What Are Conservatives Trying to Conserve?

[grunt11b]

Ira Glasser: What Are Conservatives Trying to Conserve?

In 1980 Reagan was elected, and the modern conservative political movement began, not as a protest, but as a hegemony. The lasting accomplishments of the Reagan years may have been the changes in the tax code and regulatory regimes that had prevailed for nearly a half century. But that was not what fueled his electoral success; what fueled his electoral success was the fundamentalist movement represented by Falwell, Pat Robertson and what came to be called the social agenda. Censorship of Kurt Vonnegut, Judy Blume and others, movements to pass "creationist" statutes that attempted to elevate the book of Genesis to a branch of science; hostility to the claims of gays, women and reproductive rights all combined to generate what began to be called "the culture wars." To a very demonstrable extent, I think, the conservative movement of the last 30 years (absent the economic issues of deregulation, also supported by Clinton and Robert Rubin and beyond the comprehension or the interest of most voters) may be seen as a panic response to a crumbling world and to the rights expansions of the '60s that struck like a tsunami, washing away all the prior governing arrangements. For these people, reality itself, or at least a reality where they felt in charge, was disappearing. As always, it was the symbols of these changes that were attacked: the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court, which (unelected) had rendered many of these decisions; the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, which had brought many of the cases or performed hated services; books and magazines and films; television and Hollywood and "eastern elites." When Pat Buchanan roared, in his quixotic presidential campaign, that "we" needed to "take back our country," he was talking about a country prior to the rights revolutions of the 60s, when people who looked and believed like him ruled the roost and did not have their powers limited by the rights we had won. What conservatives were desperately trying to conserve was not the values at America's origin (the Bill of Rights was, after all, ratified in 1791), but rather the privileges and powers of 19th century and early 20th century America. This is what has fueled the reactionary politics of the past three decades, and it is what we are seeing now in the Republican base and its candidates.

Can the forum say Amen? I do, conservatives aren't conserving anything that works to the good of all Americans.

Another retarded question coming from a retard.

 

[Mr.Nick]

That's a really backward way of seeing things. First you determine that without government there would be no market, which is absolute horseshit. Yes there would be, it would simply be sloppy as people would have no laws to protect rights and property. Which would change the dynamic and make exchange messy in certain instances.

Revenue for government is obtain by coercion from rpivvate sector tax payers. Without them, government has no revenue. Which means no pay for public servants. You're trying to argue around the fact that public servants are economically nonproductive and that can not be done. It's a complete fallacy.

It wouldn't be sloppy.... Governments don't make economies work unless we're discussing planned economies, but capitalism is self regulated.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

What are conservatives trying to conserve? Our sanity. You try being a person with common sense that is surrounded by nimrods. Just watch Idiocracy and it'll become clear to you.

 

[Flaylo]

Ira Glasser: What Are Conservatives Trying to Conserve?

In 1980 Reagan was elected, and the modern conservative political movement began, not as a protest, but as a hegemony. The lasting accomplishments of the Reagan years may have been the changes in the tax code and regulatory regimes that had prevailed for nearly a half century. But that was not what fueled his electoral success; what fueled his electoral success was the fundamentalist movement represented by Falwell, Pat Robertson and what came to be called the social agenda. Censorship of Kurt Vonnegut, Judy Blume and others, movements to pass "creationist" statutes that attempted to elevate the book of Genesis to a branch of science; hostility to the claims of gays, women and reproductive rights all combined to generate what began to be called "the culture wars." To a very demonstrable extent, I think, the conservative movement of the last 30 years (absent the economic issues of deregulation, also supported by Clinton and Robert Rubin and beyond the comprehension or the interest of most voters) may be seen as a panic response to a crumbling world and to the rights expansions of the '60s that struck like a tsunami, washing away all the prior governing arrangements. For these people, reality itself, or at least a reality where they felt in charge, was disappearing. As always, it was the symbols of these changes that were attacked: the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court, which (unelected) had rendered many of these decisions; the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, which had brought many of the cases or performed hated services; books and magazines and films; television and Hollywood and "eastern elites." When Pat Buchanan roared, in his quixotic presidential campaign, that "we" needed to "take back our country," he was talking about a country prior to the rights revolutions of the 60s, when people who looked and believed like him ruled the roost and did not have their powers limited by the rights we had won. What conservatives were desperately trying to conserve was not the values at America's origin (the Bill of Rights was, after all, ratified in 1791), but rather the privileges and powers of 19th century and early 20th century America. This is what has fueled the reactionary politics of the past three decades, and it is what we are seeing now in the Republican base and its candidates.

Can the forum say Amen? I do, conservatives aren't conserving anything that works to the good of all Americans.

Another retarded question coming from a retard.

11 Bravos like you are facking retards, they couldn't do my job, but anyways, what are you cons trying to conserve? Still waiting.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Their seats in office, the same thing libs are doing.


Keep in mind, I'm using the words wrong to go along with the discussion. Republicans aren't conservative, democrats aren't liberal. Well both are liberal in terms of spending, but that's about the only time either label fits.


The better labels for both parties are neoconservative and fascist.

Conservatives are liberals....

Progressives are authoritarians..

Our Bill of Rights is "liberal" - it still is a liberal document. I will say amendments XI-XXVII are somewhat redundant and authoritarian...

The only reason why "liberal" is so misused (among other words) is because progressives like to destroy everything - including our language.

Their justification for their illiteracy is called "whole language."

Whole language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's how authoritarians redefine words....

 

[Mr.Nick]

Ira Glasser: What Are Conservatives Trying to Conserve?




Can the forum say Amen? I do, conservatives aren't conserving anything that works to the good of all Americans.

Another retarded question coming from a retard.

11 Bravos like you are facking retards, they couldn't do my job, but anyways, what are you cons trying to conserve? Still waiting.

How about liberalism??? the Bill of Rights, our Constitution in general..

You're fucking dumb you whole language baby...

 

[Mr.Nick]

You know society is fucked when conservatives are the ones conserving liberalism and are in turn labeled "CONZ" in negative fashion...

 

[Vidi]

The Bill of Rights........

For the rich and religious fundies only.

Youre not even denying that you want to take those rights away from all people. How sad.

Or maybe we should ensure those rights for all, regardless of their bank accounts.

 

[Vidi]

That's a really backward way of seeing things. First you determine that without government there would be no market, which is absolute horseshit. Yes there would be, it would simply be sloppy as people would have no laws to protect rights and property. Which would change the dynamic and make exchange messy in certain instances.

Revenue for government is obtain by coercion from rpivvate sector tax payers. Without them, government has no revenue. Which means no pay for public servants. You're trying to argue around the fact that public servants are economically nonproductive and that can not be done. It's a complete fallacy.

It wouldn't be sloppy.... Governments don't make economies work unless we're discussing planned economies, but capitalism is self regulated.

Unregulated capitalism falls into plutarchy. There must always be something in place to protect the people from exploitation.

 

[Artevelde]

Unregulated capitalism falls into plutarchy. There must always be something in place to protect the people from exploitation.

I'm not against limited regulation, which is in any way necessary for the profer functioning of a market economy. But right now I think overtaxation is the greater form of exploitation, especially for the middle class.

 

[Mr.Nick]

That's a really backward way of seeing things. First you determine that without government there would be no market, which is absolute horseshit. Yes there would be, it would simply be sloppy as people would have no laws to protect rights and property. Which would change the dynamic and make exchange messy in certain instances.

Revenue for government is obtain by coercion from rpivvate sector tax payers. Without them, government has no revenue. Which means no pay for public servants. You're trying to argue around the fact that public servants are economically nonproductive and that can not be done. It's a complete fallacy.

It wouldn't be sloppy.... Governments don't make economies work unless we're discussing planned economies, but capitalism is self regulated.

Unregulated capitalism falls into plutarchy. There must always be something in place to protect the people from exploitation.

Capitalism is self regulated. Anyone with an education in economics knows this.

 

[Artevelde]

It wouldn't be sloppy.... Governments don't make economies work unless we're discussing planned economies, but capitalism is self regulated.

Unregulated capitalism falls into plutarchy. There must always be something in place to protect the people from exploitation.

Capitalism is self regulated. Anyone with an education in economics knows this.

That is nonsense. Any market place is regulated. Otherwise there would be no market.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Unregulated capitalism falls into plutarchy. There must always be something in place to protect the people from exploitation.

I'm not against limited regulation, which is in any way necessary for the profer functioning of a market economy. But right now I think overtaxation is the greater form of exploitation, especially for the middle class.

All regulation does is impede the "model."

We get fucked economies because some in government believe they can dictate capitalism (or economies in general).

Keynesian economics fail...

If the government minded its own business the majority of US citizens would be rich...

 

[Artevelde]

I'm not against limited regulation, which is in any way necessary for the profer functioning of a market economy. But right now I think overtaxation is the greater form of exploitation, especially for the middle class.

All regulation does is impede the "model."

We get fucked economies because some in government believe they can dictate capitalism (or economies in general).

Keynesian economics fail...

If the government minded its own business the majority of US citizens would be rich...

Complete nonsense. A capitalist market economy needs an efficient government and also needs government regulation. Like all aspects of government, it should be limited. But it is essential nevertheless.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Unregulated capitalism falls into plutarchy. There must always be something in place to protect the people from exploitation.

Capitalism is self regulated. Anyone with an education in economics knows this.

That is nonsense. Any market place is regulated. Otherwise there would be no market.

Capitalism is a self regulated economy...

It is a supply and demand based economy - hence self regulated.

Like I said: anyone with an education in economics knows this.

Keynesian economics don't work.....

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Their seats in office, the same thing libs are doing.


Keep in mind, I'm using the words wrong to go along with the discussion. Republicans aren't conservative, democrats aren't liberal. Well both are liberal in terms of spending, but that's about the only time either label fits.


The better labels for both parties are neoconservative and fascist.

Conservatives are liberals....

Progressives are authoritarians..

Our Bill of Rights is "liberal" - it still is a liberal document. I will say amendments XI-XXVII are somewhat redundant and authoritarian...

The only reason why "liberal" is so misused (among other words) is because progressives like to destroy everything - including our language.

Their justification for their illiteracy is called "whole language."

That's how authoritarians redefine words....

Yea man. We're like totally all just like living inside someone's toenail and it's all going to end as soon as he files it. Better hope we get like ingrown. Get ready for the nuclear winter though.

 

[Flaylo]

Another retarded question coming from a retard.

11 Bravos like you are facking retards, they couldn't do my job, but anyways, what are you cons trying to conserve? Still waiting.

How about liberalism??? the Bill of Rights, our Constitution in general..

You're fucking dumb you whole language baby...

If thats the facking case why are you arguing against liberalism you stupid ass moonbat?

 

[Mr.Nick]

All regulation does is impede the "model."

We get fucked economies because some in government believe they can dictate capitalism (or economies in general).

Keynesian economics fail...

If the government minded its own business the majority of US citizens would be rich...

Complete nonsense. A capitalist market economy needs an efficient government and also needs government regulation. Like all aspects of government, it should be limited. But it is essential nevertheless.

I love how the assclown tried to fuck this thread up by playing with the quotes..

Back to the topic at hand...

No the government doesn't need to regulate the economy - capitalism is capitalism and a planned economy is such...

Don't confuse the two..

Capitalism doesn't need regulation - as a matter of fact the only reason why capitalism fails is because government regulates the economic model.

 

[Flaylo]

All regulation does is impede the "model."

We get fucked economies because some in government believe they can dictate capitalism (or economies in general).

Keynesian economics fail...

If the government minded its own business the majority of US citizens would be rich...

Complete nonsense. A capitalist market economy needs an efficient government and also needs government regulation. Like all aspects of government, it should be limited. But it is essential nevertheless.

I love how the assclown tried to fuck this thread up by playing with the quotes..

Back to the topic at hand...

No the government doesn't need to regulate the economy - capitalism is capitalism and a planned economy is such...

Don't confuse the two..

Capitalism doesn't need regulation - as a matter of fact the only reason why capitalism fails is because government regulates the economic model.

Yes capitalism needs to be regulate you dipshat, look at the finacial collapse because of unregulated derivatives, you have shat for brains.

 

[Artevelde]

All regulation does is impede the "model."

We get fucked economies because some in government believe they can dictate capitalism (or economies in general).

Keynesian economics fail...

If the government minded its own business the majority of US citizens would be rich...

Complete nonsense. A capitalist market economy needs an efficient government and also needs government regulation. Like all aspects of government, it should be limited. But it is essential nevertheless.

I love how the assclown tried to fuck this thread up by playing with the quotes..

Back to the topic at hand...

No the government doesn't need to regulate the economy - capitalism is capitalism and a planned economy is such...

Don't confuse the two..

Capitalism doesn't need regulation - as a matter of fact the only reason why capitalism fails is because government regulates the economic model.

So according to you the US has been a planned economy during its whole history?

What you say is simply ridiculous. Try coming back down to Earth.