[himself]

August 28th issue of The American Conservative:

The reality is that today there are ever fewer conservatives alive who believe in true liberty as the old school believed in it. They have been ideologically compromised beyond repair. They have been so seduced by the Bush administration that they have become champions of an egregious war, ghastly bureaucracies like the Department of Homeland Security, and utterly unprincipled on the question of government growth.

In many ways, today’s conservatives are party men and women not unlike those we saw in totalitarian countries, people who spout the line and slay the enemy without a thought as to the principles involved. Yes, they hate the Left. But only because the Left is the “other.”

I've avoided the political lounge for a while, since it is usually an act of folly to discuss opposing political views these days...

But this article makes a lot of sense to me. I think Rockwell does a good job of summing up what's wrong with the Republican party of today. I'm sure many of the liberals here will agree with the sentiment of the article; what do the conservatives in crowd think?

[greenG4]

The problem with the Republican Party is lack of conservatism. (Regan Conservatism) Conservatism will never change. Parties do. Conservatism says the government is there to protect the people. Liberalism concerns itself with running people lives for them. This is borderline Socialism/Communism. To say that conservatism is becoming like communism is rediculous.

[Spliffdaddy]

^ what he said.

Americans are becoming more conservative - while both parties are trending toward liberalism/socialism.

Republicans believe people are generally decent and will do the right thing.

Democrats believe people are generally bad and need some authority to keep them honest.

[himself]

Originally Posted by greenG4

The problem with the Republican Party is lack of conservatism. (Regan Conservatism) Conservatism will never change. Parties do. Conservatism says the government is there to protect the people. Liberalism concerns itself with running people lives for them. This is borderline Socialism/Communism. To say that conservatism is becoming like communism is ridiculous.

Liberalism concerns itself with favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform, and being favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms (go ahead, look it up). That sounds diametrically opposed to your definition of liberalism, which sounds more like fascism. Liberalism resembles socialism only in that they both generally believe that "society ought to be left to manage itself without the coercive intervention of the state," as Rockwell put it in the above article. Communism...?
The article addresses how so many (or the most influential) of the people who proclaim themselves to be "Conservative" don't resemble true conservatism by any definition, and have ruined the term for all of the true conservatives. It also explains how these so-called conservatives placed party allegiance above all else (including the party itself), and followed the party line at all costs, regardless of how it reflected on the idea of true conservatism. This is where Rockwell suggests it resembles communism, in that deviation from the party line is not tolerated, and in the fact that there is a singular, defining ideology against which no one shall dissent. You have some "true" conservatives speaking out right now, only because they see the damage that has been done by their extended silence, and there may be no recovery.

I've heard conservatives conceding and lamenting the fact that the liberals (and not restricted to Democrats) are more conservative than the conservatives lately on the defining issues, such as fiscal conservatism, small government, natural resource conservation, and military intervention. The idea of "power and domination by any means" has corrupted the party's leadership (and its following), and makes the comparison with communism much more apt, in my view.

[Kerrigan]

Well, "true" conservatives of the old school typically believed in something called the "humane economy" which looks rather communistic to those of us brought up in globalization.

[vmarks]

You're confusing terms. Permit me to help you.

Liberalism as greenG4 describes it is the American Liberal, that is, a socialist that believes in a government powerful enough to give the people everything they want.

Liberalism as you define it is sometimes called Classical Liberalism or libertarianism. These are the opposite of the American Liberal, and are much more akin to Reagan Conservatism, or that of Goldwater.

Because these beliefs tend to intertwine with economic policies, I would mention von Hayek as a good place to start for Classical Liberalism.

Among libertarians, there are small schisms over Rockwell, the Mises institute, CATO, and so on. I personally can't stand Rockwell's writing, and prefer CATO.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by himself

Liberalism resembles socialism only in that they both generally believe that "society ought to be left to manage itself without the coercive intervention of the state," as Rockwell put it in the above article. Communism...?

1. Communism is directly related to Socialism. Really it is. Look it up.

2. If that statement above is true then liberals today aren't "liberal" either.

(Edit: Typed slow. Excellent post vmarks)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by himself

Liberalism resembles socialism only in that they both generally believe that "society ought to be left to manage itself without the coercive intervention of the state," as Rockwell put it in the above article.

Sorry but that's the strangest definition of socialism I've ever seen.

Wiki:

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control. [1] As an economic system, socialism is usually associated with state or collective ownership of the means of production. This control may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils, or it may be indirect, exercised on behalf of the people by the state.

That pretty much means "coercive intervention by the state" to "redistribute the wealth".

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by Doofy

That pretty much means "coercive intervention by the state" to "redistribute the wealth".

Hmm. Like high taxes on the rich to support welfare? Or like the social security I pay every month to support others retirement?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy

(snip) That pretty much means "coercive intervention by the state" to "redistribute the wealth".

Also know as: Social Security, Income-based taxation, "Government-sponsored healthcare", and a myriad of other Democrat-based 'solutions'.

edit: already been said.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by vmarks

You're confusing terms. Permit me to help you.

Liberalism as greenG4 describes it is the American Liberal, that is, a socialist that believes in a government powerful enough to give the people everything they want.

Liberalism as you define it is sometimes called Classical Liberalism or libertarianism. These are the opposite of the American Liberal, and are much more akin to Reagan Conservatism, or that of Goldwater.

I think it's time to kill off the old, classical definition of "liberal", since it now causes confusion all the time.

I reckon we should go with "libertarian", and leave "liberal" to define the leftist version.

[himself]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

^ what he said.

Americans are becoming more conservative

conservative by what definition? The traditional definition, or the modern distorted version?

- while both parties are trending toward liberalism/socialism.

Republicans believe people are generally decent and will do the right thing.

Democrats believe people are generally bad and need some authority to keep them honest.

I agree that both parties are trending towards socialism to some degree... as well as liberalism, though to a lesser extent. (how do you feel about that, by the way?)

I don't agree with your assessment on each parties guiding principles. Republicans believing that "people are generally decent and will do the right thing" would translate into the Republicans not trying to legislate a constitutional ban on gay marriage, or a ban on abortion, or pushing abstinence only programs to teenagers, since they believe that they would do the right thing, right? So, why take away the choice if they will make right decision?

But as the linked article in the first post touches on, do you believe that the term "conservative" has been hijacked and mangled by right-wing religious extremists? Or is the party fine as it is?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I think it's time to kill off the old, classical definition of "liberal", since it now causes confusion all the time.

To me it is the new definition that causes confusion all the time. Of the six languages I know, it is only in one that the word 'liberal' can mean anything but the classical definition.

I refuse to let people who don't know what words mean change their meaning.

I'm a conservative like that

V

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by voodoo

To me it is the new definition that causes confusion all the time. Of the six languages I know, it is only in one that the word 'liberal' can mean anything but the classical definition.

I refuse to let people who don't know what words mean change their meaning.

I'm a conservative like that

V

You've a right to feel that way. It's just not going to be possible to change the definition as understood by American English. Too many people to explain it to.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by himself

I don't agree with your assessment on each parties guiding principles. Republicans believing that "people are generally decent and will do the right thing" would translate into the Republicans not trying to legislate a constitutional ban on gay marriage, or a ban on abortion, or pushing abstinence only programs to teenagers, since they believe that they would do the right thing, right? So, why take away the choice if they will make right decision?

But as the linked article in the first post touches on, do you believe that the term "conservative" has been hijacked and mangled by right-wing religious extremists? Or is the party fine as it is?

"Conservative" has been misportrayed by the left and the press to mean "religious extremist".

Republicans do not necessarily abide by conservative doctrines. In the case of abortion, the bulk of the party simply wants a limit on when abortions can take place (first trimester), and want the same parental consent as is required for every other medical procedure. Since the Republican base is made up of more families than the Democrats, it's quite representative. Parents don't want their 12-year-old laying on a doctor's table without their knowledge. Seems fair to me.

As for gay marriage, that has to do with the desire to maintain a traditional definition. Republicans aren't against giving homosexuals similar benefits - say, as "civil unions" or similar. They are respecting their electorate's wishes as representatives in trying to maintain the marriage definition.

[vmarks]

I bristle at people who change definitions to their opposites to suit themselves- just as much as I bristle at people who re-write history as a part of their propaganda.

Unfortunately, the days of saying 'I do not think that word means what you think it means' are over for this particular work.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by greenG4

You've a right to feel that way. It's just not going to be possible to change the definition as understood by American English. Too many people to explain it to.

Not to mention its use in other arenas as a term which approximates "commies". Take the UK Liberal Democrat party, for example. Bunch of hardcore lefties who want to organise your life for you, tax you to death and tell you what to drive.

The word is now way too tainted for use with its original meaning.

[himself]

Originally Posted by vmarks

You're confusing terms. Permit me to help you.

Liberalism as greenG4 describes it is the American Liberal, that is, a socialist that believes in a government powerful enough to give the people everything they want.

Liberalism as you define it is sometimes called Classical Liberalism or libertarianism. These are the opposite of the American Liberal, and are much more akin to Reagan Conservatism, or that of Goldwater.

Because these beliefs tend to intertwine with economic policies, I would mention von Hayek as a good place to start for Classical Liberalism.

Among libertarians, there are small schisms over Rockwell, the Mises institute, CATO, and so on. I personally can't stand Rockwell's writing, and prefer CATO.

I wasn't really making the distinction between Classical Liberalism, and American Liberalism (and I guess, Libertarianism) in this thread, since it was originally in response to Rockwell's ideas about conservatism. You're right that I mixed-up socialism and liberalism in my other post... American Liberalism does indeed (in theory) support the idea that state should not forcefully influence how society manages itself. Where it diverges from libertarianism is where it accommodates more socialism, or what you call "a government powerful enough to give the people everything they want." I don't agree that is the goal of American Liberalism, but the practice is somewhat different.

[himself]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Sorry but that's the strangest definition of socialism I've ever seen.

Originally Posted by greenG4

1. Communism is directly related to Socialism. Really it is. Look it up.

2. If that statement above is true then liberals today aren't "liberal" either.

(Edit: Typed slow. Excellent post vmarks)

As I explained to vmarks, I did mix up the terms in that first response. I meant to say that [American] liberalism resembles socialism in how it believes the state can assist an individual when assistance may be needed. However, that doesn't mean that [American] liberals prefer economic socialism as a replacement to capitalism (as some may imply), which would then be closer to Communism. Liberalism still supports personal liberties, such as property ownership, that Communism doesn't allow.

[himself]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

"Conservative" has been misportrayed by the left and the press to mean "religious extremist".

That could possibly be part of it, but certainly not all of it. Our current president and his administration consider themselves conservative, but their actions in relation to spending, government growth, military intervention and even states' rights in some cases, are definitely not in line with conservatism.

Republicans do not necessarily abide by conservative doctrines. In the case of abortion, the bulk of the party simply wants a limit on when abortions can take place (first trimester), and want the same parental consent as is required for every other medical procedure. Since the Republican base is made up of more families than the Democrats, it's quite representative. Parents don't want their 12-year-old laying on a doctor's table without their knowledge. Seems fair to me.

As for gay marriage, that has to do with the desire to maintain a traditional definition. Republicans aren't against giving homosexuals similar benefits - say, as "civil unions" or similar. They are respecting their electorate's wishes as representatives in trying to maintain the marriage definition.

I can understand that not every conservative is in absolute agreement with each and every conservative doctrine, but most will at least agree to the predominant ones, and let that guide their decisions.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by himself

As I explained to vmarks, I did mix up the terms in that first response. I meant to say that [American] liberalism resembles socialism in how it believes the state can assist an individual when assistance may be needed. However, that doesn't mean that [American] liberals prefer economic socialism as a replacement to capitalism (as some may imply), which would then be closer to Communism. Liberalism still supports personal liberties, such as property ownership, that Communism doesn't allow.

Right.

Tell it to the fine folks on the receiving end of civil forfeiture, eminent domain, and ever greater tax increases.

All are the product of a policy which in principle has no belief in property rights.

Then consider such things as the New Deal and the War on Poverty, two American liberal policies, communist in nature, that the American Liberal reveres. As much as the conservatives have Saint Reagan, the American Liberal has FDR. I recall Hilary screeching at the last Dem convention about not letting Republicans undo the legacy of FDR.

Then consider the fawning relationship that American Liberals have had with communism, whether it's former Atty General Ramsey Clark, who is a communist, or FDR's great appreciation for Stalin, or even into the 80s, the admiration displayed by the American Liberal professors in colleges across the country. Shoot, even now you can find people who will say such things as 'Communism was never -really- given a fair chance, it needs to be implemented anew' -- Fortunately this is not a majority opinion among the American Liberal, but there is some respect for the idea still present.


The government big enough to give you everything you wish is also big enough to take all you have. That was said by Thomas Jefferson. The American Liberal has a contradiction to reckon with, because the American Liberal sees Jefferson as his idealogical forefather, and yet has no interest in reducing the size of government.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by himself

That could possibly be part of it, but certainly not all of it. Our current president and his administration consider themselves conservative, but their actions in relation to spending, government growth, military intervention and even states' rights in some cases, are definitely not in line with conservatism.

Most true consevatives would say (and do) that Bush is conservative on foreign policy, yet liberal domestically.

Originally Posted by himself

I can understand that not every conservative is in absolute agreement with each and every conservative doctrine, but most will at least agree to the predominant ones, and let that guide their decisions.

Conservatives - no. Republicans, yes. It depends on what the individual considers themselves to be first and foremost - a conservative or a Republican.

Conservative media figures like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin... they complain about Bush plenty. Spending is always one of the gripes. Go look at the Weekly Standard or National Review (2 leading conservative publications). You'll see plenty of criticism of Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc.

Do you think it's just liberals/Democrats who disapprove of the President? The left-wing hates Bush, and they'll always hate Bush.. so there's always going to be a 45-50% core against the man. But the sudden drops or increases in his approval rating ( say, 5-7 points) are almost always a result of conservative sentiment. When he pushes through policy that suits conservatives, his numbers go up. Likewise, when he acts liberal (or caters to the left), his numbers go down.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by vmarks

The government big enough to give you everything you wish is also big enough to take all you have. That was said by Thomas Jefferson. The American Liberal has a contradiction to reckon with, because the American Liberal sees Jefferson as his idealogical forefather, and yet has no interest in reducing the size of government.

Similarly, that's why it was and is important that certain inalienable rights are bestowed upon us by the Creator. Take away the Creator, and what we have is man providing these rights. And like most things man gives, man can also take away.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Similarly, that's why it was and is important that certain inalienable rights are bestowed upon us by the Creator. Take away the Creator, and what we have is man providing these rights. And like most things man gives, man can also take away.

The "bestowed by the Creator" was really not the important part. Jefferson was a Deist, and thus didn't feel God to be personally important to our everyday lives — certainly not like God's going to come down and write you up if you violate these inalienable rights. The point was that human beings have inherent rights.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The "bestowed by the Creator" was really not the important part. Jefferson was a Deist, and thus didn't feel God to be personally important to our everyday lives — certainly not like God's going to come down and write you up if you violate these inalienable rights. The point was that human beings have inherent rights.

Actually, it was an important part, but you are also right about these rights being inherent. Many feel that "Creator" was not a direct reference to God, but rather meant to mean nature. The wording was heavily debated, and what we got is what we've got.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by vmarks

The government big enough to give you everything you wish is also big enough to take all you have. That was said by Thomas Jefferson. The American Liberal has a contradiction to reckon with, because the American Liberal sees Jefferson as his idealogical forefather, and yet has no interest in reducing the size of government.

Exactly.

The government that provides you your wealth and your health OWNS you.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Actually, it was an important part, but you are also right about these rights being inherent. Many feel that "Creator" was not a direct reference to God, but rather meant to mean nature. The wording was heavily debated, and what we got is what we've got.

The most important part is that the rights aren't provided by man. Man is fickle and fallible. The last thing anyone should want is their rights granted under the exclusive domain of other men, when all of us operate for the most part on whim.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

The most important part is that the rights aren't provided by man. Man is fickle and fallible. The last thing anyone should want is their rights granted under the exclusive domain of other men, when all of us operate for the most part on whim.

You're not much better getting your rights from God, which basically works out to the same thing unless he decides to come down here and start dictating this stuff himself, because it all comes through men anyway.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

You're not much better getting your rights from God, which basically works out to the same thing unless he decides to come down here and start dictating this stuff himself, because it all comes through men anyway.

The point is, government should recognize that the power isn't in the hands of man to grant.

Men can decide if they want to, that they're going to control the tides, or the rise and fall of the sun. But try as any man might, they can't. These things are out of mens' hands to control. Even someone who doesn't believe the sun and the tides are the workings of God, can still understand that no man can claim control over them. The same is true of inalienable rights.

Many people make the mistake that because goverment or men can deny rights, they can also grant them. But it's not logical; one doesn't really follow the other.

I, you, anyone, or any government can deny or take lots of things from people that they're not responsible for them having in the first place.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by greenG4

The problem with the Republican Party is lack of conservatism. (Regan Conservatism) Conservatism will never change. Parties do. Conservatism says the government is there to protect the people. Liberalism concerns itself with running people lives for them. This is borderline Socialism/Communism. To say that conservatism is becoming like communism is rediculous.

No, American conservatism is (or rather was) about small government and that the government should stay out of people's personal lives. The biggest problem I see right now is that even though two of the three branches are in Republican hands, the current administration still sees the need to circumvent the legislature. For a long time, conservatives were silent, but now they seem to wake up. It's funny that they now use the same arguments critics of the Bush administration have brought forward a long time ago.

Now, the Republicans stand for a big government, which is closer to communism than what you call liberalism.

I find it pretty ironic actually. For the longest time of Bush's presidency, Republicans in Congress have supported his policies, even if it meant disregarding cherished Republican principles. And just now that they might lose their majority, they start rediscovering them.

However, what disturbs me most about the current breed of conservatives is their black-and-white point of view which they perpetuate. People like Coulter are writing drivel about how godless liberals are or mocking other people because they disagree with conservative policies (well, she's just a cheerleader), conservatives who are criticizing some government policy apparently feel the need to insist again and again that they are conservatives even though they are criticizing the President or one of his policies.

[Dork.]

There's been a similar article sometime in the last few months about the decline of the old-school American liberal. I even think we talked about it here. If nobody else has found it, I'll search for it when I get home from work later today.

I believe that both parties are straying from their philosophical roots, because they realize that even though philosophical debates are the basis of good government, hot-button issues that generate votes are what keeps you in power. What we get are two parties that line up on opposite sides of meaningless issues to make it look like debate is happening, but are otherwise indistinguishable. We have the Cola Government, our only choices are Coke and Pepsi. Would you really waste your thirst on RC Cola?

[vmarks]

Conservatism is about small government.

Conservatism believes in following the Constitution to the letter, rather than interpreting penumbras.

The Constitution provides for the exact and only things that Government is committed to spend on, in Article 1 Section 8. One of those things happens to be defense.

Therefore, OreoCookie and greenG4 are BOTH correct- Conservatives are for a small government that is there to protect people.

[voodoo]

Whoa.. no. That's US AMERICAN CONSERVATISM.

Wow. There is a world out there vmarks, and you know *I* live in it.

Sheesh.

V

[OreoCookie]

Every country has its own flavor of conservatism, that's why I find it pretty pointless to try to compare American conservatives with -- say -- Spanish, Italian or German conservatives. Ditto for the term liberals (German liberals stand for similar things as old-school US conservatives when it comes to things like involvement of the state in the private lives of people and economy).

But they all share one trait: a certain resistance to change -- and people tend to be afraid of change.

[awcopus]

I believe that governments are instituted to preserve individual liberty. Am I a conservative or a liberal?

I believe the government has no business interfering with people engaged in noncoercive behavior in any context (e.g., personal (romantic and recreational) and professional (economic) activities).

I believe there should be no laws banning flag burning, no laws that require one person to pay more in taxes than another, no laws preventing gay people from making contracts with one another, no laws regarding who will pay for my or anyone else's healthcare, no laws enabling any individual or company to gain advantages over their competition. No redistribution of wealth by the government from individuals to other individuals or companies through taxation or tariff or subsidy.

Laws against fraud and coercion, period. Laws governing individual behavior, period. Separation of church and state, period. Separation of economy and state, period.

I consider myself a true liberal. A consistent, scientific advocate of individual liberty and responsibility.

"American" liberals need to use the word that actually describes what it is they're in favor of regarding political economy, namely, socialism. Conservatives, meanwhile, just are way too concerned with their neighbors' sexuality.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Whoa.. no. That's US AMERICAN CONSERVATISM.

Wow. There is a world out there vmarks, and you know *I* live in it.

Sheesh.

V

I'm sorry, my dear friend.

I was speaking about American Conservatism without explictly specifying 'American.'

I was operating under the impression that I would be understood given that we had not drifted far from the title of the thread which explicitly names American Conservatism as the topic of discussion.

Please accept my apologies for not being transparently clear in my word choice and for the confusion and frustration that it has caused you.