Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Conservatism' -- Social movement or Political movement?

Posted on 05/31/2006 1:32:23 PM PDT by Dominic Harr

If I may, I'd like to ask for an informal 'poll' of FReepers:

There are 2 'Conservative' movements in this country.

All I would like to know is, what % of us are which? Please respond and say which, or both.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: liberaltarianism; lookhowsmartiam; socialconsbad
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-198 next last
To: Dominic Harr; Beth528; nmh; thoughtomator; tomahawk; jpsb; Earthdweller; Paloma_55; Wolfie; ...
Oh,and there is a another semi-category: "pseudo-conservatives" . These are the non-conservative people of leftist temperament that are 'corporatists', mercenaries, idolaters of power, etc. who will call themselves whatever they think most advantageous.

Kinda reminds one of the quote by LaRoachefucoult(sp?): "Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to Virtue."

101 posted on 05/31/2006 3:57:27 PM PDT by ProCivitas (Qui bono? Quo warranto? ; Who benefits? By what right/authority ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr; dalereed; editor-surveyor; Czar; ElkGroveDan; calcowgirl; tubebender; Dog Gone; ...
"...so that we can come together to form a consensus on what we decide we all do agree on."

This is exactly where the wheels are going to come off your whole effort! Most Conservatives of the Ronald Reagan/Maggie Thatcher variety don't believe in concensus at all! In fact, Maggie said that "Consensus is the abscence of all leadership!"

Consensus and "coming together," are strictly Liberal ideas/concepts and will probably never be fully accepted by Conservatives of any flavor, unless they'r CINO's.(Conservatives In Name Only)(Of which we have a rapidly growing number of on FR!!!)(much to my dismay)

102 posted on 05/31/2006 3:58:41 PM PDT by SierraWasp ((2006)Arnold? Or NO Arnold? (2008)Gore? Or NO Gore? NO DEAL!!! (on either one))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
The current power of the R party came from sticking to the 'Political/Fiscal' reform. Now the R party has abandoned that.

Sad but true. "Conservative" does not equal "tax cuts", because without corresponding spending cuts all we're doing is handing the bill to future generations. It's like paying less on your credit card balance and thinking you have more money. Instead, Republicans have done the opposite with stuff like the ridiculous Medicare drug giveaway. The Democrats are worse, and the big-L Libertarians are kooky, but it would be nice to actually have a positive reason to vote R.

103 posted on 05/31/2006 3:59:18 PM PDT by ThinkDifferent (Chloe rocks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr

If you have to split conservatism to suit your taste, then you aren't one.


104 posted on 05/31/2006 4:03:04 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan (California bashers will be called out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProCivitas
Unless one favors 1.cultural and 2.fiscal/economic and 3.foreign policy Conservatism, one has to hyphenate the term a bit: "neo-", "libertarian-"...

Oh, no, please! This is exactly wrong, in my experience. That will just divide us.

It is not accurate for one group to call themselves "true" Conservatives, and say everyone else needs a hypen. Who are the 'true' conservatives? Look at this thread. Religious Cs don't think political Cs belong. Political Cs thing Religious Cs are 'statist' on many issues. But both are Cs. Neither side gets to define what it means, as long as others also claim the title.

These are 'attributes'. Your feelings about social questions. Your feelings about govt-related, political issues.

All can be conservatives. And we'll all have to work together, on the things we agree on.

With this seperating idea, you'll have internal war. "You're not a *real* conservative, you're a NeoCon".

And 'Libertarian' does *not* describe Political Cs.

That is one of the biggest errors Social Cs make, and it is a huge divider of the party. Libertarian includes ideas like, "Non-initiation of force" that Cs do NOT agree with. So being a libertarian is not on the table.

We're Cs. Just somewhat different on some issues.

105 posted on 05/31/2006 4:05:01 PM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp
Most Conservatives of the Ronald Reagan/Maggie Thatcher variety don't believe in concensus at all! In fact, Maggie said that "Consensus is the abscence of all leadership!"

Agreed. But that is the whole point here. We do not have a leader. The political C movement is leader-less, at this point in time.

Bush isn't the leader of the Political Cs. He is, I think, the leader of the Social Cs. But the Contract with America showed that only the Political Cs have the platform that can win a majority.

If we had a leader who embodied my beliefs, like a Reagan, I'd not be posting this thread, I'm sure. But we don't.

Since I'm not capable or willing to be that leader, I'm trying the next best thing. Trying to identify who and what the party faithful is, and wants. And get some kind of a consensus on what we can all get behind.

No one else is doing anything to appeal to smaller govt folks that I can see. The revolution of '94 is dying. I'm hoping to find out that the movment behind it is still here.

106 posted on 05/31/2006 4:11:15 PM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Both! Except with defense. When we are at war, we can't be too careful what we say, and can't be careful with money when it comes to the troops, anytime they need anything.
107 posted on 05/31/2006 4:12:55 PM PDT by gidget7 (PC is the huge rock, behind which lies hide!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
If you have to split conservatism to suit your taste, then you aren't one.

I'm doing an analysis of the components of what makes up 'conservative' thought.

I'm working with the hypothesis that you can split peoples ideas up into 'social' ideas (things a person believes about society) and their 'political' ideas (things a person believes about govt).

Sometimes, it appears, they overlap.

But not always. One person may believe homosexuality is a sin, and it should be illegal. Another may believe that it's a sin, but govt has no place outlawing it.

I'm looking for a way to analyze this, that's all.

P.S. -- we have *got* to stop telling other conservatives they aren't a C. That's not going to help.

108 posted on 05/31/2006 4:15:19 PM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Bryan24

You forgot Flatten Iran...8-D


109 posted on 05/31/2006 4:21:57 PM PDT by Lancer_N3502A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
P.S. -- we have *got* to stop telling other conservatives they aren't a C. That's not going to help.

That's a circular line of reasoning. You are assuming that people to whom I tell such things really are conservatives. I'm saying they aren't. So no damage done.

To take your line of reasoning further, I could tell you to stop telling Leninist and Marxist conservatives that they aren't conservatives. While we are at it, why are we chasing away tax-and-spend conservatives? What about pedophile conservatives?

110 posted on 05/31/2006 4:23:07 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan (California bashers will be called out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp
"Most Conservatives of the Ronald Reagan/Maggie Thatcher variety don't believe in concensus at all!"

If you first insist on a consensus, there is no need to lead and no requirement to take responsibility for any bad results. Hence, consensus is nearly always the policy choice of the governing class.

111 posted on 05/31/2006 4:23:22 PM PDT by Czar (StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr

I'm doing an analysis of the components of what makes up 'conservative' thought.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Here's some food for thought:

THE GREAT DIVIDE [puritan v agrarian republicans]
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1638794/posts


112 posted on 05/31/2006 4:24:33 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: ProCivitas
TFP

I'm looking for the conservative option for choosing to restore our industry, build up our might and stay out of other peoples' wars.

113 posted on 05/31/2006 4:56:35 PM PDT by ex-snook ("But above all things, truth beareth away the victory.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
I'm saying they aren't. So no damage done.

Major damage done. Because you are pushing away people who disagree with you on fringe topics, causing many to be turned off to the party. You are telling them, "you don't belong".

We're not talking about core issues here, that's the point.

Consider, we have 3 type of ppl in the C movement:

All are in the movement, like it or not.

So, if all 3 are interested in voting for Rs who are promising to be fiscally conservative . . . are you saying that any of the 3 don't deserve the right to call themselves 'Conservative'?

Basically, it's wrong for you do declare yourself the "one true type of conservatie" and then push others out of the movement. That's called hijacking the movement.

114 posted on 05/31/2006 5:04:00 PM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Excellent link.

Much food for thought, thank you very much.

115 posted on 05/31/2006 5:06:49 PM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: gidget7
Except with defense. When we are at war, we can't be too careful what we say, and can't be careful with money when it comes to the troops, anytime they need anything.

Agreed -- altho personally, I call this 'conservative' in the sense of 'careful'.

It's a dangerous world. We can't be too careful with our defense. The only way to stay safe is to be the biggest, baddest guy on the block.

116 posted on 05/31/2006 5:10:56 PM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: ProCivitas
Kinda reminds one of the quote by LaRoachefucoult(sp?): "Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to Virtue."

François de La Rochefoucauld: "Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue."

117 posted on 05/31/2006 5:14:36 PM PDT by A. Pole (Russian proverb: "All are not cooks that walk with long knives")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Bryan24

Good List but I would also add:

Uphold the oath of your office.

Uphold the rule of law.

Uphold the Constitution.

Reverse Kelo vs New London

Get rid of the anchor baby provision for illegals it was never meant to be a way for illegals to become citizens anyway.

Secure our borders

Just to name a few ;)


118 posted on 05/31/2006 5:44:01 PM PDT by Sweetjustusnow (Mr. President and Representatives, do your duty to uphold our laws or you are all gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
I'm sorry -- I thought you were disagreeing with the use of the word, "movement".

Here, I disagree.

Conservative is perfect.

Libs have run from the word L, instead of making it their own. I would prefer to staunchly define 'C' instead of running from it.

I've got nothing against the word "Conservative," any more then I do against the word "Liberal." You can be for example be a "Conservative liberal," they are not mutually exclusive. But, in the same sense that leftists are not real champions of liberty, and are thus not liberal; the rightists are not really conservative. "Conservative," and "Movement," are somewhat mutually exclusive. The whole point of being conservative is not to move, so talking about a "Conservative movement" is rather like talking about an “erratic stability” with say, an “obscure precision.”

So I'm analyzing what "C" means to various people.

To me it means something other than what it is currently being used for, and thus is no more applicable to the modern political party which claims it than is "Liberal" to the left, who are not in fact liberal.

119 posted on 05/31/2006 6:18:18 PM PDT by Pelayo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Pelayo
The whole point of being conservative is not to move, so talking about a "Conservative movement" is rather like talking about an “erratic stability” with say, an “obscure precision.”

That is *one* definition, to be opposed to change.

But there are others. And since the first one doesn't apply -- since it is change we are seeking -- it is useless in describing the modern conservative movement.

"Conservative" also means "careful". As in a conservative estimate. To be conservative with words. To spend money conservatively. And since we're trying to describe a movement, that definition seems perfect here.

Ls are "liberal" with money, solutions, words.

That's why Ls can call Bush 'Hitler' and 'Chimp' and 'Stupid'. Where a conservative would be more careful, more circumspect in their use of words.

Well, just my opinion, anyway. But to be honest, I think this is an angle that would allow 'Conservatism' to sweep the country. The press would eat it up. Young kids would want to be Cs.

120 posted on 05/31/2006 6:35:07 PM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr; Sam the Sham; A. Pole; B-Chan
Hmmm, I ponder this question a lot. I see myself as very socially, religiously and militarily conservative, very pro-NRA and so on but I am more of an economic centrist. In short, Red State on most everything else but I lean "Maroon" or "Purple" when it comes to economics. I find this site to be very interesting, Beyond Red & Blue from the Pew Research Center. I took the test a while back and basically I would have fallen into the "disaffected" category but now I retook it since my financial situation improved somewhat in the last year or so so I am more of a "pro-government conservative." I think the one dimensional axis of conservative vs. liberal is too simplistic, maybe you need a two dimensional one where you have social/moral rules on one axis and economics on the other.

I think most of your Reagan Republicans and Reagan Democrats were or are the children/grandchildren of those who voted and supported populists like William Jennings Bryan and later on voted for FDR and even later who would voted for Truman, JFK, Scoop Jackson, or Hubert Humphrey but because of the Moonbats that hijacked the Democratic Party from the time of George McGovern to this very day, you had some converts. Religion also plays a role in these voters, a lot of the social reforms in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries such as women's sufferage, civil rights, Prohibition (OK, that didn't work so well), anti child labor, and so on. Both sides also have their religious roots, on one side, you have the fiscal conservatives who seem to have their roots in more of a Calvinistic faith whereas the reformers tend to be more Catholic along with Protestant faiths that sprouted from the Catholic Church (like Lutherans) with many Jews tagging along as well.

I guess I see it because I tend to be one of those voters descended from a genrally working class, Pittsburgh background. I don't believe the free market is the end all or do all answer for everything in society because of it's lack of conscience. Overall though, I have described myself using many different things but I think the term I use the most often for myself is a "Michael Savage Conservative" or an "Independent Conservative."
121 posted on 05/31/2006 6:56:44 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (Greystone, I'll miss you (5-12-2001 - 4-15-2006) RIP little buddy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp

What? No mention of limited gov't as framed in the Constitution? Gov't protection of rights as opposed to Gov't granting rights (aka unalienable rights)... a republic vs. a democracy...safe and secure borders...

Gay marriage and deficit spending are side issues compared to these priciples.


122 posted on 05/31/2006 7:50:32 PM PDT by forester (An economy that is overburdened by government eventually results in collapse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
That is *one* definition, to be opposed to change.

I don't like adding new contradictory definitions to words. If we seek change, we are not conservative. At most we are reactionary; assuming the change is an attempt at regression to a previous state.

"Conservative" also means "careful". As in a conservative estimate. To be conservative with words. To spend money conservatively.

Yeah but by that logic it could be argued that Kerry was campaigning on a platform of conservatism vis-a-vis the war on terror.

Ls are "liberal" with money, solutions, words.

Their solution are usually generous with our freedoms, so they are not liberal AFAIC.

That's why Ls can call Bush 'Hitler' and 'Chimp' and 'Stupid'. Where a conservative would be more careful, more circumspect in their use of words.

So it's your position that what makes modern conservatives conservative, and libs liberal is an issue of attitude rather then philosophy? I would prefer to use the term radical in describing leftist politicking, rather than liberal. Or better yet, infantile. Of course I usually use “Leftist,” myself.

Maybe I'm just too "Conservative," but I don't like changing the meaning of words or accepting new definitions based merely upon popular use. People have been using "liberal" and "conservative" so poorly in this country that the words have lost all their original meaning. If we start defining Conservative as the antithesis of liberal in an ideology of change we will get a word that means “not generous,” and “anti-liberty.” And if we start defining “liberal” by the attitudes and philosophies of the leftists we will get a word which doesn't mean “generous,” or “pro-liberty,” but something else entirely. Eventually we will define conservative to mean “not liberal,” and vice versa.

123 posted on 05/31/2006 8:05:03 PM PDT by Pelayo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp

"...so that we can come together to form a consensus on what we decide we all do agree on."

----This is exactly where the wheels are going to come off your whole effort! Most Conservatives of the Ronald Reagan/Maggie Thatcher variety don't believe in concensus at all! In fact, Maggie said that "Consensus is the abscence of all leadership!"----

I might be able to offer a perspective that ties both of these together. There is *right* and *wrong*. It is nice when we can all agree on what is *right* and at that point, we have consensus. A leader of course, should do what is right.

Ronald and Maggie both sought to do what was right, and people followed. That is what made their leadership so demonstrable.

Unfortunately, what we see happening today is often not what is *right* but what is convenient.

When Bush says we can not deport 11 million illegals, he is correct, but not *right*. The *right* thing to do is enforce the law (prevent alien entry and enforce against companies that hire them and stop giving benefits to them) and then many of them will leave voluntarily.


124 posted on 05/31/2006 8:14:12 PM PDT by Paloma_55 (Still MAD as HELL!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Excuse me, part of that post should read

"Ls are "liberal" with money, solutions, words.

Their solution are usually [NOT] generous with our freedoms, so they are not liberal AFAIC."

125 posted on 05/31/2006 8:18:14 PM PDT by Pelayo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55

You are so right!!! (grin)


126 posted on 05/31/2006 8:31:02 PM PDT by SierraWasp ((2006)Arnold? Or NO Arnold? (2008)Gore? Or NO Gore? NO DEAL!!! (on either one))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: forester

And you certainly have the proper perspective!!!


127 posted on 05/31/2006 9:43:06 PM PDT by SierraWasp ((2006)Arnold? Or NO Arnold? (2008)Gore? Or NO Gore? NO DEAL!!! (on either one))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: ProCivitas
"pseudo-conservatives"

We've been infested with those on the CA threads since the historic Recall, hijacked by the RINO!!! (it's really bunging up FR as far as I'm concerned)

128 posted on 05/31/2006 9:46:34 PM PDT by SierraWasp ((2006)Arnold? Or NO Arnold? (2008)Gore? Or NO Gore? NO DEAL!!! (on either one))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
'Conservatism' -- Social movement or Political movement?

In theory, this is not hard for most people to answer. We all know there are a list of things that, if you agree with them, make you a social or fiscal conservative. Some of us are more one than the other and some of us feel free to label ourselves one or the other.

In practice, however, IMO it's usually a different thing. For example, we may believe that homosexuality is wrong but may be reluctant to say that to the nice gay couple down the street. We may believe that there should be no welfare but we don't want to see fellow Americans starving, especially children.

129 posted on 05/31/2006 9:50:49 PM PDT by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr

Conservatism=common sense.


130 posted on 05/31/2006 9:52:56 PM PDT by GOP_Raider (FR's token San Francisco Giants fan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nowhere Man

Liberalism is centered on liberty, i.e. individual freedom. In a liberal society, a person is free; he answers to no master but himself. His value to society is defined by his ability to compete in a free market. "Winners" -- those with ambition, talent, skill and luck -- are deemed to be valuable to society, and are rewarded with wealth and power. However, some people lack the ambition, talent, skill, and luck needed to amass wealth. In a liberal, these "losers" are deemed to be of little value, and are equally free -- free to survive as best they can.

The question is: which sort of society do we wish to inhabit? A liberal society, where freedom is the highest value, reason the only authority, where the fittest succeed and the unfit are nothing more than useless eaters? Or a Christian society, where love is the highest value, where God is the highest power, and where even the lazy, untalented, unskilled, and unlucky are deemed deserving of basic human dignity?

The words "conservative" and "liberal" have lost their meaning in our revolutionary world. It is time we restored those meanings. In brief: the idea that man is his own master, that freedom is the ultimate good, and that each man has no duty save to himself is the creed of the liberal. A true conservative holds to the ancient truths: that love is the ultimate good, that God is the supreme Authority, and that each man has a duty to love and care for his fellowman.

The question is not Democrat vs. Republican. It is not political. It is not even philosophical. The question is spiritual.

Liberty or love? Reason or obedience? Rights or duties? We all must decide which things we hold most dear. I know where I stand.


131 posted on 05/31/2006 10:46:46 PM PDT by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent; Dominic Harr
And if the town votes to allow prostitution or recreational drug use?

Social conservatives tell their children there are things that chip away at ones soul.

P.S. Europe is importing 40,000 prostitutes for the World Cup extravaganza, and I am sure the drugs will be free flowing. There are already towns in Europe for people who have these values. No need to fight with Americans anymore.

132 posted on 05/31/2006 11:20:42 PM PDT by bondserv (God governs our universe and has seen fit to offer us a pardon. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
and avoid raising the social issues when running for offices this fall.

Unfortunately, the social issues are what the elections turn on, for both parties. There is a base of people in both parties that are interested in government issues, but they are not the majority by far. Sad, but true.
133 posted on 06/01/2006 5:57:48 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e
If people understood how their politics personally affected others, how the law is a personal threat to others, maybe they'd be more careful guiding government power.

Very true...and a good example of why a democracy needs an educated public in order to survive...and why we are in trouble. When you even allow people to vote that can neither read nor write, in *any* language, then you know there is going to be trouble.

What would happen if you took the ballot, removed the Straight-D and Straight-R options, removed the party affiliations from the ballot, and randomized the order of the candidates? It would be a blessing for America.
134 posted on 06/01/2006 6:08:10 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Nowhere Man
I think the one dimensional axis of conservative vs. liberal is too simplistic, maybe you need a two dimensional one where you have social/moral rules on one axis and economics on the other.

I completely agree. Analyzing people's opinions as best I can, that's what I'm trying to arrive at here.

I'm working from a hypothesis of there being 'social' and 'political' beliefs.

135 posted on 06/01/2006 6:29:54 AM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Pelayo
If we seek change, we are not conservative.

By that definition then, none of us are Cs.

I don't get it -- if we tell the world we are Cs, and we are fighting for changes, why would we say that C means opposed to change?

I'm looking for a definition of C that actually describes what Cs are. And it seems obvious that there are basically 2 'types' of Cs. The first step towards regaining C momentum is to accuately define *what a conservative is*. In other words, we need to define to the world what it is we believe.

Kerry's line on the war on terror was not 'careful' in the least. When someone threatens you, if you don't get ready for a fight, you're not being careful at all.

In contrast to Cs, Ls solutions are generally very 'careless', in my experience.

And to me, being careful *is* a philosophy. Calling us 'anti-liberals' is not a philosophy at all. We have to figure out what it is we stand for, what it is we all agree on so we can set our priorities for what to fight for.

136 posted on 06/01/2006 6:38:03 AM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: mafree
We may believe that there should be no welfare but we don't want to see fellow Americans starving, especially children.

I think the same way you do on this.

That's why I'm working from the theory that there are 2 different components that are important here: How a person believes life should be lived, and what a person's beliefs are about the powers of govt.

For example, there would be 3 types of folks:

My theory here is, we need to analyze what we are all 'for', and focus on fighting for those changes. We can still argue, debate, discuss the things we disagree with, but if we have consensus on some issues, I think we should move forward on those.

137 posted on 06/01/2006 6:45:06 AM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr; Beth528; nmh; thoughtomator; tomahawk; jpsb; Earthdweller; Paloma_55; Wolfie; ...
Dominic, a small criticism:
You seem to be viewing all this through the overly narrow lens of the 'homosexual issue'. As between Conservatives, neo-conservatives and libertarians, all three are valid and important currents of thought within the 'conservative movement'. All favor ethical, limited government and the 'good society' of our other key institutions: family, church, businesses, civic associations...

None of those three main currents are unimportant, or to be marginalized. The differences are mostly of degree and emphasis, but there's a strong core fusion.

Regarding the 'social conservatives'(as you put it) like myself, ..well, you'll find that fairly pronouncedly among all three currents. Regarding the homosexuality topic you raise, all three(Conservative, neo-conservative, and libertarian) generally oppose homosexuality as they would any other counterproductive behavior, to the extent that they think of it at all. Folks in all three currents usually regard homosexuality as being on a par with polygamy, consentual prostitution, and the sort of 'solitary vice'that often involves pornography. (All "lifestyle choices" to be sure, but none that we'd recommend.)

So, when does 'socially opposed' become 'politically opposed'? Mostly when 'organized perversion groups' start demanding public approval, money and licenses for their private neurotic behavior. When homosexual groups seek the preferential treatment of public funding (e.g.Massachusetts Commission for GBLTPDQFUBAR...) or legal standing to sue because others might prefer not to associate with them. Libertarians are against that pro-homosexual agenda. It's mostly pro-homosexual advocates masquerading as libertarians that favor it.

As for the 'normative value of law' applied but not much enforced traditionally against sodomy, etc. Well, don't be too quick to dismiss it as 'not a government function'. Communities make valid law by the representation and/or vote of their citizens. The alleged social harm of alleged 'private' behavior is often a matter of reasonable public policy concern. Many libertarians would disagree, but nearly all Conservatives, neo-cons, liberals, and a fair number of libertarians would not. Private establishments choosing racial segregation -- New Yorkers and Californians distributing obscenity -- Polygamy -- prostitution -- politicized sodomites.... these are all behaviors that most in the aforementioned philosophical camps would oppose by law.

Why? Likely negative impact on society. And, with the probable exception of 'freedom of association', none of those behaviors is a 'civil right' upon which public policy cannot rightly intervene.

Marriage licenses(i.e.'public recognition'), legal child adoption, even artificial child conception, are all matters of reasonable public policy, both because of the public concern about the social impact, and the public concern for the well-being of children who can't vote and have little power to defend their own interests.

138 posted on 06/01/2006 6:46:50 AM PDT by ProCivitas (Qui bono? Quo warranto? ; Who benefits? By what right/authority ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Raider
Conservatism=common sense.

:-)

Of course, I agree! But I'm afraid that Ls think *they* are the ones with common sense.

Heck, everyone thinks that about themselves. Just like everyone, even mass murderers, tend to think of themselves as "good people".

139 posted on 06/01/2006 6:47:08 AM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: P-40
Unfortunately, the social issues are what the elections turn on, for both parties.

I disagree.

"No New Taxes", for one famous example. Reagan wasn't elected on 'social' issues, it was defense and the economy.

The problem is, the politicans running plan to spend govt money to buy themselves votes and reward their supporters. So they aren't willing to make C promises.

140 posted on 06/01/2006 6:54:32 AM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Reagan wasn't elected on 'social' issues, it was defense and the economy.

But that was decades ago during the Cold War and MAD. The threat of nuclear destruction had more people interested in things like defense and security. Now we are more worried about who will win American Idle.
141 posted on 06/01/2006 6:59:51 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: ProCivitas
As between Conservatives, neo-conservatives and libertarians, all three are valid and important currents of thought within the 'conservative movement'.

I personally think it is *very* damaging to the C movement for you to say that. Because you are labeling one group as real "Conservatives", and relegating (wrongly) the others to 'neo-' and 'lib'. Realize that many of the other type of C say that they are the "real conservatives" because ya'll believe in using the power of govt to do social engineering things they believe are not a function of govt.

I believe that's not a useful argument to have. We can all be "conservatives".

Besides, 'socially liberal (meaning "live and let live") and politically conservative is *not* 'libertarian. Libertarians believe in many things (like, "non-initiation of force") that we do NOT believe in.

I only use the 'gay' issue here because it is so instructive. We could also use 'victimless crimes', as you point out. Or one of a host of other issues.

Marriage licenses(i.e.'public recognition'), legal child adoption, even artificial child conception, are all matters of reasonable public policy, both because of the public concern about the social impact, and the public concern for the well-being of children who can't vote and have little power to defend their own interests.

Let's just say, I disagree with you. And when ya'll push the R party to fight for this kind of thing, then you lose me, and most 'Political' conservatives.

So I would think it would be best if we keep discussing/debating those kind of 'social' issues, but not yet move for any govt action. Unless you want to split the R party asunder.

I have a gut feeling that this is what has happened here . . . Bush is a social C, political L. He is the leader of the Social Cs, but has completely ignored the political Cs.

Which, I think, is why his approval rating has tanked.

The winning political issues are all 'political'. The contract with america was all 'political' issues like corruption, taxes, etc. Fighting for govt action on social issues will only ruin us.

142 posted on 06/01/2006 7:16:08 AM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: P-40
The threat of nuclear destruction had more people interested in things like defense and security.

I'd argue that people are even more interested in defense and security now.

And it was in 1994 that the 'Contract with America' caused a revolution, all on 'political' issues. Not one social issue there.

143 posted on 06/01/2006 7:17:43 AM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
I'd argue that people are even more interested in defense and security now.

In a vague sort of way, yes. But as to actually putting much thought into it or learning about the issues, no. Very few people could be bothered to learn what the NSA does or was doing. Or what the Patriot Act fixed and what it does. Or even where Iraq is exactly, what countries surround it, where it is in relation to say Afghanistan, and what it takes to have troops in the region. Or even read something like the 9/11 Commission Report. Americans care about defense and security in between commercials.

I would argue that the Contract with America was the last time an election truly turned on political issues. Once the conservatives "won" their leaders forgot that the fight had just begun.
144 posted on 06/01/2006 7:31:17 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: P-40
I would argue that the Contract with America was the last time an election truly turned on political issues. Once the conservatives "won" their leaders forgot that the fight had just begun.

I'd agree. But that was the last time it was tried -- no one since has even tried to put together a serious 'political reform' movement.

So the last time it was tried, it won in a landslide. It also created a landslide for Reagan. And it was what got Bush I fired -- "no new taxes". Since then, we've had 'social conservatives' like GW, who I believe is a good man, but could barely beat total loser candidates like AlGore and Kerry. So clearly *that* is not much of a winning strategery. :-)

Yes, people are pretty much clueless. But it's always been that way. In fact, because of the Internet, I'd argue it's better than it ever has been.

But people are people. Most folks are overwhelmed just trying to live their lives. They don't have the time, energy, brainpower, whatever, that is required to get into a lot of this.

145 posted on 06/01/2006 7:44:38 AM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
no one since has even tried to put together a serious 'political reform' movement.

That is the sad thing....because such a movement would win in a landslide *IF* it were done by candidates with a record of being conservative...and I think we have a shortage of those right now. :)

People do tend to be limited on what they have time to learn...and that is okay. You'd hope the media would do at least a halfway decent job of trying to get them informed on at least a surface level, but that would not be a big seller. And in many ways the Internet has made them less informed...or more informed on what amounts to...crap.
146 posted on 06/01/2006 7:54:12 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: P-40
You'd hope the media would do at least a halfway decent job of trying to get them informed on at least a surface level, but that would not be a big seller.

Well, I'm a history buff. The 'media' has always been this way, back to the revolutionary period.

They present 'news', not "information". They're telling stories, as you said, to sell.

That's just the nature of the beast.

147 posted on 06/01/2006 7:57:00 AM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: ProCivitas
-- distributing obscenity -- Polygamy -- prostitution -- these are all behaviors that most in the aforementioned philosophical camps would oppose by law.
Why? Likely negative impact on society. And, with the probable exception of 'freedom of association', none of those behaviors is a 'civil right' upon which public policy cannot rightly intervene.

Our constitution does not empower legislation based on "likely negative impact".

In order to deprive anyone of life, liberty or property, -- due process must be used in both enacting & enforcing such laws. [see the 14th]

Prohibitory 'laws' on noncriminal behaviors inevitably violate due process. -- As Justice Harlan recognized:

     "[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press, and religion;
the right to keep and bear arms;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. 
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . ."

148 posted on 06/01/2006 8:02:39 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr; Beth528; nmh; thoughtomator; tomahawk; jpsb; Earthdweller; Paloma_55; Wolfie; ...
"As between Conservatives, neo-conservatives and libertarians, all three are valid and important currents of thought within the 'conservative movement'."

I personally think it is *very* damaging to the C movement for you to say that. Because you are labeling one group as real "Conservatives", and relegating (wrongly) the others to 'neo-' and 'lib'.

No, it's mostly just one of the usual designations because of the chronology: 'neo-conservatives' really did emerge around the mid to late 1970s, cite Irving Kristol- podhoretz-nathanGlazer etc.. And before them there really were Conservatives from Burke to Kirk.

"Neo-" has been the neo-cons preferred designation for themselves. And Libertarians have always preferred to distinguish their approach from 'Conservatism'. We could apply the prefix "paleo-" to Conservatives to distinguish them from "neo-"s, but why bother? The advent of the "neo-" camp shouldn't oblige anyone else to change their own name. And, no, the conservative movement has not been damaged by these terms.

149 posted on 06/01/2006 8:03:24 AM PDT by ProCivitas (Qui bono? Quo warranto? ; Who benefits? By what right/authority ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
That's just the nature of the beast.

Who said anything about Hilary? :)

You are right about the media being flavored for whatever the consumer will eat. I guess at times it has been better and at times much worse. Right now there is just so much out there to eat that the quality has gotten very bad...but also very good if you want it. Most people just find good quality news to be boring...which it is...but too many people cannot even begin to discern the difference.
150 posted on 06/01/2006 8:06:34 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-198 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson