[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I don't know that any Democrats were worried by a McCain win. Why vote for a liberal Republican (half-way), when you can vote for a liberal Democrat and have the whole thing!

I wouldn't mind so much if McCain won, it's very rare I find a Republican that I can agree with on more than 2 points. It's his bat-**** insane VP. Palin is a heart beat and/or broken hip away from being president. She's just as bad as Huckabee.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I wouldn't mind so much if McCain won, it's very rare I find a Republican that I can agree with on more than 2 points. It's his bat-**** insane VP. Palin is a heart beat and/or broken hip away from being president. She's just as bad as Huckabee.

QFT

How any self-respecting conservative can back McCain's decision of Palin as his running mate is beyond me, partisan blinders I assume.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

like Reagan, dead in the middle.

Originally Posted by Paco500

For the most parts, the electorate likes moderates. Hard-line ideologues tend not to be particularly successful on the National stage, except in extraordinary times.

It hurts to quote myself with a typo, but note the (added) emphasis. The 1980 election took place during extraordinary times. Bush was able to get a second term because it was extraordinary times. There are always exceptions, but on the whole, the statement holds true.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by sek929 

QFT

How any self-respecting conservative can back McCain's decision of Palin as his running mate is beyond me, partisan blinders I assume.

How any self-respecting Democrat can back their decision of Obama as their party candidate is beyond me, partisan blinders I assume.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

It hurts to quote myself with a typo, but note the (added) emphasis. The 1980 election took place during extraordinary times. Bush was able to get a second term because it was extraordinary times. There are always exceptions, but on the whole, the statement holds true.

Reagan won 49 states in '84. What extraordinary happened in '84?

[Dakar V]

Edit: Hi, my memory sucks nuts

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Reagan won 49 states in '84. What extraordinary happened in '84?

A major party made the classic blunder of a stunt-pick of an under-qualified woman for the VP slot and it blew up in their face?

But seriously, Reagan was wildly popular. He was an aberration. There are exceptions to every rule. But he was first elected in very troubled times.

[andi*pandi]

ferraro was underqualified?

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opini...e-changed.html

http://www.greatwomen.org/women.php?...=viewone&id=61

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Ferraro

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I wouldn't mind so much if McCain won, it's very rare I find a Republican that I can agree with on more than 2 points. It's his bat-**** insane VP. Palin is a heart beat and/or broken hip away from being president. She's just as bad as Huckabee.

I'd argue that Palin is *worse* than Huckabee. At least Huckabee could complete sentences without reading a cue-card.

[zerostar]

Heh they must have seen the same polls we have in FL :-D

Oh yeah, Good old Mike Scott (Lee county Sherrif) said: "On Nov. 4, let’s leave Barack Hussein Obama wondering what happened,”

He will be, Mike Scott, he will be wondering how he took FL and OH :-D

They are stooping to a new low and no one will fall for all this. I will be surprised if McCain shows up tomorrow...

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

ferraro was underqualified?

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opini...e-changed.html

http://www.greatwomen.org/women.php?...=viewone&id=61

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Ferraro

Did you not notice the winky thingy? I thought that would be accepted as the universal symbol of "don't take the previous seriously." If that wasn't clear, I thought my next line, "But seriously," would be a dead giveaway.

[Powerbook]

"Jim Eastland could be standing right in the middle of the worst Mississippi flood ever known, and he'd say the n!ggers caused it, helped out by the Communists."
- Lyndon Johnson

History repeats itself.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Did you not notice the winky thingy?

nope, sorry! (there is no blushing emoticon)

carry on.

Your post did make me go look up ferraro's record... thanks!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Interesting statement from someone who has palled around with people who want to secede from the USA.

If the South tried leaving the US (again), I'd be willing to fight for independence. I don't believe in what the USA has become, and it's sad that most modern "conservatives" are simply socialist shills of a different stripe.

[sek929]

It's great when someone else proves my point better than I ever could.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

How any self-respecting Democrat can back their decision of Obama as their party candidate is beyond me, partisan blinders I assume.

Who said I'm for Obama? What information do you have on me that has lead you to such a conclusion?

Could it <gasp> possibly be that your partisan blinders are so narrow than anyone who disagrees with you must be from the opposite side of the political spectrum? You know what they say about assuming...

My advice (same advice I gave to smacintush, actually, I'm seeing repetition amongst you conservatives) to you is stop summing people up in a few seconds based upon knee-jerk reactions to statements you don't like.

I'm not a Democrat, nor a Republican. In fact I think both nominees are f**king atrocious and how anyone vehemetly defends them day-in day-out in this forum amazes me to the point of a migraine.

[hyteckit]

Yes, Obama should be arrested and sent to Guantanamo Bay for associating (palling) with a terrorist.

Terrorist like Obama, who hates America, does not deserve a trial.

[sek929]

To sum up this forum in two sentences.

Republicans: Actually think Obama will run our country into the ground.

Democrats: Post silly sarcastic one-liners in place of anything substantial (Hey! Just like their candidate!)

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Oh yes, some have and all you need to do is crawl through older threads here. When his approval rating was around 70 %, people loved him.

People have supported and/or defended policy OreoCookie. See, there is a sect of zealous people here who need to brand other people to address them. They cannot rest on the merits of their arguments so they have to first compartmentalize you by what you support or oppose. It is not enough that you should simply correct their mistakes, but now you have to BE something. See your example below...

In regard to vmark's distinction between the different `types of conservative thought' -- which he says are bogus: you yourself claimed to be a compassionate conservative (last sentence of the post I've linked to).

Couple of things here;
A. I've never claimed to be a stalwart of conservatism. In fact, I've claimed on numerous occasions that I'm right down the middle. I've cited political surveys to affirm it. Regardless, if I lean conservative and I'm compassionate, I might easily be a compassionate conservative right? I can't claim Bush is no conservative because I referred to myself as a compassionate conservative? (please explain)

Though I think you'd agree that it was apparent I was being tongue in cheek in that post.

B. You may recall my challenge to you was; "By all means, show us the conservatives of this board supporting the liberal policies of Bush being defended as conservative policy. Of course you can't."

What was the example you cited? Me defending Bush against someone who claimed

Originally Posted by xenu

Bush is a f'ing retard who now seems to hear voices in his head telling him to kill people.

It is my personal duty to call idiots out when they decide to contribute this nonsense to a thread. Trust me, if someone claimed Obama was a transvestite and they truly believed their little fantasy, I'd correct them just like I did xenu who I think hung it up shortly thereafter.

My point is only that regardless of the label `conservative' or `liberal' or `whatever,' you can support or object to certain actions and policies. Instead of thinking critically, people look for people with the right badge and support or dismiss ideas out of hand. This won't help the Republican party either, because instead of saying we conservatives screwed up here and here, you (as a conservative) are saying `well, they haven't been real conservatives to begin with …'

It hardly does any good to toe this line after having first compartmentalized the person you're arguing with, then indicting them for why they're being partisan. Can't they just oppose or support something? This is exactly what I'm talking about. From a fellow poster, don't project. It comes off as hypocritical.

I don't have a problem with people who are aware of what's going on, I have a problem with sheepish cheerleaders who are ecstatic, because their pony dresses in blue or red (depending on the taste, of course). People who would go either way of an issue, depending on whether it was proposed by the `right' person. (This rant is not meant personally, neither against you nor vmarks.) People with principles should stand up for them, no matter what they may be. If they are for personal liberties, they should be furious at some of the legislation of Congress. If they are for low taxes, then they should calculate whether `their' candidate's tax proposal really means that they will have more money in their bank accounts at the end of the month. This is really an invariant all across the world.

I completely agree here. I rail on this constantly.

No, this is not what I was saying.
For a long time, there was little to no criticism from conservatives when it came to official Bush policies. Their comments weren't putting his policies into perspective, they were cheering for their conservative candidate.

Let's try this again. Please cite a liberal Bush policy that a conservative was championing. As it stands now, it's really more difficult to justify how the left hate Bush so much.

They connect many of the recent failed policies (Iraq, `the economy') with 8 years of Bush and 6 years of an all-Republican Congress.
And I was saying that the lack of Bush's support contributes to the uphill struggle McCain faces. I did not say that this is cause enough for him to lose the election.

I don't deny that. It is unfortunate in my opinion. Iraq is not a failed policy any more than the 12 years of multiple economic sanctions succeeding only to starve thousands of Iraqis to death. It was a change in plans. I supported the action in Iraq as did most others. This means I supported not only Bush, but Pelosi, Waxman, Reid, Kerry, both Clintons, etc... People have short memories, that's all.

To a certain degree, the Republicans have lost the last elections in Congress because of that. Certainly the Democrats didn't win, because of strong and decisive leadership or consistent work as opposition. They've won, because the Republicans were even weaker. Despite that, they were `the better alternative' to enough people so that both chambers are now in the hands of the Democrats (if only barely so in case of the Senate). The old mantra of `small government,' `frugal budgeting' and `liberties' has been used up -- at least temporarily.

We'll see. It certainly means less than it did coming from the right. I think the single biggest issue with Bush and the Republicans has been their lack of transparency and inability to communicate effectively to the collective. The current choices may show they can do a little better job of it. I've long said (as well as many others) that the elections in 2006 were not a referendum on conservatism, it was a referendum on their representation at the time. They're even unhappier today than they were in 2006. If the message is delivered more effectively, it'll prove a shock to those who assume an Obama win in November.

It's not a landslide, because the Democrats themselves don't appear as a strong, enticing alternative. It's just that the Republicans are still weaker than the Democrats -- despite the 20-something percent approval rating of Congress.

You may be right and it might just be a matter of who can more effectively separate from failure.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

It's a lot of whining, really: hordes of Independents and Democrats have `manipulated' the result of the Republican primaries and chosen a weak candidate on purpose. (All these arguments hold for Democratic primaries, too, in states where they, too, have open primaries.)
(1) I doubt that these Democratic mavericks had a significant impact on the result of the primary (especially considering that McCain won the primaries in states that only allow registered Republicans to vote there).

Registered Republicans voted for Romney in New Hampshire and Huckabee in South Carolina. In Florida, Romney and McCain tied among Republicans, and Huckabee won Missouri.

(2) The Republican party in that state has set the rules to allow for open primaries. I'm sure they have their reasons to hold an open primary -- it's their rules and I haven't heard anything that these rules have been broken.

Not correct.

If Republicans set the rules for primaries, why did Republicans have to take the primary system to the Supreme Court, rather than just "change the rules" ?

http://supreme.justia.com/us/479/208/case.html

and that case also ended up being a deciding factor in a US court of appeals ruling on Virginia's open primary.

You're just using `conservative' as a badge of approval.

You're darn right I am - but not as some wibbly-wobbly word that means whatever I want it to mean. It means something very specific. It means at its root, a set of ideals concerned with maximizing freedom of the individual. This is how it's defined in Goldwater's book, The Conscience of a Conservative.

That's the neat thing about principles, you can use them to apply to new situations and arrive at good, consistent solutions.

Again, you're just using that badge and redefine it when it agrees with your current sentiments. I have not said that Bush is or isn't a conservative, I am saying that he was hailed as a conservative up until recently.

Incorrectly so.

Some of the things Bush did were conservative in nature. Some weren't.

Steel tariffs? Not conservative.
Prescription Drug entitlement program? Not conservative. Uses money stolen from others to pay for an unconstitutional program.
NCLB? Encourages accountability, a conservative value, but education is not a federal responsibility under the constitution.
Cheney's answer of leaving civil unions/gay marriage/marriage to the states? Conservative.

Bush wasn't a very good conservative, and I've said that all along. Paco500 tells me that people aren't interested in electing folks with principles.

Just dig up old threads from the PL and some of the same people who now claim that Bush is `not really a conservative' have been defending him as such. That's what I mean here. I don't want to get into a sort of arbitrary discussion whether Bush `deserves' to be labelled as conservative.

You did open that can of worms.
I don't care one whit about what other people wish to redefine as conservatism, as long as I can voice my opposition to that redefinition. Conservatism is responsible for increasing freedom, and the fact that some people wish to redefine it so they can rail against it comes as no surprise.

This is your definition of conservatism (I'd say `libertarian' is more accurate rather than `conservative'). Many people focus on social issues when they want to judge whether someone is or isn't conservative (e. g. abortion, gay marriage, role of religion in politics, that sort of thing).

You'd say libertarian, because libertarianism borrows from conservatism.


Conservatism is about promoting maximal freedom for all. Individual liberty, economic freedom, property rights.
There are three legs to conservatism.
Social conservative
Fiscal conservative
National Security Conservative

Bush basically adopted one out of the three legs of conservatism, and weakened that one by tacking on "compassionate." Bush is not a conservative.

He's a moderate conservative. Fact is, the large share of people are moderates and not conservatives.

McCain is even less of a conservative.

McCain does not have any interest in the Constitution, and has publicly said as much when he openly disparaged the 1st Amendment. I've related the quote in another thread.

McCain has consistently voted for fiscal nightmares.

McCain has a weak standing on National Security.

McCain is no conservative.

That's where I come from when I say McCain is anti-freedom - he's said as much when he's spoken against the first amendment of the Constitution.

Obama never pretended to be a conservative, and is equally anti-freedom - he just is anti-freedom on different topics. Like property rights, for example, or the 9th and 10th amendment.

I don't think McCain will lose this election, because he's a moderate. He will lose the election, because people are fed up with conservatives of the Bush era (call `em neoconservatives if you prefer). People want to vote for change, not because they are for Obama, but because they are fed up with the status quo. Most of the problems are associated with a Republican (presidential) leadership. And McCain has no support of the incumbent. Also that will contribute to his likely defeat. That's how Gore lost to Bush (which was a very tight race). It's not unlikely that if he could have relied on Clinton's full support, he could have ended up in the White House. (I'm just saying that it has nothing to do with the Republican candidate being a moderate.)

Well, I'm not positive. Remember, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were elected for change - they were going to end the Iraq war and repeal that which Bush had passed in their first 100 days in Congress. Didn't happen.

Congress has even lower approval ratings than Bush. That doesn't tell me people are opposed to conservatism, it tells me people are sick of the anti-conservative, self-serving, anti-constitution crap that Congress and Bush have both done.

Semantics and propaganda. I don't buy this `anti-freedom stuff' for any but the most radical candidates (which are not running). Both will have to deal with the same Congress and face the same challenges. I doubt they have a lot of leeway in what they will do.

I've already laid out how McCain has shown himself to be anti-freedom. Obama is equally so, by his promise of an assault on property rights.

[PB2K]

palin looks really great for a politician

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Conservatism is about promoting maximal freedom for all. Individual liberty, economic freedom, property rights.
There are three legs to conservatism.
Social conservative
Fiscal conservative
National Security Conservative

I usually appreciate your well thought out responses but I can't believe you wrote this. Conservatism is most definitely NOT about "maximal freedom for all" ... that's the Libertarianism you mention right before this. Conservatism is about maintaining "tradition" and durable social hierarchies. It's about keeping things the way they are as much as possible and is usually promoted by the people who are doing the best within the existing system. Attempting to ban abortion, restricting the definition of "marriage" to only mean one man and one woman, etc. are restrictions on individual liberty. "Property Rights" are the absolute antithesis of maximal freedom ... it specifically and explicitly removes the rights of 6.5 billion people on the planet to use or enjoy something that is owned by a single individual. It's the definition of minimal freedom ... freedom limited only to the "owner".

I'm basically at a loss to describe the fallacy of your statement other than to nerd-out and draw literal definitions from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that favour tradition, where tradition refers to various religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. It is difficult to define the term precisely because different cultures have different established values and, in consequence, conservatives in different cultures have differing goals. (Some conservatives seek to preserve the status quo or to reform society slowly, while others seek to return to the values of an earlier time, the status quo ante).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Libertarianism is a term used by a broad spectrum[1] of political philosophies which prioritize individual liberty[2] and seek to minimize or even abolish the state.[3][4] The definition of libertarian in a political sense is a contentious issue and libertarians agree on no single principle or set of principles. The proper role of government is described from a number of different metaphysical, epistemological, and moral viewpoints.[5] The word libertarian is an antonym of authoritarian.[6]

Does anyone else think that "Conservatism" is about "maximal freedom" ?

LIbertarian: I should be allowed to marry a guy if I choose, because nobody has the right to tell me who I can and can't marry.

Conservative: You should not be able to marry a guy if you choose, because: guys marrying guys is unnatural, guys marrying guys is abhorred by God, guys marrying guys does not procreate, guys have never been allowed to marry guys etc. etc.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Krusty 

I usually appreciate your well thought out responses but I can't believe you wrote this. Conservatism is most definitely NOT about "maximal freedom for all" ... that's the Libertarianism you mention right before this. Conservatism is about maintaining "tradition" and durable social hierarchies.
...
Does anyone else think that "Conservatism" is about "maximal freedom" ?

Good post; your view is the one I had in mind, although in America I do find conservatism and libertarianism is heavily mixed. I am interested in vmark's explanation based on the book he references below… because I find that this book is often responsible for that ideology mix in America.

It means at its root, a set of ideals concerned with maximizing freedom of the individual. This is how it's defined in Goldwater's book, The Conscience of a Conservative.

greg

[Krusty]

I think conservatism and libertarianism ARE heavily mixed in some areas (basically, when a conservative is trying to maintain a liberty that has traditionally been allowed in society ... e.g. they'd both be on the same side when it came to gun ownership, but for different reasons). Thing is a Libertarian does not HAVE to be a conservative in all cases....

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Krusty 

I usually appreciate your well thought out responses

Thank you.

but I can't believe you wrote this. Conservatism is most definitely NOT about "maximal freedom for all" ... that's the Libertarianism you mention right before this. Conservatism is about maintaining "tradition" and durable social hierarchies.

Incorrect.

But I'll let you continue for a bit.

It's about keeping things the way they are as much as possible and is usually promoted by the people who are doing the best within the existing system. Attempting to ban abortion, restricting the definition of "marriage" to only mean one man and one woman, etc. are restrictions on individual liberty. "Property Rights" are the absolute antithesis of maximal freedom ... it specifically and explicitly removes the rights of 6.5 billion people on the planet to use or enjoy something that is owned by a single individual. It's the definition of minimal freedom ... freedom limited only to the "owner".

Actually, libertarianism is also interested in strong property rights. So, you haven't helped in trying to distinguish between the two.

I'm basically at a loss to describe the fallacy of your statement other than to nerd-out and draw literal definitions from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

The encyclopedia of mob-truth where anyone can make definitions into what they please does not help your case. When non-conservatives write a definition of conservatism, how does that shed any light?

Does anyone else think that "Conservatism" is about "maximal freedom" ?

LIbertarian: I should be allowed to marry a guy if I choose, because nobody has the right to tell me who I can and can't marry.

Conservative: You should not be able to marry a guy if you choose, because: guys marrying guys is unnatural, guys marrying guys is abhorred by God, guys marrying guys does not procreate, guys have never been allowed to marry guys etc. etc.

Straw men, which you then knock down. Cheney expressed the conservative viewpoint that same sex unions or marriages wasn't a federal government role.

First of all, among libertarians, there is an argument about abortion. As with other arguments about the topic, it's rooted in when life begins. If a fetus is a human life, it has rights and liberty which have to be protected. If it hasn't, then it's the right of the parents to terminate. You'll never hear a libertarian advocate killing minority-age children, despite the bumper sticker slogans 'pro-choice on everything.' The truth is, libertarians look at things through the lens of "who has been harmed?" and "I can do everything provided I stop before harming someone else, and everyone else can do the same provided they stop before harming me."

You seem to suggest that libertarians are not proponents of property rights.
Libertarians are strong property rights advocates, because without strong property rights, you don't own your labor or the resulting product of it.

As for the "excluding 6.5 millions people" concept, let me say that every night when I go home with my wife, I am actively discriminating against all the other women in the world. There's nothing wrong with this.

Conservatives are strong believers in the Constitution and the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

Libertarians aren't necessarily.

Both align in the understanding that Government is a source of coercion and oppression which must be limited. Shoot, read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - it's written from the viewpoint of suspicion of government - Congress shall not, The right of X shall not be abridged, etc.

Here's where libertarians and conservatives part company:

It seems to me that many Libertarians fail to realize or notice that we live in a hostile world. Where many people in the Libertarian Party would not do any preemptive strikes against other nations, I surely would. That is, if I have a neighbor next door who hates my guts, and if I see him building a cannon in the window pointed at my house, I’m not going to wait for him to finish.

[- - e r i k - -]

Krusty is right on the money. Conservatism != Libertarianism.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Registered Republicans voted for Romney in New Hampshire and Huckabee in South Carolina. In Florida, Romney and McCain tied among Republicans, and Huckabee won Missouri.

So what?
In the end, McCain won the primaries by a wide margin. This is indisputable. By the same argument Hillary Clinton should have won the Democratic primaries, although she had less votes than Obama.

There have been no allegations in the media that McCain has won by such a wide margin, because independents in states with open primaries specifically wanted a `weak Republican candidate.' This is about as loco as people suggesting that Bush Jr. brought down the twin towers in a controlled demolition.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

If Republicans set the rules for primaries, why did Republicans have to take the primary system to the Supreme Court, rather than just "change the rules" ?

http://supreme.justia.com/us/479/208/case.html

and that case also ended up being a deciding factor in a US court of appeals ruling on Virginia's open primary.

The court case is from 1986 and there have been (almost) six presidential elections since. From reading it, it seems that the head of the Republican party opposed a change in rules that independents were allowed to vote in the primaries. He claimed it was unconstitutional, but lost.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You're darn right I am - but not as some wibbly-wobbly word that means whatever I want it to mean. It means something very specific. It means at its root, a set of ideals concerned with maximizing freedom of the individual. This is how it's defined in Goldwater's book, The Conscience of a Conservative.

Exactly this is what I'm opposed to: a staunch black-and-white world view. Instead of accepting that there is plurality of thought, including what is and isn't conservatism, you pick one definition and claim that only this is the correct one. Furthermore, you equate your definition of conservatism with `good.' Black-and-white thinking is myopic and (in my opinion) immature. I also think it is dangerous.

I haven't read Goldwater's book, so I must infer his definition is close to your own. And I'm not saying that you shouldn't argue that conservative politics should follow principles outlined by Goldwater and yourself. But you should acknowledge that there are other definitions and other ideas on what conservatism should be about. Notions such as `fiscal conservative' and `social conservative' are widely accepted. From what I've read, I assume you will argue that the attributes fiscal and social are superfluous, because they are contained in `your' (Goldwater's?) definition of conservatism.

Personally, that's why I avoid meaningless labels, especially those which are (literally speaking) one-dimensional: left and right, Republican and Democrat, etc. People are not one-dimensional. There are conservative activists for gay rights. There are Marxists opposed to gay rights. There are conservatives in favor of stronger emission standards to protects the environment, etc. People aren't one-dimensional. Only the fewest of them are `anti-freedom' (as someone has succinctly described Obama).

Right and wrong usually has little to do with political leanings, there are only people. You want to `keep your definition clean,' so you can continue to associate it with `good.' Hence anyone who does things that are not good must first be disassociated from someone who is `conservative' according to your definition. Of course I'm exaggerating a little bit to make my argument more easily understood, but this is the process.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You did open that can of worms.
I don't care one whit about what other people wish to redefine as conservatism, as long as I can voice my opposition to that redefinition.

Yes, I did. But I did not want to quote people who have not participated in our discussion.
And yes, as I said, you may say that (perhaps in retrospect) some (many? few?) of Bush's policies were in fact not conservative. But the way you argue again mirrors the bw-type of thinking (only my definition counts). Perhaps sometimes conservatives make bad decisions despite their principles? Perhaps

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Conservatism is responsible for increasing freedom, and the fact that some people wish to redefine it so they can rail against it comes as no surprise.You'd say libertarian, because libertarianism borrows from conservatism.

Libertarianism is an independent stream of thought and AFAIK older than any of them.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

That's where I come from when I say McCain is anti-freedom - he's said as much when he's spoken against the first amendment of the Constitution.

Obama never pretended to be a conservative, and is equally anti-freedom - he just is anti-freedom on different topics. Like property rights, for example, or the 9th and 10th amendment.

Calling a mainstream politician `anti-freedom' is hyperbole, be it McCain or Obama. The elected mirror their electorate (and yes, I also don't like what I see ).

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The encyclopedia of mob-truth where anyone can make definitions into what they please does not help your case. When non-conservatives write a definition of conservatism, how does that shed any light?

This last sentence is problematic on so many levels: unless someone who is in your eyes a `real' conservative writes up a definition, it doesn't count?
Besides, even (literally speaking) text book definitions (I mean those from American Government) agree with these `mob truths.'

Originally Posted by vmarks 

First of all, among libertarians, there is an argument about abortion. As with other arguments about the topic, it's rooted in when life begins. If a fetus is a human life, it has rights and liberty which have to be protected. If it hasn't, then it's the right of the parents to terminate. You'll never hear a libertarian advocate killing minority-age children, despite the bumper sticker slogans 'pro-choice on everything.'

You speak as if conservatism and libertarianism are two incommensurate things, they are not. There are conservative libertarians (e. g. Ron Paul) and liberal libertarians (e. g. Bill Maher). (Please take these examples as self-proclaimed [word] libertarian, I have no interest in discussing whether in someone else's eyes these people really are either. It's not important to the argument either.)

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Much truth

Well, well said.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Thank you.
Incorrect.

But I'll let you continue for a bit.


Actually, libertarianism is also interested in strong property rights. So, you haven't helped in trying to distinguish between the two.

Fair enough, the traditional "Libertarian" party favors property rights as well. But I'm not saying what I said to distinguish the two, but to show conservatism is not about "maximal" liberty.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The encyclopedia of mob-truth where anyone can make definitions into what they please does not help your case. When non-conservatives write a definition of conservatism, how does that shed any light?

Forget wikipedia then. Find virtually any political dictionary or description of conservatism vs. libertarianism or ask any person on the street. The overwhelmingly common usage of Conservative is one who wants to maintain the status quo and traditon and the overwhelmingly common usage of Libertarian is one who wants maximal personal freedom. You can try to redefine it however you like, but realize that 99.9% of people out there are using as above.

Straw men, which you then knock down. Cheney expressed the conservative viewpoint that same sex unions or marriages wasn't a federal government role.

I didn't even knock them down as they weren't "arguments" but meant to be examples. Cheney is not the 100% example of a political archetype. Cheney is Cheney and perhaps holds some Libertarian views himself. How would you define a person who believes the federal government does have a role (and responsibility) to ban same sex unions through legislation?
A) Conservative?
B) Libertarian ?
C) Liberal ?
D)____________ ?

Surely, that type of person would be considered a conservative... trying to maintain the traditional man/woman definition of marriage. A libertarian would say that government has no role in that.


I really think you're pulling out a definition of "what conservatism means to me". Even the root words of each philosophy conserveatism and libertyarianism are counterintuitive to your redefinitions. If a conservative believes in maximal personal freedom, then what word would you use to describe a viewpoint that seeks to preserve the the status quo ?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Krusty is right on the money. Conservatism != Libertarianism.

I think Conservatives *want* to believe that they're libertarians. They just don't realize that granting selective liberties to preferred moralities and that giving up liberties under the guise of "security" isn't "libertarianism".

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You're darn right I am - but not as some wibbly-wobbly word that means whatever I want it to mean. It means something very specific. It means at its root, a set of ideals concerned with maximizing freedom of the individual. This is how it's defined in Goldwater's book, The Conscience of a Conservative.

sooo ... when we're talking about conservative Muslims ...?

Being "conservative" has absolutely nothing to do with freedom, unless freedom is a traditional value that one is trying to maintain. Likewise, one can be conservative about a *lack* of freedoms.

"Conservative" is a created term that appears to be concerned with maximizing the freedom of the individual, as long as those freedoms don't conflict with the opinions of the group in power or with the illusion of security.

[dcmacdaddy]

• How does wanting the government to authorize marriages, and determining what constitutes a marriage, equate with "maximal liberty"?
• How does wanting the government to restrict what a woman does with her body equate with "maximal liberty"? (even if we assume a fetus does have rights, what part of advocating "maximal liberty" accepts that the rights of a fetus are more important than the rights of the woman carrying the fetus?)
• How does wanting the government to engage in pre-emptive strikes against a hostile enemy equate with "maximal freedom"? (if as a nation we want to recognize the maximal freedom rights of our citizens, and expect other nations to do so as well, how can we justify pre-emptively using force against another nation and abrogating the rights of the citizens of that nation to "maximal freedom"?)
  [As for your example, I think you have to assume to give your neighbor his maximal rights until he actually does do something with that cannon pointed at your house. Otherwise, you take the potential for conflict (neighbor pointing cannon at my house) and turn it into the actuality of conflict if you pre-emtpively attack him. What if that cannon is pointed at your house and just sits there being lovingly maintained for years and years and years (think of the Cold War nuclear deterrent) isn't that your neighbor's right to do such a thing? How does the threat of hostility and/or violence justify committing violence?]
• How does promoting policies that limit use of recreational drugs comport with promoting of "maximal liberty"?
  (I think all non-opiate drugs should be legalized. That would include marijuana, cocaine, crystal meth, ecstasy, etc. I say legalize them all and then tax their sale and distribution. If someone is going to go to jail for drugs I want it to be NOT simply for use of the drugs as I see nothing inherently wrong with recreational drug use)

[ShortcutToMoncton]

From my admittedly shaky memory of Goldwater's book (I read it about 7 or 8 years ago; it's not long, and actually still very good and fairly relevant today), I believe the definition of "conservative" given would maybe be more indicative of "American conservative." But the definition you'd take out of the book would be fiscal conservative, social libertarian.

Of course, I think you can certainly argue that "social libertarian" has been found only in small doses amongst the American conservative.

greg

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Exactly this is what I'm opposed to: a staunch black-and-white world view. Instead of accepting that there is plurality of thought, including what is and isn't conservatism, you pick one definition and claim that only this is the correct one. Furthermore, you equate your definition of conservatism with `good.' Black-and-white thinking is myopic and (in my opinion) immature. I also think it is dangerous.

Wibbly-wobbly moral equivalence is dangerous. There are such things as right and wrong. Having principles that guide us, and being guided by them, is good if our principles are correct. If we have to make exceptions then we haven't got principles.

Words have meanings. Allowing people to corrupt their meanings (see wikipedia, where non-Conservatives write the definition for their political opposition) is wrong.

I haven't read Goldwater's book, so I must infer his definition is close to your own. And I'm not saying that you shouldn't argue that conservative politics should follow principles outlined by Goldwater and yourself. But you should acknowledge that there are other definitions and other ideas on what conservatism should be about. Notions such as `fiscal conservative' and `social conservative' are widely accepted. From what I've read, I assume you will argue that the attributes fiscal and social are superfluous, because they are contained in `your' (Goldwater's?) definition of conservatism.

I can't quote you the entirety of Goldwater here, but it's relatively short. Read it, it's worth your while.

Sometimes, self-proclaimed US politicians insist that they are, in order to get votes of those who are conservative, but generally, we know pretty quickly when these people diverge from conservative principles.

Personally, that's why I avoid meaningless labels, especially those which are (literally speaking) one-dimensional: left and right, Republican and Democrat, etc. People are not one-dimensional. There are conservative activists for gay rights. There are Marxists opposed to gay rights. There are conservatives in favor of stronger emission standards to protects the environment, etc. People aren't one-dimensional. Only the fewest of them are `anti-freedom' (as someone has succinctly described Obama).

I described Barack Obama as anti-freedom, for a good reason. Barack Obama only casually believes in property rights. He's going about the country telling us that he's going to take away people's property. People are multi-dimensional: Obama seems like a decent and loving father to his children, while at the same time, he wants to take away property from millions of Americans. That's anti-freedom.

Calling a mainstream politician `anti-freedom' is hyperbole, be it McCain or Obama. The elected mirror their electorate (and yes, I also don't like what I see ).

When McCain tells Don Imus on national radio that he's opposed to the First Amendment, which consists of freedom to make political speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and more, he's anti-freedom. It's pretty clear.

When Obama tells the nation that he's proposing to take away property from Americans, the product of their labor, that's anti-freedom.

You speak as if conservatism and libertarianism are two incommensurate things, they are not. There are conservative libertarians (e. g. Ron Paul) and liberal libertarians (e. g. Bill Maher). (Please take these examples as self-proclaimed [word] libertarian, I have no interest in discussing whether in someone else's eyes these people really are either. It's not important to the argument either.)

You're agreeing with me. If you read back, you'll see where I discussed the fact that there's some overlap of the two.

I should also comment on greg's notion of "American conservatism."

We've always been talking in this thread about these terms as they pertain to the USA.

Liberal, in the US has a very different meaning than it does in the rest of the world. In the US, a liberal is in favor of a big government which decreases liberty. Outside of the US a liberal is like a US libertarian. (Which is why the US has the libertarian term, so as to avoid being confused with US liberals. Outside of the US, conservative has a different meaning. Where it matters, in US politics in this thread, it is as I have said.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

There are such things as right and wrong.

Yes, but not everything falls into "right" or "wrong". However, some people have strong feelings on these gray issues and seek to force them into "right-or-wrong" issues.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Words have meanings.

And surely the meaning of "conservative" existed long before Goldwater, unless we're talking about a "corrupted" meaning that he created.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Allowing people to corrupt their meanings (see wikipedia, where non-Conservatives write the definition for their political opposition) is wrong.

Wikipedia's entry on conservatism doesn't seem to differ that radically from Britannica's or Encarta's, as far as I can tell at a glance. What's your beef with it, and why don't you correct it if there are factual errors?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Words have meanings. Allowing people to corrupt their meanings (see wikipedia, where non-Conservatives write the definition for their political opposition) is wrong.

If you want to use uncorrupted meanings, then you need only turn to one source
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservatism

1a: the principles and policies of a Conservative party
b: the Conservative party

2 a: disposition in politics to preserve what is established
b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change ; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)

3: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

Anything other than that and you're making it into some wibbly-wobbly word that means whatever you want it to mean.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Wibbly-wobbly moral equivalence is dangerous. There are such things as right and wrong. Having principles that guide us, and being guided by them, is good if our principles are correct. If we have to make exceptions then we haven't got principles.

I consider myself a person with a strong sense of principles. Where we differ, I think, is that I try to not to think of my principles as `the only truth.' In almost all situations, there are several possible solutions to a problem and whether we prefer one or the other depends on your principles. I don't see my set of principles as the `right' ones, well, at least not as the only right ones.

People who strongly think in terms of black-and-white with almost no shades in between are usually the cause for a lot of suffering, because they have a hard time dealing with situations when they meet people who `believe in a different truth' and whose opinion on these truths will not be changed.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Words have meanings. Allowing people to corrupt their meanings (see wikipedia, where non-Conservatives write the definition for their political opposition) is wrong.

It's not just the definition that wikipedia uses, dictionary definitions and the definition of conservative that is taught in American Government at High School coincide (at least in PA, I doubt it's markedly different in other states). You cling to words here that already have an established and different meaning. You use a rather specific and not universally accepted definition of `conservative' here, the term has been around before Goldwater was born. I think you'd fare much easier if you would choose no name at all and just call it `your own principles'. Call it `Goldwater conservatism' if you wish (the neo-conservatives have also coined their own term). It's a bad habit to redefine a generic word instead of coining a more specific sub term.

If you'd use `Goldwater conservatism' instead of conservatism, you'd hear no argument from me (and many others).

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Sometimes, self-proclaimed US politicians insist that they are, in order to get votes of those who are conservative, but generally, we know pretty quickly when these people diverge from conservative principles.

Sure, they use a label to get votes. Most of them also say `they will lower taxes,' `they will cut back on pork' and introduce a reasonable health care reform. All words and marketing. Big shocker.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I described Barack Obama as anti-freedom, for a good reason. Barack Obama only casually believes in property rights.

Anti-freedom is yet another marketing term. Someone who is anti-freedom may be a despotic leader or someone who is part of plutocracy, but not a modern democracy. It's yet another example where a (very) broad, unspecific term is abused, because you disagree with someone on specific issues.

Instead of the simplistic `McCain and Obama are anti-freedom,' you should say `I don't agree with Obama's stance on property rights,' for example. It's more specific, it's more accurate and less hyperbolic. Using language reserved for dictators and despotic states makes it sound hyperbolic and shallow.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

When McCain tells Don Imus on national radio that he's opposed to the First Amendment, which consists of freedom to make political speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and more, he's anti-freedom.

I doubt McCain has said that he wants to abolish the First Amendment. I don't know what he has said in what context, but probably McCain was talking about a specific issue.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You're agreeing with me. If you read back, you'll see where I discussed the fact that there's some overlap of the two.

I agree with you that there is an overlap, but I disagree that libertarianism stems from conservatism.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Liberal, in the US has a very different meaning than it does in the rest of the world. In the US, a liberal is in favor of a big government which decreases liberty.

Again, that's your definition.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Outside of the US a liberal is like a US libertarian. (Which is why the US has the libertarian term, so as to avoid being confused with US liberals. Outside of the US, conservative has a different meaning. Where it matters, in US politics in this thread, it is as I have said.

Correct. My parents have been affiliated with the Federal Liberal Party (FDP) which is promoting ideas which you'd call libertarian. Obviously, if I'd mention this to some people, all they'd see is the term liberal and go on a frenzy