What does "conservative" mean nowadays?

[tellner]

The problem isn't "Coke or Pepsi". It's a question of character and values among the leaders and the population. A society like our was supposed to be - call it Democracy or Republic or whatever you want - was based on an educated, involved citizenry who held the health of the Republic as a fundamental value.

When politics entered the age of the targetted attack ad and a sole concern with winning the next election no matter what it was bad. When the nation as a whole stopped thinking with its forebrain and valued fear above hope it may have been irreperably harmed. When the idea of bi- or multi- partisanship for the common good was replaced with bile, hatred and charges of treason for anyone who had a different affiliation, well, I think we lost and the totalitarians and carpet-baggers won.

 

[mountainclmbr]

When responsible people must pay for the mistakes of the irresponsible then we have todays condition. You get punished for responsibility and rewarded for irresponsibility. Only by encouraging irresponsibility can the government get a population that "needs" them.

 

[cbsbyte]

Traditionaly a Conservative is someone that wants to conserve the traditional values, and ways. Traditionalist is a similar term. Anyone can be conservative on some issues, and not on others. This is called having an open mind. Politicans who like to tout themselves as a conservative, are useally Not. They are just using the term to fool people in believeing they are for traditional liberal democratic ideals, though they really favour a authoritarian government. Most modern Republican conservatives, are nothing more than authoritarians (for example Nixon, Bloomberg, Giuliani, Reagan, Gingrich, Bush I &II etc) whose main goals are to conserve their power in Washington. A true conseravtive does not have to belong to the Republican, Christian right, or anything else that now is defined as conservative, by so called conservatives. Just as being a modern liberal does not mean one is far left. Many moderates and independents can be conservative on certain issues.

 

[cavman]

As long as the size and role of the State and Federal government either remains as it is or, in all likelyhood continues to grow in influence and significance, the parties of Republican and Democrat will continue to achieve parity.

They will merely fight for the control of the massive purse strings and power that come along with them.


However, "conservative" to me at present, remains to be one who espouses a significantly reduced role, size and scope of a Central governmental power. (Perhaps, then, there could be an accompanying reduction of the saturation of "It's someone else's fault/responsibility", that seems to be heard on the lips of far too many)

have a great day
cavman

 

[Monkeyleg]

The last President who actually reduced the power of the Executive was Jimmy Carter. He was the one who exposed the cockroaches in the CIA and the FBI to the light of public scrutiny, for which they never forgave him.

Tellner, I don't know how old you are, but I remember distinctly the Carter period.

Much of what the Carter administration did was simply reaction to the breaking of existing laws under Nixon. It was under Carter that we got the first restrictions on campaign donations which resulted in further restrictions on campaign donations which resulted in the present McCain/Feingold law. The money still flows.

Sort of like strengthening laws against murder.

Carter emasculated the US intelligence services. The argument about GW's use of wiretaps and surveillance of overseas calls from suspected terrorists has nothing to do with case law, or the Constitution. It has to do with an Executive Order given by Carter in 1977.

The policies of the Carter administration and the congress in the late 1970's led us directly to where we are now with regard to terrorists.

Jimmy Carter is/was a good man, looked good in his cardigan sweater when calling for us to turn down thermostats after the oil embargoes, but he is without a doubt the most singularly innefective president we've ever had.

His policies, and the incredibly stupid policies of LBJ and Nixon during the VietNam era, are why we face terrorists who, prior to that period, would have given serious second thoughts about taking on the US.

Carter was a micro-manager, a man of enormous intellect, but one who focused on the mineautia while the whole world was collapsing around him.

God forbid that we get someone like him in 2008.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

...

FreedomKommando

Would an example of this theory be when "conservatives" tell us that the Constitution gives the president the inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches? to detain citizens incommunicado without charges for years on end?

Got a couple examples?


I find there has been a melding of the two definitions of conservative - political/constitutional verses social/behavioral - and the same for liberal - political/constitutional verses social/behavioral. If someone is not specific as to how they use the words, most people will fit it into their own context or view of a particular issue. It allows politicians to prattle on saying one thing and appealing to just about everyone. I call it misrepresenting themselves so they can win your vote and misrepresent you in Congress.

What I see happening(and I've espoused this for 3 years now) is the Republican Party sliding to the left, capturing conservatives and moderates from the Democrat Party who are fleeing the wacko leftist who are taking that party over. This will shrink the Democrat Party over time to the extent it will no longer be a threat to the Republican Party. At that time, constitutional conservatives will be able to pull away from the Republican Party without fear of causing an election loss to the far-out leftist Democrat Party. More and more congressional seats will be available to true conservatives, and we can continue to place this country back on to the Constitution.

I doubt the Republican Party will ever make it back to something more akin to constitutional conservatism - not with the load of moderates who have switched over from the Democrat party. The opening for a true conservative party is in the making, my friends.

Woody

"Gun Control" seeks to put bounds upon, and possibly effect the elimination of, our inalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Don't be led astray with the inference that it is "gun" control. What is under attack are rights of the people. Guns are inanimate objects; tools of freedom and self defense, primarily. Dehumanizing the discourse by calling it "gun control" or "gun rights" tends to lessen the impact from what the impact would be if the discussion were to be directed at the HUMAN right being infringed, and attempts to hide it from the strict scrutiny of the Constitution. B.E.Wood

 

[Lone_Gunman]

No, I think you are wrong about the Democrats. I would not count them out. I think they will take control again in 2008.

 

[tellner]

Monkeyleg, I think we would agree completely on the facts but differ radically in the interpretation. What you call "emasculation" I would call "reigning in the criminals". When it came to the CIA's actual mission - the acquisition and interpretation of foreign intelligence - Admiral Turner's term wasn't bad. If the spooks wanted to commit murder on US soil or were willing to be used to punish the President's political enemies it was a very different story. Gonzo schemes to make Castro's beard fall out? Gone.

Even if Carter only turned back Nixon's excesses he willingly reduced his own power compared to his predecessors rather than adding to it. That makes him unique among recent Presidents.

Under Gay Edgar Hoover the FBI had become a tool of his paranoia and destructive to the fundamental liberties of the Republic's citizens. Was their legitimate job more difficult for a while? Yes, but I'd say the end of Cointelpro and the suppression of dissent was a good trade. Liberty is generally to be preferred over the lusts of tyrants.

Hmm, speaking of lusts...

"I regret to say that we of the F.B.I. are powerless to act in cases of oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some way obstructed interstate commerce."

- J. Edgar Hoover

 

[FreedomKommando]

Woodcdi asked:

Got a couple examples?

See unitary executive theory, also known as the Führerprinzip. See John Yoo and David S. Addington.

 

[strambo]

conservative=the dissolution of our sovereignty/borders, essential liberties, devaluing of the amero(I mean the dollar), illegals have more rights than US citizens, government that is of the elites--by the power hungry--for the corporations.

Conservative means: submitting as slaves to a government that would shower fear over its subjects all the while having them take a nat'l id card and a biometric implantable microchip--oh, wait--that is just around the corner.

Conservative also means: taxing the Amerikan people and having them pay for all that the Security and Prosperity Agreement/North American Union entails.

Far as I can tell; "liberal" means those same things too...maybe with different labels and justifications. So where does that leave us?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

FreedomKommando

The Unitary Executive Theory is bogus in that it only covers separation of powers and omits the system of checks and balances. Our system of government is nothing like Der Fuhrer had in Nazi Germany.

John Yoo has read it right. None of these detainees (such as those at Gitmo) are soldiers or are soldiers from any country signatory to the Geneva Convention. They are terrorist guerrillas. Besides, the detention of and interrogation methods used on these slugs is under the purview of Congress per Article I, Section 8, Clause (11), not the President.

The President does have unlimited power as Commander in Chief, limited only by such treaties as the United States may be signatory to. Congress can and has in the past limited actions of war. Congress declares war and can declare an end to it. Congress can limit spending on a war as well. It's part of that checks and balances thingie.

Still looking for the warrantless searches conducted by the President and the detention of citizens being held incommunicado and uncharged. Got any?

Woody

There is nothing worth more than freedom you win and maintain for yourself. There is nothing more valuable than the tools of the right that make it possible. B.E.Wood

 

[Thin Black Line]

When responsible people must pay for the mistakes of the irresponsible then we have todays condition. You get punished for responsibility and rewarded for irresponsibility. Only by encouraging irresponsibility can the government get a population that "needs" them.

This is the best comment I've read all day. When applied to this nation's
current condition, it explains everything from the failure to secure the
border to the debacle in Iraq.

Kudos.

 

[Art Eatman]

Too many gradations, too many issues. Classical Liberalis aren't at all comparable to today's Democratic Party Liberals. Same sort of thing for Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives.

For all that it mostly seems a matter of degree--but for Ron Paul--I've taken to separating the two main political viewpoints as "Statist" and "non-Statist"

Statists of whatever party are those who want more power and/or actions by an ever-stronger central government. That ain't me.

Art

 

[xd9fan]

For all that it mostly seems a matter of degree--but for Ron Paul--I've taken to separating the two main political viewpoints as "Statist" and "non-Statist"

yep to use bummer sticker logic.......
"Its not Left vs Right, Its the State vs YOU!"

 

[strambo]

Statists of whatever party are those who want more power and/or actions by an ever-stronger central government. That ain't me.

Yes, I think of the political spectrum as more of a circle. The extreme left and right views aren't on opposite ends, but come around and meet with full bore socialism and fascism pretty much being the same thing.

I looked up fascism just to make sure it fits

Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism. -Wikipedia

Yep, that's extreme conservative. Either way you've got 100% gov. control and no freedom, who cares what it's called?

 

[Frog48]

Either way you've got 100% gov. control and no freedom, who cares what it's called?

Bingo.

One of my political science professors said it like this... "The political ideology spectrum is not a flat line. Its more the shape of a horseshoe... the further you go to either end, the more the ideas bend back toward one another."