a free market, but value social stability and the maintenance of traditional community bonds and social hierarchies. Conservatives assume that institutions and values that have lasted a long time embody the collective experience of the community. They have persisted because they have played a valuable and positive role in society. See: CLASSICAL LIBERALISM / NEO-CONSERVATISM / .

Online Dictionary of the Social Sciences

Thanks for posting that, even though it means I lost.

 

[PredFan]

You demean the term "conservative" by squabbling over the purity of one's positions on various issues. A legitimate Conservative appreciates the value of a limited government whose actions are circumscribed by clearly defined problems and solutions.

You've never had a random discussion? It's just mental sparring, nothing groundbreaking or election changing.

 

[whitehall]

Where did you get the idea that a "true conservative" hates all government power? Al-Jazeera? Of course "true conservatives" authorize and support the government when they force people to act in a certain way or refrain from doing certain things.

 

[bendog]

not to diss the topic at all, because it is the central issue for the gop: social or economic conservatism, or both?

imo there isn't really a right or wrong answer, at least philosophically. Being an opponent of gay rights, or even immigration reform that acknowledges these folks are not "self deporting," doesn't disqualify one from calling him/herself "conservative."

However, there is an issue of winning elections. We just lost an election to la Hah-vahd law professor with unemployment at 8% because we pissed off the blacks, latinos, women and the gays. We have also decided that govt has no role in finding a way to pay for healthcare for lower income workers. Truman used to say "give people a choice between two republicans, and they'll pick a republican everything." I think we're now at the point of "give a person a crazy person and a sane person, and in national elections they'll pick the sane one everytime."

The problem, IMHO, is that to win a primary candidates are forced to assume extreme right position by Social Conservatives - that sets the state for candidates trying to "out conservative" each other - which then provides plenty of fodder for the democrats and the media once the election shifts from primary to general. The result is that those demographics (blacks, latinos, women, and supporters of equal treatment for homosexuals) are pushed away by the social issues. Two examples, any mention of immigration reform that included a transition process for current illegals was call "amnesty" and each of the candidates (except for Gary Johnson) was pushed into signing on the a commitment to push for a national Constitutional Amendment banning Same-sex Civil Marriage.


>>>>

Exactly. Goldwater was opposed to the whole incorporation of Moral Majority issues. It may be that Reagan simply gave them lip service. But Alan Simpson is simply scratching his scalp trying to figure out what's up.

It's fine if someone wants to say nay to gay rights, immigration reform, abortion rights, etc. But, the problem is DEMOGRAPHICALLY those are all losers. As, falling on a sword for unlimted magazine capacity and background checks, although that's less a social issue than the others.

Goldwater, who is generally acknowledged as the intellect behing Reagan's social/small govt idealism, didn't give a rat's ass about social issues. And, unless that's the gop's position, it'll be a permanent minority power with the ability to frustrate the majoirity will, but no power to accomplish anything else.

We also have a problem on what constitutes small govt. Mike Lee seems to think govt has no role is solving issues like access to healthcare. Well, Latinos overwhelmingly disagree. It may be that Obamacare is such an unwieldly beast of leftwing nirvana, the cost will drive young folks back to the gop.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So, which came first? The Total Liberty Chicken, or the Family Values Egg?

They’ve always co-existed, until conjoined some 40 years ago and injected into the GOP body politic like some malevolent virus.

But both represent classic reactionaryism: the disdain of change, diversity and dissent along with the naïve desire to return America to some idealized past that never actually existed to begin with.

Your version of conservatism may be accepting of same-sex couples with regard to marriage access but is likely hostile to public accommodations/Commerce Clause jurisprudence, for example.

The ‘best’ conservatives, if you will, the conservatives we need back, are conservatives from the 50s, 60s, and early 70s, before the bane of social conservatism. Such conservatives were intelligent, progressive, and pragmatic; they advocated for both responsible fiscal policy and responsible governance. They understood that environmental protection, worker safety, and civil rights were not a communist plot to overthrow America, and that although government should be limited and small, it could nonetheless play a positive role in Americans’ lives and was not the monster made out to be by today’s radical, extreme right.

 

[dblack]

Goldwater, who is generally acknowledged as the intellect behing Reagan's social/small govt idealism, didn't give a rat's ass about social issues. And, unless that's the gop's position, it'll be a permanent minority power with the ability to frustrate the majority will, but no power to accomplish anything else.

Hmm... from a libertarian perspective, isn't that the point?

 

[editec]

Today's self proclaiming GOP Conservative are not remotely conservative in the true sense of that word.

Conservative does not mean anti-government, anti-abortion or pro-guns.

And that is what today's pseudo-cons seem to think (or more like WISH) the word means.