What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?

[Foxfyre]

And in my opinion, anybody who doesn't believe that there are concepts, values, and principles that are superior to other concepts, values, and principles--and most especially those who are unable to articulate concepts, values, and principles without belittling, ridiculing, insulting, or putting somebody down--are leftists by defintiion.

Then there are a lot of "leftists" in this Forum posing as "conservatives".

Don't misunderstand me. Most liberals really aren't hateful, insulting people. Nor are most conservatives. But either can be that way on a message board with the anonymity it allows. But that isn't what I'm talking about.

What I am talking about is I don't think most liberals could describe an America that was all liberal--devoid of conservatives--without continuing to bash conservatism and point to conservatives they hate. And so far none of them have. That is what I mean about most liberals not being able to articulate, define, express, and defend a liberal principle or concept. Liberals seem to be mostly people who operate on a sense of superiority, righteousness, and just being 'better people' that is based on feelings rather than any concrete concepts. And that is why I think liberals would be shocked at how inefficient and unworkable those concept would be if they were given free rein to implement them.

I think most conservatives can easily articulate conservative values and principles and can describe a conservative America without referring to a single liberal or putting down anybody. And I think conservatives would enjoy running the country based on conservative values and principles and it would feel quite natural and normal to them to do so.

And nevertheless, both the liberal and the conservative can be exemplary members of their communities, moral, upstanding, likable, personable people.

 

[Bfgrn]

Well then you need to get out more, because they are out there now, and the feds are directly to blame.

You are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone that can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a shining example of conservatism.

Conservatism throughout human history has always created a aristocracy, plutocracy, or some form of oppressive society where there is a ruling class or hierarchy. Today's aristocrats and hierarchy are the CEO's, corporations, free marketeers, and the business elite. Conservatives will defend to the death McDonalds right to slowly poison our children, but they never defend our children's health and well being.

I've lived to see the total failure of two revolutions of extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution. Unfettered communism and unfettered capitalism creates the same end...failure.

Conservatism has no investment in human capital. It believes everyone is basically evil, so it treats people accordingly and it always creates a fear of 'others', some group of people that must be excluded or ostracized. Liberalism is faith in human beings and a trust that the human spirit can solve all man-made problems.

So you are more than welcome to defend conservatism, but what you profess is not conservatism, it's narcissism.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Corporations and bad banksters are the reason we have broken the balance, and your man Clinton with his signing of Nafta has plunged this nation into the hole that it is in right now, so it's not just conservatism that is a problem here and there, but the whole of government and it's mismanaging of our nation over the years that has been a huge problem and let down.

NAFTA?

U.S. employment increased over the period of 1993-2007 from 110.8 million people to 137.6 million people. Specifically within NAFTA's first five years of existence, 709,988 jobs (140,000 annually), were created domestically. The mid to late nineties was a period of strong economic growth in the United States. Classical macroeconomic theory suggests that when a country is experiencing economic growth (i.e. GDP is increasing), then there will also be an increase in the participation of the labor force. Thus, because trade liberalization can sometimes contribute to increases in GDP, it can help to bring the rate of unemployment down in a country. The U.S. experienced a 48% increase in real GDP from 1993-2005. The unemployment rate over this period was an average of only 5.1%, compared to 7.1% from 1982-1993, before NAFTA was implemented. wiki

 

[Meathead]

Without conservatives, I see a nation of a "people of color" majority and a white minority that would look like the OWS crowd. I am sure some would embrace such a country, I would not.

 

[Bfgrn]

And in my opinion, anybody who doesn't believe that there are concepts, values, and principles that are superior to other concepts, values, and principles--and most especially those who are unable to articulate concepts, values, and principles without belittling, ridiculing, insulting, or putting somebody down--are leftists by defintiion.

Then there are a lot of "leftists" in this Forum posing as "conservatives".

Don't misunderstand me. Most liberals really aren't hateful, insulting people. Nor are most conservatives. But either can be that way on a message board with the anonymity it allows. But that isn't what I'm talking about.

What I am talking about is I don't think most liberals could describe an America that was all liberal--devoid of conservatives--without continuing to bash conservatism and point to conservatives they hate. And so far none of them have. That is what I mean about most liberals not being able to articulate, define, express, and defend a liberal principle or concept. Liberals seem to be mostly people who operate on a sense of superiority, righteousness, and just being 'better people' that is based on feelings rather than any concrete concepts. And that is why I think liberals would be shocked at how inefficient and unworkable those concept would be if they were given free rein to implement them.

I think most conservatives can easily articulate conservative values and principles and can describe a conservative America without referring to a single liberal or putting down anybody. And I think conservatives would enjoy running the country based on conservative values and principles and it would feel quite natural and normal to them to do so.

And nevertheless, both the liberal and the conservative can be exemplary members of their communities, moral, upstanding, likable, personable people.

My GOD, that is SO far outside the realm of reality, it is mindbogglingly. Conservatism IS liberal bashing and hating. It is the glue that holds conservatism together. Take a day and listen to Rush Limbaugh or any of the conservative radio hate mongers. Then take a day and listen to Thom Hartmann.

UN-believable. Conservatism is the epitome of a sense of superiority, righteousness, and just being 'better people'

 

[Foxfyre]

Then there are a lot of "leftists" in this Forum posing as "conservatives".

Don't misunderstand me. Most liberals really aren't hateful, insulting people. Nor are most conservatives. But either can be that way on a message board with the anonymity it allows. But that isn't what I'm talking about.

What I am talking about is I don't think most liberals could describe an America that was all liberal--devoid of conservatives--without continuing to bash conservatism and point to conservatives they hate. And so far none of them have. That is what I mean about most liberals not being able to articulate, define, express, and defend a liberal principle or concept. Liberals seem to be mostly people who operate on a sense of superiority, righteousness, and just being 'better people' that is based on feelings rather than any concrete concepts. And that is why I think liberals would be shocked at how inefficient and unworkable those concept would be if they were given free rein to implement them.

I think most conservatives can easily articulate conservative values and principles and can describe a conservative America without referring to a single liberal or putting down anybody. And I think conservatives would enjoy running the country based on conservative values and principles and it would feel quite natural and normal to them to do so.

And nevertheless, both the liberal and the conservative can be exemplary members of their communities, moral, upstanding, likable, personable people.

My GOD, that is SO far outside the realm of reality, it is mindbogglingly. Conservatism IS liberal bashing and hating. It is the glue that holds conservatism together. Take a day and listen to Rush Limbaugh or any of the conservative radio hate mongers. Then take a day and listen to Thom Hartmann.

UN-believable. You are the epitome of a sense of superiority, righteousness, and just being 'better people'

See what I mean folks?

 

[Foxfyre]

I should probably clarify though that I don't necessarily see the individual liberal as being self righteous, superior, or 'better people', but I think that is how they see liberalism in general.

Conservatives I think are more pragmatic and put it into more pragmatic terms. We embrace conservatism because of our heartfelt convictions that it works. On average, for the long term, conservative concepts are more efficient, effective, compassionate, productive, and successful because they are based on individual initiative and freedom. Liberal concepts are well intended but too often result in unintended negative consequences.

 

[Bfgrn]

Don't misunderstand me. Most liberals really aren't hateful, insulting people. Nor are most conservatives. But either can be that way on a message board with the anonymity it allows. But that isn't what I'm talking about.

What I am talking about is I don't think most liberals could describe an America that was all liberal--devoid of conservatives--without continuing to bash conservatism and point to conservatives they hate. And so far none of them have. That is what I mean about most liberals not being able to articulate, define, express, and defend a liberal principle or concept. Liberals seem to be mostly people who operate on a sense of superiority, righteousness, and just being 'better people' that is based on feelings rather than any concrete concepts. And that is why I think liberals would be shocked at how inefficient and unworkable those concept would be if they were given free rein to implement them.

I think most conservatives can easily articulate conservative values and principles and can describe a conservative America without referring to a single liberal or putting down anybody. And I think conservatives would enjoy running the country based on conservative values and principles and it would feel quite natural and normal to them to do so.

And nevertheless, both the liberal and the conservative can be exemplary members of their communities, moral, upstanding, likable, personable people.

My GOD, that is SO far outside the realm of reality, it is mindbogglingly. Conservatism IS liberal bashing and hating. It is the glue that holds conservatism together. Take a day and listen to Rush Limbaugh or any of the conservative radio hate mongers. Then take a day and listen to Thom Hartmann.

UN-believable. Conservatism is the epitome of a sense of superiority, righteousness, and just being 'better people'

See what I mean folks?

You have avoided the issue, and decided to grandstand. Pretty low.

 

[Meathead]

My GOD, that is SO far outside the realm of reality, it is mindbogglingly. Conservatism IS liberal bashing and hating. It is the glue that holds conservatism together. Take a day and listen to Rush Limbaugh or any of the conservative radio hate mongers. Then take a day and listen to Thom Hartmann.

UN-believable. Conservatism is the epitome of a sense of superiority, righteousness, and just being 'better people'

See what I mean folks?

You have avoided the issue, and decided to grandstand. Pretty low.

A disjointed and paranoid rant/opinion is not an issue. Pretty stupid.

 

[Bfgrn]

I should probably clarify though that I don't necessarily see the individual liberal as being self righteous, superior, or 'better people', but I think that is how they see liberalism in general.

Conservatives I think are more pragmatic and put it into more pragmatic terms. We embrace conservatism because of our heartfelt convictions that it works. On average, for the long term, conservative concepts are more efficient, effective, compassionate, productive, and successful because they are based on individual initiative and freedom. Liberal concepts are well intended but too often result in unintended negative consequences.

Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.

In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.

The conservative worldview rejects all of that.

Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.

But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.

more

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?

Of course, this would bring up the question of where would they go – and more importantly, who would have them?

Even among other conservatives in the UK, Canada, or Australia, for example, they’d be correctly perceived as bizarre reactionary anachronisms and pariahs.

 

[Foxfyre]

I should probably clarify though that I don't necessarily see the individual liberal as being self righteous, superior, or 'better people', but I think that is how they see liberalism in general.

Conservatives I think are more pragmatic and put it into more pragmatic terms. We embrace conservatism because of our heartfelt convictions that it works. On average, for the long term, conservative concepts are more efficient, effective, compassionate, productive, and successful because they are based on individual initiative and freedom. Liberal concepts are well intended but too often result in unintended negative consequences.

Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.

In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.

The conservative worldview rejects all of that.

Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.

But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.

more

And you didn't believe me when I said liberals couldn't articulate a concept without bashing specific conservatives or conservatives in general.

 

[Bfgrn]

See what I mean folks?

You have avoided the issue, and decided to grandstand. Pretty low.

A disjointed and paranoid rant/opinion is not an issue. Pretty stupid.

Seriously, the amount of liberal bashing that goes on in this country is sickening.

Conservatives thirst for it. Limbaugh, the liberal hatemonger is a perfect example. Or Fox, Beck, Hannity, Malkin, Breitbart...the list goes on and on.

 

[Bfgrn]

I should probably clarify though that I don't necessarily see the individual liberal as being self righteous, superior, or 'better people', but I think that is how they see liberalism in general.

Conservatives I think are more pragmatic and put it into more pragmatic terms. We embrace conservatism because of our heartfelt convictions that it works. On average, for the long term, conservative concepts are more efficient, effective, compassionate, productive, and successful because they are based on individual initiative and freedom. Liberal concepts are well intended but too often result in unintended negative consequences.

Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.

In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.

The conservative worldview rejects all of that.

Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.

But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.

more

And you didn't believe me when I said liberals couldn't articulate a concept without bashing specific conservatives or conservatives in general.

Liberalism is about people. Period. It may not be pragmatic to help a senior citizen pay her heating bill. It may not be pragmatic to help a poor child with the cost of college. It may not be pragmatic to be a liberal, but it is HUMAN.

When the Son of God walked this earth, He was not pragmatic either.

Luke 16:13-15

13 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon (money).”

14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.

15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of man, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valuable in the eyes of man is detestable in God’s sight.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

IMO, the real difference between conservatives and liberals is how they view the world and it's people.

Conservatives view the world from the perspective of scarcity. Everything is in short supply so one must defend his/her stash or risk losing it.

Liberals view the world from the perspective of plenty. We can create more than enough to go around so the future is as bright as we want to make it.

I think that this worldview is pervasive. Applies to everything. Business, religion, politics, family and culture, relationships, entertainment, past, present and future.

Of course in any given situation one or the other is probably closer to reality. Civilization needs both perspectives but at different times and places and situations.

If either one disappeared completely we'd be short of a valuable set of possibilities and perspectives and alternatives.

That having been said though I'd much rather live in a world based on a worldview of plenty rather than scarcity, if I had to choose one over the other. In fact I believe that we used to be there.

Wonderful analysis.

My own idea of the difference is that conservatives don't want change, they want stability; and liberals do want change, they welcome and promote change.

However, I really like your thinking and want to process that some more. A perspective of scarcity can affect life on a personal level, too.

Conservatives don't want change? They don't want to change the tax code? They don't want to change the IRS? They don't want to change the amount of security on the border? They don't want to fundamentally change the size and scope of government? Conservatives don't want to give more power to the states? I know one may not agree with the changes conservatives want to make but that's not the same thing as accusing the conservatives of not wanting to change.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

You have avoided the issue, and decided to grandstand. Pretty low.

A disjointed and paranoid rant/opinion is not an issue. Pretty stupid.

Seriously, the amount of liberal bashing that goes on in this country is sickening.

Conservatives thirst for it. Limbaugh, the liberal hatemonger is a perfect example. Or Fox, Beck, Hannity, Malkin, Breitbart...the list goes on and on.

Seriously, the amount of conservative bashing that goes on in this country is sickening.

Liberals thirst for it. President Obama, the conservative hatemonger is a perfect example. Or MSNBC, Mathews, O'donnell, Media Matters... the list goes on and on.

 

[Meathead]

Conservatives don't want change? They don't want to change the tax code? They don't want to change the IRS? They don't want to change the amount of security on the border? They don't want to fundamentally change the size and scope of government? Conservatives don't want to give more power to the states? I know one may not agree with the changes conservatives want to make but that's not the same thing as accusing the conservatives of not wanting to change.

The change liberals refer to is Obama's Hope & Change mantra.To them, that is the only "change" acceptable. In truth it was a non-starter from the start.

 

[Bfgrn]

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies.

John F. Kennedy

 

[JohnL.Burke]

That would leave a gaping hole in the fabric of US politics. There would be many who would be more than willing to fill that gap, as money is to be made and power to be garnered, at which point we would get a whole new crew of those who would be considered conservative.

Well now that is an interesting twist on it isn't it? You are quite right that something always rushes in to fill a vacuum. Those of the radical left are currently insulated from the worst consequences of their intolerance, hatred, racism, political correctness, one-world-government, and socialist/Marxist economic theories.

When no longer insulated from those worst consequences, I wonder how many would be instant converts to modern day American conservatism?

And of course those of the radical right are just as insulated from the worst consequences of their intolerance, hatred, racism, political correctness, reactionaryism, and fascist/Nazi social theories.

When no longer insulated from those worst consequences, how many would be instant converts to modern day American liberalism?

Actually, fascist/Nazi social theories were pretty liberal so your rebuttal doesn't make much sense.

 

[Bfgrn]

Well now that is an interesting twist on it isn't it? You are quite right that something always rushes in to fill a vacuum. Those of the radical left are currently insulated from the worst consequences of their intolerance, hatred, racism, political correctness, one-world-government, and socialist/Marxist economic theories.

When no longer insulated from those worst consequences, I wonder how many would be instant converts to modern day American conservatism?

And of course those of the radical right are just as insulated from the worst consequences of their intolerance, hatred, racism, political correctness, reactionaryism, and fascist/Nazi social theories.

When no longer insulated from those worst consequences, how many would be instant converts to modern day American liberalism?

Actually, fascist/Nazi social theories were pretty liberal so your rebuttal doesn't make much sense.

Fascist/Nazi social theories were the antithesis of liberalism. As a matter of fact, liberal bashing in Europe in the 1920's was the precursor to fascism.

The Hard Road to Fascism

Today’s antiliberal revolt looks a lot like 1920s Europe.

Traditional conservatives have persistently criticized modern liberalism for its alleged “softness.” After the First World War right-wing German and Italian critics abused the governments of Weimar Germany and pre-Mussolini Italy for their commitment to social welfare, which their critics linked to an unwillingness to use force in international relations. To use Robert Kagan’s expression, the Weimar Republic could only do the dishes, not prepare the feast.

German and Italian critics of liberalism—writers such as Ernst Jünger and Giovanni Gentile—longed for the military spirit that allegedly typified the “front-fighter” generation that had lived through the horrors of trench warfare during World War I. The experience of war, they said, could redeem the anti-national Weimar Republic and the spineless decadence of Italian liberalism by reintroducing them to the necessity of using force—which would mean a much more ready resort to military power and a reorientation of government to promote its use. Both men and nations could thereby reestablish their virility.

Extreme right-wing theoreticians—for example, German jurist and political philosopher Carl Schmitt—believed that the European states in general had to choose between defending the interests of their national communities—at the end of the day by force—and sustaining a debilitating commitment to popular welfare, which more and more absorbed the energies of a weak-kneed liberalism that precariously clung to power in many European states. Schmitt believed that the state existed exclusively to oppose the enemies of the national community and ensure domestic order. Politics, he famously said, is founded on the friend-enemy polarity. Liberals had embarked on a fruitless crusade to escape inevitable political conflict within their societies by expanding the welfare function of the modern state to appease the demands of the masses, and thereby weakening its “executive function.”

The proximate causes of this revulsion against liberalism in Italy, Germany, and elsewhere are not far to seek. And the underlying anti-liberal logic was more cultural than political-economic. After defeat in World War I neither Germany nor Italy was able to advance its interests effectively in Europe. The Italians were widely regarded as pathetic soldiers. “The Italians,” Bismarck said, “have such large appetites and such poor teeth.” Giovanni Gentile, subsequently a Fascist minister for Mussolini, lamented the dolce far niente (“sweet do nothing”) that he found characterized the Italians as a nation. As for the Germans, they had of course lost the war, but they were encouraged to believe that their armies and fighting men had not been defeated on the battlefield but had been betrayed by an unpatriotic cabal of Jews, Francophiles, liberals, and socialists.

So for these men and like-minded others, there was a necessary connection between reviving militarism and imperialism and curtailing the state’s commitment to popular welfare. Only a new political elite—battle-hardened, ruthless, and devoted to authoritarian government—could achieve the reforms needed to restore these states to the ranks of the European powerful. The new governments would not be parliamentary: talk shops never get anything done. In Italy the Fascist elite developed an imperial ideology focusing on Rome; in Germany, too, there was an imperial element—the “Thousand Year Empire”—although we correctly understand the racism of the National Socialists to have been their most memorable contribution to the horrors of the 20th century.

more

 

[Bfgrn]

What is conservatism? In my opinion, it is respect for the past and the wisdom of our ancestors. Their lives were built on their ancestors and so it goes, from one generation to the next. You ultimately respect their lives and toil not by paying lip service to it or using empty rhetoric like 'family values'. You do it by embracing those values. You do it by making their hard earned lessons your easy learned lessons. You do it by respecting and fighting for the policies and programs they crafted that increased the benefits and lessened the losses to our communities and our society.

How did our ancestors craft these policies and programs, were they based on some ideology? I believe they were based on common decency, respect for your neighbors, common sense, experience, trial and error and a strong sense of community.

I was raised in the 1950's. My dad was the sole provider, and my mom was a housewife and mother. We didn't call it 'family values', we called it family. When I came home from school, no matter what kind of day I had, it became brighter as soon as I walked in the door to a 'hi honey' from my mom. It not only brightened my day, it built self worth and a positive self image. All my friends and school mates had a similar story...a father that worked and a mother that stayed home to raise and nurture their children. None of us kids ever knew or even cared what anyone else's father did for a living. None of us had to go without; food, clothing, pets, bikes, baseball gloves, doctor care (our doctor used to come to the house), a quality public education with all the extras; sports, arts, school run ice rink, summer swimming and sports programs etc. But none of us were pampered or spoiled either.

THAT is exactly what I want for my kids and for my grand-kids.

So...In a very real way I AM truly a conservative.

So, what is conservatism? I don't hear people that call themselves conservatives talk that way or think that way. I don't hear talk of building, I hear talk of tearing down. I don't hear talk of a helping hand, I hear talk of letting them fail. I don't hear talk of the public good, I hear talk about me and mine. I don't hear compassion for fellow citizens, I hear disdain. I never hear them talk about human capital, just mammon. These so called conservatives are ideologues that want to dismantle any shred of community and replace it with SELF interest.

That is not 'conservatism', that is called narcissism.

"You shall rise in the presence of grey hairs, give honor to the aged, and fear God, I am the Lord"
Leviticus 19:32