Org Mobile Site
Thread: Cloudy Fortunes for Conservatism
Here's a thoroughly depressing article about apparent collapse of the Conservative movement. 
Cloudy Fortunes for Conservatism
An excerpt:
Cloudy Fortunes for Conservatism
An excerpt:
Originally Posted by :
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.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.
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)...
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. 
CR
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.
It's ironic but even conservatives change with the times.
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.An excerpt:Personally, I blame Bush and his "compassionate conservatism" for much of this.
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 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).
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.
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.
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?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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO