Cloudy Fortunes for Conservatism

Here's a thoroughly depressing article about apparent collapse of the Conservative movement. :sweatdrop:

Cloudy Fortunes for Conservatism

An excerpt:

Quote:

---

In other words, there's a huge crowd of self-described conservatives standing around the Republican elephant shouting "Do something!" But what they want the poor beast to do is very unclear. And it doesn't take an expert in pachyderm psychology to know that if a big enough mob shouts at an elephant long enough, the most likely result will be a mindless stampede -- in this case, either to general election defeat or to disastrously unconservative policies, or both.

The traditional conservative believes that if you don't have a good idea for what an elephant should be doing, the best course is to encourage it to do nothing at all. Alas, the chorus shouting, "Don't just do something, stand there!" shrinks by the day.

---

Personally, I blame Bush and his "compassionate conservatism" for much of this.

Finally...

We just removed our Conservative Government last November down here and replaced them with some... well, not quite as Conservatives. This seems to be similar to what Americans are going through. You now have 2 Conservative parties, so the collapse of the more traditional Conservatives (Republicans) is replaced with the rise of other, newer Conservatives (Democrats)...

I'm sad. :embarassed:

CR

I'm sure in the long term your modern Conservatives appear quite radical and hippie like.

It's ironic but even conservatives change with the times. :balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

An excerpt:Personally, I blame Bush and his "compassionate conservatism" for much of this.

---

"Compassionate conservatism" being an euphemism for something which isn't financially conservative by any means, and only socially conservative in the sense that it harks back to a perceived ideal rather than reality.

Isn't this the case as any party falls out of grace, such as the Democrats some eight years ago? People tend to agree on bashing Bush, but disagree (or present no clear idea at all) on where the GOP should be headed. In theory the primaries should be working towards creating a common party line and perhaps they will, but to sustain that effort the 2008 elections need to be won or there'll be at least four more years of bickering, possibly more if the party doesn't re-invent itself in time to appeal to voters.

I'm not worried for the long term. I am not a big Federal government conservative.

The trick is looking into the past and figuring out what you are trying to conserve. I believe that the Federal government has a larger opportunity to be the enemy than it does to be our friend.

We've had 8 very contentious years in office and we had held both houses for quite a while. I've believed that we will lose this election since the last one due to the failed House and Senate terms coupled with questionable foreign policy (from a financial angle).

Ron Paul is looking better and better every day. I had hoped that Mitt would be the one to help us with this, but it doesn't look too good now.

We have a constitution for a reason and until Republicans can remember that, they will be doomed to minority positions in Congress and a tent outside of the White House. Or until the Democrats bungle things up even worse playing the same hand.

America is starting to drown from all of the bleeding hearts.

The erosion of federalism, friends, it always comes back to this issue.

Government in the USA has slipped too many of its shackles and now gorges on the fat of the land.

We discarded a "no political parties" mantra by 1798.

By 1810, we'd given up on allowing a divided executive.

By 1870, we'd squelched any sense of "voluntary" participation in the Union -- once in, no getting out.

By 1920, we'd agreed to let the Federal government tax us directly, and we'd gotten rid of any two-way connection between Washington D.C. and our State governments.

By 1940, we begun to accept that Washington D.C. was the source for answers to all problems.

By 1970, Government had become the largest employer in the USA -- even when the military is excluded.

By 1972, Party Conventions ceased to matter except as a speech/photo-op. Candidates became free of the need to represent a party platform or the need to bring together the "powers that be" within a party.

We live in a world where the President is expected to run the country, and is held responsible for the weather.

I've discussed in other threads the chaining of events in US politics from 1959 on -- Lee Harvey Oswald's three shots have altered all of US political history since (in addition to creating a bad day for the Connallys).

Feel free to shout me down for being pedantic, but I wasn't aware that conservatism and Republicanism were synonymous. I'm glad Jonah Goldberg uses the phrase "self-described conservatives," since that is accurate, but I don't see what's inherently conservative about the current GOP.

Big spending? Check. Pro-government? Check. Desire to expand the Federal government's role and powers? Check. Deliberate ignoring of deficits? Check. Aggressive foreign policy, including wars of choice? Check. Creation of massive new entitlement programs? Check. Shredding the concept of habeas corpus, a legal precedent that predates the Constitution? Check. Unitary executive that is answerable to nobody ("If the President does it, by definition it is legal")? Check. Unlimited surveillance without oversight, even by secret courts set up for that purpose? Check. Torture as an acceptable tool of war? Check.

And let's not forget the knee-jerk anti-environmentalism, a trend that is at least as ridiculous as the extreme greens. What's "conservative" about conspicuous consumption and waste of resources? Where's the conserving part of that equation? What's conservative about staying utterly reliant on petroleum, even when it means that we are funding both sides of the war on terror?

I will grant that the Republicans are right-wing, but "conservatives"? Only if we agree to utterly trash the meaning of the word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Feel free to shout me down for being pedantic, but I wasn't aware that conservatism and Republicanism were synonymous. I'm glad Jonah Goldberg uses the phrase "self-described conservatives," since that is accurate, but I don't see what's inherently conservative about the current GOP.

Big spending? Check. Pro-government? Check. Desire to expand the Federal government's role and powers? Check. Deliberate ignoring of deficits? Check. Aggressive foreign policy, including wars of choice? Check. Creation of massive new entitlement programs? Check. Shredding the concept of habeas corpus, a legal precedent that predates the Constitution? Check. Unitary executive that is answerable to nobody ("If the President does it, by definition it is legal")? Check. Unlimited surveillance without oversight, even by secret courts set up for that purpose? Check. Torture as an acceptable tool of war? Check.

And let's not forget the knee-jerk anti-environmentalism, a trend that is at least as ridiculous as the extreme greens. What's "conservative" about conspicuous consumption and waste of resources? Where's the conserving part of that equation? What's conservative about staying utterly reliant on petroleum, even when it means that we are funding both sides of the war on terror?

I will grant that the Republicans are right-wing, but "conservatives"? Only if we agree to utterly trash the meaning of the word.

---

Right, but we aren't given much of an option, are we?

The only option is bigger govt with the Dems.

I want Mitt or Ron or Fred to be the Pres. Maybe even Giuliani if I have to.

Huckabee and McCain are big government Hacks.

Lets get a real alternative here.

If the GOP isn't the "conservative" party, then we don't have one.... Maybe we don't. :shrug:

Clearly, as is the point of the article, both the Republican party and conservatism itself has wondered far from its roots. At least the GOP is nominally conservative and still has some real conservatives in it. The problem is that they're a dwindling minority. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Feel free to shout me down for being pedantic

---

Pedantic! :furious3:

If conservatism means limiting government, then we really don't have a conservative party. And maybe we can't, because the kind of people who would oppose government expansion, aren't going to gravitate towards government jobs...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Feel free to shout me down for being pedantic, but I wasn't aware that conservatism and Republicanism were synonymous. I'm glad Jonah Goldberg uses the phrase "self-described conservatives," since that is accurate, but I don't see what's inherently conservative about the current GOP.

Big spending? Check. Pro-government? Check. Desire to expand the Federal government's role and powers? Check. Deliberate ignoring of deficits? Check. Aggressive foreign policy, including wars of choice? Check. Creation of massive new entitlement programs? Check. Shredding the concept of habeas corpus, a legal precedent that predates the Constitution? Check. Unitary executive that is answerable to nobody ("If the President does it, by definition it is legal")? Check. Unlimited surveillance without oversight, even by secret courts set up for that purpose? Check. Torture as an acceptable tool of war? Check.

And let's not forget the knee-jerk anti-environmentalism, a trend that is at least as ridiculous as the extreme greens. What's "conservative" about conspicuous consumption and waste of resources? Where's the conserving part of that equation? What's conservative about staying utterly reliant on petroleum, even when it means that we are funding both sides of the war on terror?

I will grant that the Republicans are right-wing, but "conservatives"? Only if we agree to utterly trash the meaning of the word.

---

Conservatism and Republicanism are synonymous, Lemur. What you are decribing is Neoconservatism which I loathe very much.

It saddens me that the only candidate I am forced to support to stop this machine is Ron Paul, even though I disagree with many of his ideas.

I thought both parties were a mix until the later half of last century. And it was that like actor dude from Hollywood that like made the term Republican synonymous with Conservative.

The old joke goes that the Democrats want to run the country over a cliff at 60 mph, but the Republicans only want to go 40mph. Since Nixon we have all been going 55mph.

In the 1970s the Democrats abandoned any conservative ideals. Now the Republicans are pretty much doing the same.

Personally I don’t see anything liberal about the Dems or conservative about the Reps, just two sides to the same coin with TV acting as Kingmaker.

I have a thought. What if the only reason that everyone has abandoned Conservatism is because the ideas of it are generally unpopular? Surely the parties would want to gravitate towards something that the public wants to ensure their continued election and re-election?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Personally I don’t see anything liberal about the Dems or conservative about the Reps, just two sides to the same coin with TV acting as Kingmaker.

---

Why not just join the two parties and call them the Democratic-Republicans. :coffeenews:

Bah, you americans and your silly, unorganized political parties...

A party need organization! Structure! And the good 'ol :whip: to keep the peasantry in line.

Ah,, the good old days of 'Party' with a capital P...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

I have a thought. What if the only reason that everyone has abandoned Conservatism is because the ideas of it are generally unpopular? Surely the parties would want to gravitate towards something that the public wants to ensure their continued election and re-election?

---

No, because the goal of 99% of politicians is to get re-elected. So every time they're up, they have to explain to their constituents what they've done. And of course it can be easily checked, so they have to secure funding for various local projects, create jobs in a certain area, make sure that nobody is dissatisfied with the government's performance to them, etc.

Multiply this sentiment by 535 and you get why true conservatism won't last very long.

There is a conservative party. I am in it. It is called the Conservative party. (in NYS)

http://www.cpnys.org

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

I have a thought. What if the only reason that everyone has abandoned Conservatism is because the ideas of it are generally unpopular? Surely the parties would want to gravitate towards something that the public wants to ensure their continued election and re-election?

---

The GOP won back control of the House back in 1994 by espousing true conservatism. Ronald Reagan won the White House with true conservatism. The GOP lost the house in 2006 after is had abandoned true conservatism and given in to pork barrel spending. You know why Bush is rated so unpopular? Liberals have always hated him, but he's throwing true conservatism out the window and making all the conservatives hate him.

Heck, look at the popularity of Ron Paul.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Heck, look at the popularity of Ron Paul.

CR

---

Compared to Huckabee and McCain?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Compared to Huckabee and McCain?

---

I think what he meant was: Look how popular Ron Paul is- for a complete kook.

Much of what he says is just plain zany, but like him regardless because of his small-government ideals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

The old joke goes that the Democrats want to run the country over a cliff at 60 mph, but the Republicans only want to go 40mph. Since Nixon we have all been going 55mph.

In the 1970s the Democrats abandoned any conservative ideals. Now the Republicans are pretty much doing the same.

Personally I don’t see anything liberal about the Dems or conservative about the Reps, just two sides to the same coin with TV acting as Kingmaker.

---

So true. :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Why not just join the two parties and call them the Democratic-Republicans. :coffeenews:

---

ROFLMAO It has been done! That is the original name of the current Democratic Party...

If the Dems and the Repubs fused into one, monolithic, pork-loving party, at least that would leave room for other parties to develop. How did we wind up in a permanent state of two-party contests? How has it endured for so long?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

If the Dems and the Repubs fused into one, monolithic, pork-loving party, at least that would leave room for other parties to develop. How did we wind up in a permanent state of two-party contests? How has it endured for so long?

---

It's more profitable this way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

ROFLMAO It has been done! That is the original name of the current Democratic Party...

---

And then over time it just called itself the Democratic Party and some minor splinter group separated from it and called themselves the Republicans... so the Democrats and the Republicans are just two versions of the same party. I wonder what the leader of that splinter group ever achieved apart from chopping down a tree or two? :coffeenews:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

If the Dems and the Repubs fused into one, monolithic, pork-loving party, at least that would leave room for other parties to develop. How did we wind up in a permanent state of two-party contests? How has it endured for so long?

---

Something I've been wondering for a while. It probably has something to do with the parties monopolizing all political functions, meaning that the only way to achieve a political career (screwy idea anyway...) is by rising through the ranks of the party. Sounds familiar.

It takes a very strong person to work the system to actually do something different, and the critical nature of modern instant media means they don't get too far. Let's face it, anyone with enough of an opinion to be worthwhile ends up offending somebody, which is then instantly broadcast worldwide as if its major news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I wonder what the leader of that splinter group ever achieved apart from chopping down a tree or two? :coffeenews:

---

*cough* ending slavery *cough, cough*

What!!! :drama2:

So that would mean that the original Republicans were not conservative in the sense they were interfering with business practices and their bottom line.

So Republicans being synonymous with the term conservative is a very modern phenomena. :coffeenews:

Why the hell does everyone think pork barrel spending is so bad? Look at the amount and percentage of "mandatory" spending in the federal budget for your woes. The military, which traditionally has had a much larger percentage, is at an historic low. True fiscal conservatives will focus on reducing mandatory spending.

The fortunes are looking less cloudy!!!

Romney '08!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

The fortunes are looking less cloudy!!!

Romney '08!!!!!!

---

Easy there, cowboy.

He's predicted to win ONE primary.

The economy is probably about to do a nosedive for a couple of years... why not hand off to the democrats and let them take the blame?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

Easy there, cowboy.

He's predicted to win ONE primary.

---

Actually, this is his second primary win. Most first places, most second places, most votes so far, most delegates, most republican support.


Pape: Because I live here!!!!! I want to be pro-active!

Lower taxes for everybody and spending cuts means more competitive industry and a downward trend in terms of Federal government size.

:inquisitive: He won Wyoming, which nobody cares about, and lost New Hampshire and Iowa, which he really should have won, given the effort he put forth to win them. Winning Michigan? Yawn. Its his home state, he should win in a landslide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Lower taxes for everybody and spending cuts means more competitive industry and a downward trend in terms of Federal government size.

---

Explain Denmark.

High taxes, lots of powerful unions, abundance of free health, education and other forms of social welfare. Yet strangely highly competitive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kamikhaan

:inquisitive: He won Wyoming, which nobody cares about, and lost New Hampshire and Iowa, which he really should have won, given the effort he put forth to win them. Winning Michigan? Yawn. Its his home state, he should win in a landslide.

---

39 to 30 is pretty extreme, no? considering that McCain has been leading him for the past 2 weeks. A higher percentage of the G.O.P. vote than any candidate has gotten so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Explain Denmark.

High taxes, lots of powerful unions, abundance of free health, education and other forms of social welfare. Yet strangely highly competitive.

---

Well, there are a number of ways to do it - our way gives the most freedom of assets to the most people.

China pretty much has slaves to make it competitive - which it is - and provides everything that those slaves "need"

Europe has a long history of big government that lords over people - for better or worse. Denmark believes in the cradle to the grave concept. They still have a queen. They are also a tiny country, so it is similar to a single state in the U.S. - much easier to manage.

I did not say that I was always against big government ON THE STATE LEVEL, just usually - but the Federal government should not be that way, as stated in our Constitution.

Smaller Federal government for the U.S. is good for us. Lower taxes with smart policies for health care etc.

I would just rather have more control of my own life - call me an idealist.

Show me a product here which is made in the great economic giant of Denmark. :inquisitive: :laugh4:

What an obscure example.

Well, they're selling us 11 billion dollars a year of something. Can't say what, exactly.

Finland, now that would be easy. That bunch of Socialists are selling us Nokia phones, damn them!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Well, they're selling us 11 billion dollars a year of something. Can't say what, exactly.

Finland, now that would be easy. That bunch of Socialists are selling us Nokia phones, damn them!

---

I'm not sure, but I bet oil comprises a noticeable chunk of it. Do the math- if they export 300,000+bbls/day at $90+ per bbl, that adds up to a decent chunk of change, especially considering the country's small population. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Show me a product here which is made in the great economic giant of Denmark. :inquisitive: :laugh4:

What an obscure example.

---

LEGO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Show me a product here which is made in the great economic giant of Denmark. :inquisitive: :laugh4:

What an obscure example.

---

Most rankings of GDP/capita put Denmarks at a level very much comparable to the US. Its economy may be smaller, but that is simply because it has a smaller population. :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I'm not sure, but I bet oil comprises a noticeable chunk of it. Do they math- if they export 300,000+bbls/day at $90+ per bbl, that adds up to a decent chunk of change, especially considering the country's small population. :shrug:

---

Half of it are services. Of goods pharmaceutical products (the largest) represents 20% followed by machinery (18%) Then there is stuff like furniture and agricultural products of 4-5% each. I have not been able to find more details than that but it shows oil cant represent that much of the overall export to USA.

LEGO and Bang & Olufsen are really small time players compared to Maersk (worlds largest container shipping operator) Oh and then there is a Novo Nordisk (pharmaceutical)

But this is of course just off topic and obscure facts so dont let this derail the original topic of discussion.


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I'm not sure, but I bet oil comprises a noticeable chunk of it. Do the math- if they export 300,000+bbls/day at $90+ per bbl, that adds up to a decent chunk of change, especially considering the country's small population. :shrug:

---

We're the only ones with oil. Neither the idiots, drunkards or unintelligibles got any.



if you didn't get it, that would be swedes, finns and danes, respectively :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

We're the only ones with oil. Neither the idiots, drunkards or unintelligibles got any.



if you didn't get it, that would be swedes, finns and danes, respectively

---

You export much more, but like I said, Denmark exports 300,000+ barrels per day. At today's prices, that's still a lot of lettuce. :yes:

What the hell? Where do they hide their oil fields?!?!

Are they making swiss cheese out of grenland or something?

It seems Denmark does have some oil production. From the look of things, not much of it makes it Stateside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

What the hell? Where do they hide their oil fields?!?!

Are they making swiss cheese out of grenland or something?

---

Are you joking or just totally ignorant of North Sea oil production?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_oil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._the_North_Sea


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

Are you joking or just totally ignorant of North Sea oil production?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_oil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._the_North_Sea


CBR

---

Huh. Knew about the english, germans and french, but didn't know that you still had business there...

Where are they btw? West off the coast of Denmark, or further north?

http://www.ens.dk/graphics/Publikati...l/large00g.htm

Most of it is in the western area of the sector.

http://www.acorn-ps.com/web/page/oil...lds/nnsmap.htm and http://www.acorn-ps.com/web/page/oil...lds/snsmap.htm for northern and southern fields for all involved.


CBR