What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?

[Foxfyre]

Without the liberals, or the conservatives this country wouldn't or couldn't exist as a great nation, it would end up as just another also ran.

I dunno Meister. We did really well as a nation before government decided it would become more authoritarian and do a lot of meddling. And the more the federal government has meddled, the worse it has gotten. And that was not because of conservatives aka classical liberals.

You need both, Foxfyre. Liberals have brought some good things to the table, as has conservatives. But, take away either one and the other runs amok. What it does come down to is human nature dealing with the greed they desire.

I agree that there are liberals who have enriched our lives through prose and poetry and artistry and wit and wisdom. That I would very much miss if the liberals were suddenly zapped off to some other country or planet.

I don't agree that we need liberalism to manage a country however, and I believe liberal concepts have been shown to fail universally wherever they have been tried. It doesn't happen all at once, but the liberal mindset introduces automatic decay into what could otherwise be selfsustaining and increasingly productive.

The Founding Fathers were not conservative as the dictionary defines conservative. They were liberals but as that was defined in the 18th century. Visionary. Progressive in their willingness to learn and adapt and move forward and improve and be better. They were wise enough not to force their vision of moralty on anybody else, but rather held to the concept that liberty must allow people to choose their own destiny and requires that they own the consequences of what they choose.

Modern Day American liberalism is much closer to the dictionary definition of conservatism than is modern day American conservatism. It is a philosophy based on the concept of kings--government that must be given authority to choose for us rather than allow people to have that responsibility themselves. Charity that depends on confiscation of property from others rather than any personal sacrifice. Government that shrugs off the concept of unalienable God given rights and assumes the authority to assign us the rights, choices, options, and opportunities that we will be allowed to have.

It is well intended and means well and believes it is superior. But it is not.

 

[Oddball]

RFK juniorette...How droll.

Anti-environmentalist whackaloon isn't anti-environment, dude.

Thanks for adding your usual. Hey DUDe, will you ever progress to speaking English instead of ebonics, and being able to structure paragraphs?

Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke

Thanks for being so thick that you cannot do so much as refute a single sentence...So much so that you felt the need to include an entirely irrelevant quote, from someone whose world view is diametrically opposed from yours.

Way ta go.

 

[PMZ]

So those of us who think the government is too big are extremists? Really? That is your definition of extremism?

For me to say the government is too big and/or costs too much saves a lot of time of not having to write half a page explaining that I see the federal government as bloated, out of control, engaged in functions never intended by the Constitution, excessively expensive, ineffective, inefficient, self serving, and excessively powerful to the extent that our unalienable rights are threatened or already compromised and the economy is drained of much of its vitality and ability to expand.

And from that, I can go point by point to explain the problems I see which would require a sizable manuscript to hold it all.

It saves a whole lot of time saying the government is too big.

But if saying 'the government is too big' is extremist to you, how would you word it to express a government that has overreached or has overflowed its intended boundaries?

What is the evidence that the governmentis too big? Is General Motors too big? Apple? Walmart?

The evidence is in its increasing cost and in the steadily diminishing returns to the people. The evidence is in its inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and destructiveness, and the drain on what would otherwise be a vital, thriving economy. The evidence is in the erosion of all of our liberties, options, opportunities, and choices while those in high levels of government are greatly enriching themselves at our expense. The evidence is in our inability to get answers to the simplest questions because of the enormity and complexity of the bureaucracies that are controlling more and more of our lives.

You realize, I suppose, that you presented no evidence at all. Not surprising as there is none. It's a completely subjective thing.

Of course, one way to make it objective would be to see what direction it's going. But, it's shrunk under liberal government, from it's peak under conservative government.

Also you forgot to answer my other questions. Is General Motors too big? Also a completely subjective thing.

 

[PMZ]

Liberals dont believe in liberalism. Friedman called himself a liberal, and for his time he was right. Conservative has nothing to do with conservation. Although I'll point out that hunters, overwhelmingly conservative, are among the biggest advocates of preserving forests and wildlife. And also the biggest financial contributors to those projects.

The fact is, whether liberal or conservative, the poor may or may not care about the environment and/or conservation, but their first priority is to put food on the table, have access to shelter from the elements, and enjoy some quality of life. Everything else will take a back seat to that.

But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty.

It seems the American liberal concept of conservation is more and more government mandates, regulation, and control. They trust government to have everybody's best interests at heart more than they trust the people, and they trust government to utilize resources more efficiently and effectively than the people will manage them outside of government.

And the American conservatives concept of conservation is to increase affluence so more people will care and provide incentives to improve their environment and preserve the best that the planet can offer. There is no better managers of the rangelands and forests than those whose livelihood depend upon them. And the landowner is likely to be thrilled at the presence of a rare bird, critter, or plant on his property and is likely to nurture it. But if the government is given power to take away that landowner's propety rights because of the presence of a rare something, that is a powerful incentive to get rid of it quickly before some government authority discovers it is there.

The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could. That is conservatism in a nutshell.

Take away the conservatives and you return the USA to a monarchy or other authoritarian government that assigns the rights to the people and issues them whatever privileges or possessions they will be allowed to have.

"But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty."

In my experience the affluent will follow the one rule of business. Make more money regardless of the cost to others.

The people who guard the environment are the middle class. Those who pay for disregarding the environment without the corporate or personal enrichment from that disregard.

 

[PMZ]

Liberals dont believe in liberalism. Friedman called himself a liberal, and for his time he was right. Conservative has nothing to do with conservation. Although I'll point out that hunters, overwhelmingly conservative, are among the biggest advocates of preserving forests and wildlife. And also the biggest financial contributors to those projects.

The fact is, whether liberal or conservative, the poor may or may not care about the environment and/or conservation, but their first priority is to put food on the table, have access to shelter from the elements, and enjoy some quality of life. Everything else will take a back seat to that.

But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty.

It seems the American liberal concept of conservation is more and more government mandates, regulation, and control. They trust government to have everybody's best interests at heart more than they trust the people, and they trust government to utilize resources more efficiently and effectively than the people will manage them outside of government.

And the American conservatives concept of conservation is to increase affluence so more people will care and provide incentives to improve their environment and preserve the best that the planet can offer. There is no better managers of the rangelands and forests than those whose livelihood depend upon them. And the landowner is likely to be thrilled at the presence of a rare bird, critter, or plant on his property and is likely to nurture it. But if the government is given power to take away that landowner's propety rights because of the presence of a rare something, that is a powerful incentive to get rid of it quickly before some government authority discovers it is there.

The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could. That is conservatism in a nutshell.

Take away the conservatives and you return the USA to a monarchy or other authoritarian government that assigns the rights to the people and issues them whatever privileges or possessions they will be allowed to have.

"The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could. That is conservatism in a nutshell."

Wrong. The anti Federalists want strong state or colony government modeled after Europe. The Federalists wanted strong federal government. Nobody wanted weak government. BTW, when push came to shove, the Federalists won.

 

[PMZ]

The fact is, whether liberal or conservative, the poor may or may not care about the environment and/or conservation, but their first priority is to put food on the table, have access to shelter from the elements, and enjoy some quality of life. Everything else will take a back seat to that.

But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty.

It seems the American liberal concept of conservation is more and more government mandates, regulation, and control. They trust government to have everybody's best interests at heart more than they trust the people, and they trust government to utilize resources more efficiently and effectively than the people will manage them outside of government.

And the American conservatives concept of conservation is to increase affluence so more people will care and provide incentives to improve their environment and preserve the best that the planet can offer. There is no better managers of the rangelands and forests than those whose livelihood depend upon them. And the landowner is likely to be thrilled at the presence of a rare bird, critter, or plant on his property and is likely to nurture it. But if the government is given power to take away that landowner's propety rights because of the presence of a rare something, that is a powerful incentive to get rid of it quickly before some government authority discovers it is there.

The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could. That is conservatism in a nutshell.

Take away the conservatives and you return the USA to a monarchy or other authoritarian government that assigns the rights to the people and issues them whatever privileges or possessions they will be allowed to have.

It's ironic that liberals believe people are basically good, and conservatives tend to be believe that people are basically evil, yet conservatives are willing to 'trust' major polluters to be conscientious stewards of our environment. When they have proven for centuries they will pilfer and destroy the environment if it adds to the bottom line.

"We didn't inherit this land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."
Lakota Sioux Proverb

Actual liberals believe people are basically bad and incompetent. They need regulations to govern what they eat, how they work, what they smoke, what kind of insurance they can have, what kinds of games their children can play, what their children must be taught, what attitudes they must have, etc etc etc. The result is the creeping nanny state.

Conservatives largely, but not wholly believe in letting people make their own decisions. If they fail, then there are communitiies and charities to help them that are less intrusive than gov't.

The biggest protector of the enivronment is private land rights, something liberals have been eroding for years. Heck, libs don't even understand the concept.

Liberals believe in what has taken us from the caves to civilization. Conservatives believe that we should go back to the caves and everyone for themselves. Take more resources regardless of the cost to others. Like future generations for instance.

 

[The Rabbi]

Liberals dont believe in liberalism. Friedman called himself a liberal, and for his time he was right. Conservative has nothing to do with conservation. Although I'll point out that hunters, overwhelmingly conservative, are among the biggest advocates of preserving forests and wildlife. And also the biggest financial contributors to those projects.

The fact is, whether liberal or conservative, the poor may or may not care about the environment and/or conservation, but their first priority is to put food on the table, have access to shelter from the elements, and enjoy some quality of life. Everything else will take a back seat to that.

But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty.

It seems the American liberal concept of conservation is more and more government mandates, regulation, and control. They trust government to have everybody's best interests at heart more than they trust the people, and they trust government to utilize resources more efficiently and effectively than the people will manage them outside of government.

And the American conservatives concept of conservation is to increase affluence so more people will care and provide incentives to improve their environment and preserve the best that the planet can offer. There is no better managers of the rangelands and forests than those whose livelihood depend upon them. And the landowner is likely to be thrilled at the presence of a rare bird, critter, or plant on his property and is likely to nurture it. But if the government is given power to take away that landowner's propety rights because of the presence of a rare something, that is a powerful incentive to get rid of it quickly before some government authority discovers it is there.

The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could. That is conservatism in a nutshell.

Take away the conservatives and you return the USA to a monarchy or other authoritarian government that assigns the rights to the people and issues them whatever privileges or possessions they will be allowed to have.

"But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty."

In my experience the affluent will follow the one rule of business. Make more money regardless of the cost to others.

The people who guard the environment are the middle class. Those who pay for disregarding the environment without the corporate or personal enrichment from that disregard.

How does the middle class, with no ownership in the environment and no economic power, guard the environment? That's nonsense.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Liberals dont believe in liberalism. Friedman called himself a liberal, and for his time he was right. Conservative has nothing to do with conservation. Although I'll point out that hunters, overwhelmingly conservative, are among the biggest advocates of preserving forests and wildlife. And also the biggest financial contributors to those projects.

The fact is, whether liberal or conservative, the poor may or may not care about the environment and/or conservation, but their first priority is to put food on the table, have access to shelter from the elements, and enjoy some quality of life. Everything else will take a back seat to that.

But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty.

It seems the American liberal concept of conservation is more and more government mandates, regulation, and control. They trust government to have everybody's best interests at heart more than they trust the people, and they trust government to utilize resources more efficiently and effectively than the people will manage them outside of government.

And the American conservatives concept of conservation is to increase affluence so more people will care and provide incentives to improve their environment and preserve the best that the planet can offer. There is no better managers of the rangelands and forests than those whose livelihood depend upon them. And the landowner is likely to be thrilled at the presence of a rare bird, critter, or plant on his property and is likely to nurture it. But if the government is given power to take away that landowner's propety rights because of the presence of a rare something, that is a powerful incentive to get rid of it quickly before some government authority discovers it is there.

The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could. That is conservatism in a nutshell.

Take away the conservatives and you return the USA to a monarchy or other authoritarian government that assigns the rights to the people and issues them whatever privileges or possessions they will be allowed to have.

"The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could. That is conservatism in a nutshell."

Wrong. The anti Federalists want strong state or colony government modeled after Europe. The Federalists wanted strong federal government. Nobody wanted weak government. BTW, when push came to shove, the Federalists won.

The Federalists wanted a strong federal government but with very limited scope. Strong enough to provide for the national defense, domestic security and judiciary. They did not want the federal government encroaching on those responsibilities that could be left up to the states.

 

[PMZ]

It's ironic that liberals believe people are basically good, and conservatives tend to be believe that people are basically evil, yet conservatives are willing to 'trust' major polluters to be conscientious stewards of our environment. When they have proven for centuries they will pilfer and destroy the environment if it adds to the bottom line.

"We didn't inherit this land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."
Lakota Sioux Proverb

Actual liberals believe people are basically bad and incompetent. They need regulations to govern what they eat, how they work, what they smoke, what kind of insurance they can have, what kinds of games their children can play, what their children must be taught, what attitudes they must have, etc etc etc. The result is the creeping nanny state.

Conservatives largely, but not wholly believe in letting people make their own decisions. If they fail, then there are communitiies and charities to help them that are less intrusive than gov't.

The biggest protector of the enivronment is private land rights, something liberals have been eroding for years. Heck, libs don't even understand the concept.

The fatal flaw in your argument is absenteeism. You folks on the right don't live in reality, or understand that the 'invisible hand' is too often a fist.

I, like most liberals, believe in a free market, but that doesn't mean that there should be no rules or regulations. The whole concept of a free market depends on everyone being a mutual stakeholder. That means, if you have to drink the water, you won't pollute it. These big polluters are absentee owners, they live in gated communities. They don't live where they pollute, they don't have to drink the water they pollute, they don't suffer the health hazards of their pollution, they don't suffer the plummeting property values living near their waste incurs.

Most business regulation is to avoid actions in restraint of free trade. Anybody who believes that free markets are created by the lack of regulation has zero understanding of the dynamics of capitalism. The one thing that Marks and Engles were correct about is that unregulated capitalism leads only to extreme wealth inequity which leads to unstable society which leads to Communism.

 

[PMZ]

Actual liberals believe people are basically bad and incompetent. They need regulations to govern what they eat, how they work, what they smoke, what kind of insurance they can have, what kinds of games their children can play, what their children must be taught, what attitudes they must have, etc etc etc. The result is the creeping nanny state.

Conservatives largely, but not wholly believe in letting people make their own decisions. If they fail, then there are communitiies and charities to help them that are less intrusive than gov't.

The biggest protector of the enivronment is private land rights, something liberals have been eroding for years. Heck, libs don't even understand the concept.

The fatal flaw in your argument is absenteeism. You folks on the right don't live in reality, or understand that the 'invisible hand' is too often a fist.

I, like most liberals, believe in a free market, but that doesn't mean that there should be no rules or regulations. The whole concept of a free market depends on everyone being a mutual stakeholder. That means, if you have to drink the water, you won't pollute it. These big polluters are absentee owners, they live in gated communities. They don't live where they pollute, they don't have to drink the water they pollute, they don't suffer the health hazards of their pollution, they don't suffer the plummeting property values living near their waste incurs.

The usual flaw is that libs believe that if you dont think we need intrusive gov't then you are against all gov't. It is a black and white, us vs them, mentality that marks most libs as having inferior intelligence.

Absentee owners are still owners and still have an interest in the value of their property.

What the heck is intrusive goverment and even more interesting, what the heck is unintrusive government? Government without laws? Government without the power to enforce laws? Government with voluntary compliance to laws?

 

[PMZ]

Now if the question had been what would America look like if all the liberals left?. . . .

Well we would definitely have to scramble to find people to make movies and repopulate most of the news media and universities, but I imagine we would accomplish that and would have better movies and a much more competent media and a much much better and more affordable public school system.

The welfare rolls would drop dramatically to a level our local private charities could easily manage even with some reduction in funding as even liberals, or some of them, do give some money to charities.

There would be a significant shuffling of the economy due to massive reductions in public employment--most public employees would leave with the liberals but some are conservatives who would need private sector employment. But with Obamacare and other inappropriate federal programs closed down, there would be many private sector opportunities opened up to replace essential services and I'm pretty sure we could assimilate everybody with a little work.

Most of the illegals, stripped of all the government services here, would go home. Those who are conservative would be welcome to stay and would be needed to repopulate California and a lot of New England that would have only a shell of their former populations.

The oppressive and unnecessary federal regulations would be rescinded and the regulations left would be those necessary to secure our rights, allow the individual states to function effectively as one nation, and prevent us from doing physical, environmental, and/or economic violence to each other.

The budget would be balanced, the economy would be booming, and everybody would pay the same percentage of taxes that would be just enough to cover the Constitutionally mandated responsibilities of the federal government. All other public services and functions would go to the states to manage. Because there would be no way to profit themselves, the federal government would again be staffed with public servants rather than career politicians and that would stop a lot of domestic and foreign nonsense that goes on purely for power and profit.

It would be up the individual states to decide what they wanted to do about abortion, gay marriage, and all other social issues.

We would miss Ben and Jerry's and Flying Star but I'm sure we would be able to cope with that.

Compare this that you wish was true to what actually happened under conservative government from 2001 to 2009.

 

[PMZ]

I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left

"Hate Republicans?"

I've been a registered Republican for nearly 50 years, I've never experienced "hate" for my political beliefs from anyone except a few fringe extremist Republicans throughout that time.

If every conservative left America, I don't think anyone would much notice, they seem to be an isolated segment of the population that only listens to, or really interacts with, other conservatives, and if they are all gone there really wouldn't be anyone left to miss them. As for the rest of the population, it is not like the Conservative minded people in this nation have ever accomplished any great things or left any lasting positive impact upon the American society. The very nature of conservatism means that it does not inspire or develop new ideas, progress and adapt to the changes that are inherent in a dynamic society, or engage in the big social and public policy revolutions that have pushed society forward over the last 10,000 years.

I think that there are conservatives that would be missed, but no extremists. The first benefit of the extremists going away would be the return to a functional Congress.

 

[PMZ]

I dunno Meister. We did really well as a nation before government decided it would become more authoritarian and do a lot of meddling. And the more the federal government has meddled, the worse it has gotten. And that was not because of conservatives aka classical liberals.

You need both, Foxfyre. Liberals have brought some good things to the table, as has conservatives. But, take away either one and the other runs amok. What it does come down to is human nature dealing with the greed they desire.

I agree that there are liberals who have enriched our loves through prose and poetry and artistry and wit and wisdom. That I would very much miss if the liberals were suddenly zapped off to some other country or planet.

I don't agree that we need liberalism to manage a country however, and I believe liberal concepts have been shown to fail universally wherever they have been tried. It doesn't happen all at once, but the liberal mindset introduces automatic decay into what could otherwise be selfsustaining and increasingly productive.

The Founding Fathers were not conservative as the dictionary defines conservative. They were liberals but as that was defined in the 18th century. Visionary. Progressive in their willingness to learn and adapt and move forward and improve and be better. They were wise enough not to force their vision of moralty on anybody else, but rather held to the concept that liberty must allow people to choose their own destiny and requires that they own the consequences of what they choose.

Modern Day American liberalism is much closer to the dictionary definition of conservatism than is modern day American conservatism. It is a philosophy based on the concept of kings--government that must be given authority to choose for us rather than allow people to have that responsibility themselves. Charity that depends on confiscation of property from others rather than any personal sacrifice. Government that shrugs off the concept of unalienable God given rights and assumes the authority to assign us the rights, choices, options, and opportunities that we will be allowed to have.

It is well intended and means well and believes it is superior. But it is not.

Again, consider the trajectory of our nation under the conservative administration from 2001 to 2009.

 

[Votto]

I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left

and/or

 

[PMZ]

The fact is, whether liberal or conservative, the poor may or may not care about the environment and/or conservation, but their first priority is to put food on the table, have access to shelter from the elements, and enjoy some quality of life. Everything else will take a back seat to that.

But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty.

It seems the American liberal concept of conservation is more and more government mandates, regulation, and control. They trust government to have everybody's best interests at heart more than they trust the people, and they trust government to utilize resources more efficiently and effectively than the people will manage them outside of government.

And the American conservatives concept of conservation is to increase affluence so more people will care and provide incentives to improve their environment and preserve the best that the planet can offer. There is no better managers of the rangelands and forests than those whose livelihood depend upon them. And the landowner is likely to be thrilled at the presence of a rare bird, critter, or plant on his property and is likely to nurture it. But if the government is given power to take away that landowner's propety rights because of the presence of a rare something, that is a powerful incentive to get rid of it quickly before some government authority discovers it is there.

The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could. That is conservatism in a nutshell.

Take away the conservatives and you return the USA to a monarchy or other authoritarian government that assigns the rights to the people and issues them whatever privileges or possessions they will be allowed to have.

"But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty."

In my experience the affluent will follow the one rule of business. Make more money regardless of the cost to others.

The people who guard the environment are the middle class. Those who pay for disregarding the environment without the corporate or personal enrichment from that disregard.

How does the middle class, with no ownership in the environment and no economic power, guard the environment? That's nonsense.

We have the political power given us by democracy. Government of, by and for the people. Remember now?

 

[PMZ]

The fact is, whether liberal or conservative, the poor may or may not care about the environment and/or conservation, but their first priority is to put food on the table, have access to shelter from the elements, and enjoy some quality of life. Everything else will take a back seat to that.

But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty.

It seems the American liberal concept of conservation is more and more government mandates, regulation, and control. They trust government to have everybody's best interests at heart more than they trust the people, and they trust government to utilize resources more efficiently and effectively than the people will manage them outside of government.

And the American conservatives concept of conservation is to increase affluence so more people will care and provide incentives to improve their environment and preserve the best that the planet can offer. There is no better managers of the rangelands and forests than those whose livelihood depend upon them. And the landowner is likely to be thrilled at the presence of a rare bird, critter, or plant on his property and is likely to nurture it. But if the government is given power to take away that landowner's propety rights because of the presence of a rare something, that is a powerful incentive to get rid of it quickly before some government authority discovers it is there.

The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could. That is conservatism in a nutshell.

Take away the conservatives and you return the USA to a monarchy or other authoritarian government that assigns the rights to the people and issues them whatever privileges or possessions they will be allowed to have.

"The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could. That is conservatism in a nutshell."

Wrong. The anti Federalists want strong state or colony government modeled after Europe. The Federalists wanted strong federal government. Nobody wanted weak government. BTW, when push came to shove, the Federalists won.

The Federalists wanted a strong federal government but with very limited scope. Strong enough to provide for the national defense, domestic security and judiciary. They did not want the federal government encroaching on those responsibilities that could be left up to the states.

The federalist wanted effective central government in all areas except those excluded from legislation by the Bill of Rights. They assumed that we, the people would determine the details.

 

[Foxfyre]

You need both, Foxfyre. Liberals have brought some good things to the table, as has conservatives. But, take away either one and the other runs amok. What it does come down to is human nature dealing with the greed they desire.

I agree that there are liberals who have enriched our loves through prose and poetry and artistry and wit and wisdom. That I would very much miss if the liberals were suddenly zapped off to some other country or planet.

I don't agree that we need liberalism to manage a country however, and I believe liberal concepts have been shown to fail universally wherever they have been tried. It doesn't happen all at once, but the liberal mindset introduces automatic decay into what could otherwise be selfsustaining and increasingly productive.

The Founding Fathers were not conservative as the dictionary defines conservative. They were liberals but as that was defined in the 18th century. Visionary. Progressive in their willingness to learn and adapt and move forward and improve and be better. They were wise enough not to force their vision of moralty on anybody else, but rather held to the concept that liberty must allow people to choose their own destiny and requires that they own the consequences of what they choose.

Modern Day American liberalism is much closer to the dictionary definition of conservatism than is modern day American conservatism. It is a philosophy based on the concept of kings--government that must be given authority to choose for us rather than allow people to have that responsibility themselves. Charity that depends on confiscation of property from others rather than any personal sacrifice. Government that shrugs off the concept of unalienable God given rights and assumes the authority to assign us the rights, choices, options, and opportunities that we will be allowed to have.

It is well intended and means well and believes it is superior. But it is not.

Again, consider the trajectory of our nation under the conservative administration from 2001 to 2009.

The nation didn't have a conservative administration from 2001 to 2009.

 

[PMZ]

I agree that there are liberals who have enriched our loves through prose and poetry and artistry and wit and wisdom. That I would very much miss if the liberals were suddenly zapped off to some other country or planet.

I don't agree that we need liberalism to manage a country however, and I believe liberal concepts have been shown to fail universally wherever they have been tried. It doesn't happen all at once, but the liberal mindset introduces automatic decay into what could otherwise be selfsustaining and increasingly productive.

The Founding Fathers were not conservative as the dictionary defines conservative. They were liberals but as that was defined in the 18th century. Visionary. Progressive in their willingness to learn and adapt and move forward and improve and be better. They were wise enough not to force their vision of moralty on anybody else, but rather held to the concept that liberty must allow people to choose their own destiny and requires that they own the consequences of what they choose.

Modern Day American liberalism is much closer to the dictionary definition of conservatism than is modern day American conservatism. It is a philosophy based on the concept of kings--government that must be given authority to choose for us rather than allow people to have that responsibility themselves. Charity that depends on confiscation of property from others rather than any personal sacrifice. Government that shrugs off the concept of unalienable God given rights and assumes the authority to assign us the rights, choices, options, and opportunities that we will be allowed to have.

It is well intended and means well and believes it is superior. But it is not.

Again, consider the trajectory of our nation under the conservative administration from 2001 to 2009.

The nation didn't have a conservative administration from 2001 to 2009.

If you consider Dick Cheney, defacto President from 2001 to 2009, a liberal, I have no idea what you are thinking.

 

[PMZ]

This has been an interesting thread or topic. It shows that the real issue between the parties is whether we should salute democracy, the concept of government of, by, and for the people, or celebrate weak ineffective government.

For me, the concept of weak government is appalling. I want to be part of a strongly united nation that gives me, a citizen, the power to contribute to our destiny. I want to know that we have strong leaders actively engaged in solving problems and creating the future we, the people demand. I want to be assured that we elect strong, visionary leaders, and not weak synchophants. I want to replace those shown as weak with those that I am confident are strong, well informed and anxious to keep their jobs by satisfying their constituents.

I want the equal of our founders elected every year.

I don't fear a government beholden to us Americans. I choose a country like I would choose an employer. The best. The brightest. The most innovative. The most confident in the future.

That's why I'm a liberal. I don't believe in limitations. I believe in achievement. The more who share in that the better. The ultimate being success for everyone.

My strength is in democracy.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The fact is, whether liberal or conservative, the poor may or may not care about the environment and/or conservation, but their first priority is to put food on the table, have access to shelter from the elements, and enjoy some quality of life. Everything else will take a back seat to that.

But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty.

It seems the American liberal concept of conservation is more and more government mandates, regulation, and control. They trust government to have everybody's best interests at heart more than they trust the people, and they trust government to utilize resources more efficiently and effectively than the people will manage them outside of government.

And the American conservatives concept of conservation is to increase affluence so more people will care and provide incentives to improve their environment and preserve the best that the planet can offer. There is no better managers of the rangelands and forests than those whose livelihood depend upon them. And the landowner is likely to be thrilled at the presence of a rare bird, critter, or plant on his property and is likely to nurture it. But if the government is given power to take away that landowner's propety rights because of the presence of a rare something, that is a powerful incentive to get rid of it quickly before some government authority discovers it is there.

The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could. That is conservatism in a nutshell.

Take away the conservatives and you return the USA to a monarchy or other authoritarian government that assigns the rights to the people and issues them whatever privileges or possessions they will be allowed to have.

"But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty."

In my experience the affluent will follow the one rule of business. Make more money regardless of the cost to others.

The people who guard the environment are the middle class. Those who pay for disregarding the environment without the corporate or personal enrichment from that disregard.

How does the middle class, with no ownership in the environment and no economic power, guard the environment? That's nonsense.

Idk, just a guess its called voting.....