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 last
To: Bryan24
I really think you are giving them too much to do.

When you get right down to it, the federal government really has only three domestic tasks under the Constitution:

Secure our borders/defend the country.
Count everybody every ten years.
Deliver the mail.

Almost everything else is to be left for the states to do.

151 posted on 06/01/2006 8:16:13 AM PDT by rock58seg (A minority of Republican RINO's are making a majority of Republicans look like fools.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ProCivitas
And, no, the conservative movement has not been damaged by these terms.

I disagree. It divides us.

I would argue that we can't explain ourselves to anyone. That the names, labels, etc we currently use only push people away from us, because the words literally don't mean what we are.

The traditional def of 'Conservative' that everyone seems to use is "opposed to change". Which does not describe us at all. And anyone who sees changes they want, will automatically assume that they can't be a C.

So I believe that it is past time for us to define ourselves. It makes no sense to tell people, "We are Cs. C means 'against change'. And we want these changes."

It's time for us to fix that. And part of fixing that means looking at those who call themselves C -- ALL folks who call themselves C -- and look at what is common amongst all.

Then *that* is what a C is.

Hence, I'd say, C means 'careful'. There is a definition of C, like in 'Conservative Estimates', that perfectly sums up what we all believe in.

It weakens the C movement to divide us. It strenghtens the movement to unite us.

152 posted on 06/01/2006 8:18:44 AM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: P-40
Who said anything about Hilary?

Ha! Burn!

I think the idea of 'news' is what is worthless. News is about what is new or shocking or different. What we need is 'information'.

If an info org was going to cover daily Iraq happenings, then it needs to have *all* the info of everything that happened in Iraq. Stuff that is good, stuff that is bad. Facts, rumors, political, social, etc. Then people can surf thru it all, and learn what they want.

'News' is something else entirely.

153 posted on 06/01/2006 8:22:20 AM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Maybe we need to post a heirarchy or definition of politicians first.

Someone who believes as I do = Statesman/Conservative.
Someone who tells me what I want hear for my vote = Republican.
Someone who tells other people what they want to hear for their vote = Democrat.
Someone who calls me vile names and demands I vote for him = Liberal.
Someone who tells me once I have voted for him, I need never vote again = Communist.

I developed this list as an aid to categorize those who wish to engage me politically.

154 posted on 06/01/2006 8:32:48 AM PDT by rock58seg (A minority of Republican RINO's are making a majority of Republicans look like fools.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: rock58seg
Ha!

Great list. That's like those 'irregular' verbs.

I made a mistake with my taxes.
You are cheating on your taxes.
He has been charged with section 8 of the Federal Penal code . . .

155 posted on 06/01/2006 8:35:16 AM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr

Political Conservative. Social libertarian.


156 posted on 06/01/2006 8:41:28 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
News is about what is new or shocking or different. What we need is 'information'.

That is true...but will it sell in enough quantities to make it commercially viable? The WSJ does about the best job when it comes to print media, but even it has to jazz some things up a bit to keep the readership...but at least they present a diverse set of viewpoints and a lot of news stories. Most media sources are limitied on what they have to say about a story but are more limitied in the type of stories they will cover.

There a some good places to go and get news straight from the source or as close to the source as possible...but their audience tends to be on the small side.
157 posted on 06/01/2006 8:52:37 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr; P-40; SierraWasp; ElkGroveDan; gidget7; Iscool; DesScorp
The traditional def of 'Conservative'that everyone seems to use is "opposed to change". Which does not describe us at all.

"that everyone seems to use"? Well,no, I don't know of any Conservative that equates 'Conservative' with 'opposed to change'. Refusal of radical schemes sometimes, but generally favoring steady improvement -- often toward localism/subsidiarity, education reform, and regulation against corruption.

Opposing statist centralizaton schemes as Conservatives have in the 20th century isn't merely "anti-change", but we have been mischaracterized that way by some liberal dictionary editors, and by Leftist political advocates.

158 posted on 06/01/2006 8:56:45 AM PDT by ProCivitas (Qui bono? Quo warranto? ; Who benefits? By what right/authority ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr

100% absolutely BOTH!!


159 posted on 06/01/2006 8:59:01 AM PDT by JZelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-40
That is true...but will it sell in enough quantities to make it commercially viable?

I have no idea.

But it'll take a website, not a print or TV media. They have limited bandwidth (so to speak).

160 posted on 06/01/2006 9:07:38 AM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: ProCivitas
Well,no, I don't know of any Conservative that equates 'Conservative' with 'opposed to change'.

I think if you read back into this thread, you'll see that this is in fact true. For one good example, post 123.

And that is certainly the def that the outside world knows us for. I've seen Cs on TV rationalize it as, "We only want a change *back* to the way things use to be", and that sort of rot. And this is why Cs are seen as wanting to stop progress. It's why Ls have now tried to switch to calling themselves "progressives", as opposed to Cs 'anti-progress' image.

And this is a big problem with kids growing up now, looking for a political identity. We *must* take back the debate. We must explain who we really are.

And it has nothing to do with being against change.

161 posted on 06/01/2006 9:13:28 AM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Personally conservative in my attitudes and beliefs about how life should be lived,,but opposed to armed people imposing their attitudes and beliefs on people who are not violating other's rights.

On other issues, much the same. I oppose interference with my fundamental right to make my own arrangements with others absent force or fraud.

162 posted on 06/01/2006 9:21:46 AM PDT by Protagoras ("A real decision is measured by the fact that you have taken a new action"... Tony Robbins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
But it'll take a website, not a print or TV media.

Most likely, it will. Anything else would be too expensive for most people. There are some excellent trade publications out there...but they cost a good sum of money and are highly specialized for the most part.

A lot of things that happen in government that are truly important to everyday people go totally unnoticed by everyday people every day. Some of those minor tax changes can really have an impact on Joe Citizen come tax time but the news of the change will probably just pass him by until it is too late. Even the 'Bush is killing the environment' people most always come across kind of hazy if you press them for details.
163 posted on 06/01/2006 9:25:06 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: ProCivitas

Absolutely beautiful. How perfectly articulate. Thumbs up to you!


164 posted on 06/01/2006 9:38:08 AM PDT by Sweetjustusnow (Mr. President and Representatives, do your duty to uphold our laws or you are all gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
At the level of what you most care about there is a split between social and economic conservatives. But that's going pretty deep. Most of the time politicians and people discussing politics don't get that far.

"Fiscal conservatives" are another thing altogether. Some of them aren't especially conservative about either cultural issues or economic freedom. Not that "fiscal conservatism" is a bad thing, or that they're bad people, but they aren't a team on the same playing field as the other traditionalists or libertarians.

One thing that accounts for a lot of the differences: whether one takes automatic knee-jerk positions or whether one tries to think things out for oneself. Ideological divisions are real, but much of the time people are just throwing slogans at one another, rather than trying to think things through.

165 posted on 06/01/2006 10:06:06 AM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-40
"American Idle"

Ha Ha Ha!!! I like it... I love it... I want some more of it!!!

166 posted on 06/01/2006 10:41:52 AM PDT by SierraWasp ((2006)Arnold? Or NO Arnold? (2008)Gore? Or NO Gore? NO DEAL!!! (on either one))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: x
Not that "fiscal conservatism" is a bad thing, or that they're bad people, but they aren't a team on the same playing field as the other traditionalists or libertarians.

Actually, this is the type of thinking that I'm trying to highlight, with this thread.

We better all be on the same team, or we're doomed in Nov. If we can't come to understand that, I don't know what will happen long-term.

'Political' conservatives are folks who believe in being careful with what govt does -- folks who believe in smaller govt, accountability, strong defense, etc. Not all of us are 'culture' conservatives. But they are the ones who were responsible for the '94 R party victory that brought them majority status.

Yet 'cultural' conservatives seem keen all over the place to label political conservatives as not being "real" conservatives. That pushes away the political Cs.

This is critical, I believe, cuz right now, the Rs are scrambling for ways to "pacify the base". But they're talking about things like a Constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage . . . playing to the 'social' conservatives. Which will only further alienate us 'political' conservatives.

Which will only make things worse for the Rs.

167 posted on 06/01/2006 12:33:15 PM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
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?


I was just listening to Michael Savage a few minutes ago and he touched upon this idea. I made a point I always do where if there are no controls, rules, or whatever, there will be men out there that will take advantage for the sake of power and he made the point where in this case, there is no difference between the uber-capitalist and the power hungry communist, both will use the lack of controls to gain power over their fellow man.

I know myself, given the two choices you pointed out, I'd rather choose the society based on Judeo-Christian rules where everyone is deserving of basic dignity and respect. I think without some sort of controls and rules to where society can generally agree on, society will degrade to the point to where someone will gain power over all or most.

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.


I like to look at things and view them and ask the question, "is it right or wrong" instead of "is it donkey/elephant, left/right, liberal/conservative?" I know we seem to have lost the meanings of liveral and conservative but it seems like words change over times. The person who voted for JFK or FDR in the 1960's or 1930's, might have been considered middle of the road or liberal in their times but generally if you brought that person to today's world, most likely, they will have a lot of conservative views. I have a book on politics somewhere, written in the 1980's and I'm sure it can still be updated a bit but the basic definitions still apply where the liberal of today is a member of the "New Left" to where they are very liberal on many social issues. Basically, he was the hippie of the 1960's and part of the bloc that started with the George McGovern type mentality that pervades the Democratic Party from 1972 or so to this very day. Conservatives are made up with a gaggle of business interests, religious conservatives and many disgruntled New Dealers and their children who feels the Democrat party has left them.

I remember Glenn Beck made the point that a libertarian society will not work in today's world and we are not ready for it. I don't think we will ever be, I don't know but you do need to address responsibilities that go along with rights. Even Thomas Jefferson, a hero to many libertarians, made a point to where "if men were angels, there would be no need for government."
168 posted on 06/01/2006 5:57:36 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (Greystone, I'll miss you (5-12-2001 - 4-15-2006) RIP little buddy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
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.


I wish you all the luck, it is a very interesting study of politics and social viewpoints. Much like liberalism, there is no true monolithic conservatism either.

Also, good luck on trying to unite the conservatives, it is a long road to hoe indeed although I'm sure the liberals have much the same problem because they have their own gaggles to deal with ranging from homosexual rights, feminists, and so on, many such groups which might not all see eye-to-eye either.
169 posted on 06/01/2006 6:01:42 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (Greystone, I'll miss you (5-12-2001 - 4-15-2006) RIP little buddy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
I'm looking for a definition of C that actually describes what Cs are.

"Intellectually Bankrupt." That's what "conservative" means if it means someone who claims to be conservative.

We don't need to tailer the word to fit what modern conservatives are, or even claim to be. The word either describes them or it doesn't. Anything else is something other than a conservative approach to the problem.

170 posted on 06/01/2006 10:27:43 PM PDT by Pelayo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Pelayo
The word either describes them or it doesn't.

Well, whether we like it or not, that's the word applied to our grouping of beliefs/philosophies/voting patterns.

So I think it would be useful to come up with an accurate definition of "who we are".

Like I said, the media uses one definition. That def does not describe us. So I disagree with you -- pushing *our* definition of who we are and what we stand for is absolutely a 'conservative' approach.

171 posted on 06/02/2006 5:59:50 AM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Nowhere Man
Also, good luck on trying to unite the conservatives, it is a long road to hoe indeed although I'm sure the liberals have much the same problem because they have their own gaggles to deal with ranging from homosexual rights, feminists, and so on, many such groups which might not all see eye-to-eye either.

Unfortunately, the Ls are united thru their hate of all things Bush-related.

And in the past 2 elections, a disjointed C movement has beaten a unified L movement. If we can find some way to focus on that which unites us, while still hashing out the things that divide us, we *can* turn this country.

172 posted on 06/02/2006 6:02:14 AM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
So I disagree with you -- pushing *our* definition of who we are and what we stand for is absolutely a 'conservative' approach.

I want to push *My* definition of "red" to include other possibilities like... "green." After all, "modern red" has so much more going on under the hood these days.

Words mean things, if you changes them to convenience a political convention they lose their original meaning. You can change conservative to mean the attitudes or philosophy of the modern political movement, but you will not be able to converse with those using the older meaning. You will be speaking a new speak.

173 posted on 06/02/2006 6:33:06 AM PDT by Pelayo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Pelayo
I want to push *My* definition of "red" to include other possibilities like... "green." After all, "modern red" has so much more going on under the hood these days.

'Red' can also mean a communist, tho.

Much like in this case -- a political movement exists. A large group of Americans, actually a majority, believe in 'smaller govt, strong defense, etc'. We call this 'Conservative'.

The current 'definition' that the world uses to describe us, is 'C = opposed to change'.

They have taken control of the debate by defining us.

Well I say it's time we define ourselves . . .

174 posted on 06/02/2006 6:42:09 AM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr

Social Conservative here with elements of the second.

I don't mind rocking the boat however.


175 posted on 06/02/2006 6:43:32 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (In a world where Carpenters come back from the dead, ALL things are possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Much like in this case -- a political movement exists. A large group of Americans, actually a majority, believe in 'smaller govt...

Do they?

176 posted on 06/02/2006 6:46:10 AM PDT by Pelayo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT
I don't mind rocking the boat however.

:-D

177 posted on 06/02/2006 6:49:13 AM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
The current 'definition' that the world uses to describe us, is 'C = opposed to change'.

Whats wrong with that?

Well I say it's time we define ourselves . . .

You use words to describe something based upon what the word means, you do not change the word's meaning to fit what you are trying to describe.

178 posted on 06/02/2006 6:50:19 AM PDT by Pelayo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Pelayo
Do they?

This much I am certain of -- the majority of voters are politicallly conservative.

It's the 'social' issues that chase many people away from voting R.

Many socially liberal people vote D cuz they don't like the social Cs angle. But like with Reagan and with the contract with America, when a person comes along who promises not to push the 'social engineering' policies but instead focuses on the 'political C' ideas of govt accountability, etc . . . then we find out that the vast majority of Americans are politically conservative.

The problem is by far most people, on social issues, are "live and let live". And the social Cs agendas against Gays and such scare many, many voters away from the R party.

179 posted on 06/02/2006 6:53:58 AM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Pelayo
You use words to describe something based upon what the word means, you do not change the word's meaning to fit what you are trying to describe.

Words change their meanings with time.

Just like 'Liberal' doesn't mean what it use to mean. Now it means collectivist, basically. And in this case, I'm not inventing anything -- one definition of 'Conservative' is 'careful'. As in 'conservative with money'.

I'm not changing the meaning of the word at all, therefore. I am using a 'different' word, or in fact a different description of the same word, to describe who and what we are.

I completely disagree with your premise, I'm afraid. Maybe it would be more helpful if I asked you . . . what solution would you propose? What words would best describe people who are 'politically' in favor of smaller govt and strong defense?

180 posted on 06/02/2006 6:58:38 AM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: DBeers
Interesting test. They have me rated as an Extreme Conservative. That's nice.

Presidential scores plotted on the morality matrixmy score plotted on the morality matrix

See, I knew Bush was a liberal!!! ((Smile...))

181 posted on 06/02/2006 7:04:23 AM PDT by markomalley (Vivat Iesus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
...when a person comes along who promises not to push the 'social engineering' policies but instead focuses on the 'political C' ideas of govt accountability, etc . . .

How does smaller government translate to more government accountability? Accountable to what; more government, Or the people? The former means... well, more government, and the latter means more direct democratic populism; we might as well call ourselves democrats.

182 posted on 06/02/2006 7:07:17 AM PDT by Pelayo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Pelayo
How does smaller government translate to more government accountability? Accountable to what; more government, Or the people? The former means... well, more government, and the latter means more direct democratic populism; we might as well call ourselves democrats.

By 'politically conservative', I mean 'politically careful'.

Smaller govt means less govt intrusion into private life and business.

Accountable means when someone is caught doing something wrong, they are fired/prosecuted, etc.

Which doesn't require any more govt, what an unusual suggestion.

This is an interesting conversation, one I didn't expect to need to have.

183 posted on 06/02/2006 7:16:03 AM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Reagan's Speech at the 4th Annual CPAC Convention: A New Republican Party
184 posted on 06/02/2006 7:22:10 AM PDT by michigander (The Constitution only guarantees the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: michigander; Pelayo; All
Wow -- outstanding.

In that speach, Reagan was saying all the same things we're talking about here.

Outstanding find, thank you.

This is the only way we can save the R party.

"Our first job is to get this message across to those who share most of our principles. If we allow ourselves to be portrayed as ideological shock troops without correcting this error we are doing ourselves and our cause a disservice. Wherever and whenever we can, we should gently but firmly correct our political and media friends who have been perpetuating the myth of conservatism as a narrow ideology. Whatever the word may have meant in the past, today conservatism means principles evolving from experience and a belief in change when necessary, but not just for the sake of change."

185 posted on 06/02/2006 7:40:08 AM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Interesting test. They have me rated as an Extreme Conservative. That's nice.

Yes -very nice!

I found it to be a good test.

186 posted on 06/02/2006 7:49:56 AM PDT by DBeers ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
what solution would you propose? What words would best describe people who are 'politically' in favor of smaller govt and strong defense?

Well you have to understand where I'm coming from to understand my answer.

I'm an arch-conservative liberal. Smiler to a libertarian but with a great mistrust of humanity, and no faith at all in the politics of populism. And as such, as much as I like liberty I believe there are limits. As it's impossible for any democracy to be founded on a constitution so strong as to remain permanently inviolate from the effects of the system, so too, there are no guarantees on freedom. Thus I prefer a more organic solution to problems, ie, a solution that relies on natural human instincts and behavior as a fundamental element of its operation. That's the part of me that's conservative. I'm so far to the right in a traditional way that most people on FR are to the left of me.

Thus I'm wary of any popular reactionism, because any such movement would have its only justification in popular will, which however morally and politically orthodox it may be in its ideals at the moment, it is still morally ambiguous in the long run and prone to progressive ideology as a consequence of its form.

So as to your question, I'm not sure, but I do believe the modern political movement under discussion is, (based upon the thoughts and understandings I've gleaned from your posts, and assuming you are a fairly garden-variety example), an idealistic one. So perhaps “Idealistic Neo-Rightist Political-Populism.” Of course such as description doesn't beg but demands the question... so it can't be used in our modern political arena as it's to complicated. In any case “conservative” only describes part of it, and not the most significant vis-a-vis its modern ascendancy.

187 posted on 06/02/2006 8:21:20 AM PDT by Pelayo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Accountable means when someone is caught doing something wrong, they are fired/prosecuted, etc.

Which doesn't require any more govt, what an unusual suggestion.

What you are talking about is some kind of governmental “oversight.” How do you implement oversight in a government without adding to said government? Note: I was talking in a general sense as a political philosophy, not the particulars of our system in which we have extra elements of government who handle that.

188 posted on 06/02/2006 8:35:13 AM PDT by Pelayo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Pelayo
“Idealistic Neo-Rightist Political-Populism.”

Whew!

That is a mouthful.

Altho I'd quibble a bit -- no 'idealism' here at all. In fact, 'Idealism' is what I'm fighting against.

I'm suggesting that politically 'conservative' means careful. Careful to only push for policies and solutions which are proven solid workable systemic solutions.

As Reagan pointed out in that speach, it is the 'ideologues' who are the problem with the R party. The folks on this thread who say, "if you don't believe x and y, you aren't one of us, regardless of your other views".

How do you implement oversight in a government without adding to said government?

By voting the bums out, of course.

My point is we need to vote for politicians who aggressively police their own party. When they don't, when they turn their backs on misdeeds by "their own", we vote them out.

189 posted on 06/02/2006 9:00:02 AM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
The balance of forces in US politics have changed. For most of the 20th century, change came from the left, and being a conservative meant opposing the plans of the left.

For the past generation, liberalism has become more identified with the status quo and change is seen as coming from the right. That's why I said that "fiscal conservatives" didn't seem to be playing the same game as traditionalists (social conservatives) or libertarians (economic conservatives).

There's a lot that's admirable in the older style of conservatism (which you apparently are calling "political conservatism"). I'm not a "movement" guy. But the problem is that such old style, centrist conservatives tend to accept liberal policies if they've been entrenched for a while.

I'm not talking about social security or environmental protection so much as about the judicially-imposed social changes of the the last thirty years or so. I don't think you're going to get any kind of major "rollback" of government economic and social policies (if such a thing ever does come, it will be part of a bigger shift that makes current left-right thinking irrelevant), but I don't trust the Rockefeller-Ford sort of Republicans who simply contented themselves with administering the policy changes imposed by the left.

190 posted on 06/02/2006 10:16:50 AM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
My point is we need to vote for politicians who aggressively police their own party. When they don't, when they turn their backs on misdeeds by "their own", we vote them out.

Are you talking about accountability in a criminal sense, or as representatives of the people's will?

If the former, all that needs to be done is define what is unacceptable corruption and prosecute according to the law. But if you mean the latter, that could easily lead to government dependent on popular mandate for any action, and eventually government would devolve into rule by plebiscite. I don't see that as “careful.”

191 posted on 06/02/2006 5:56:52 PM PDT by Pelayo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent

"And if the town votes to allow prostitution or recreational drug use?"

In Nevada, all of the cities forbid prostitution but most (perhaps all) of the counties permit it. Cities do have strip joints.

Perhaps if someone wanted to open a club where you could go to smoke a joint I think there might be liability issues to think about. Might be solved with an overnight or 12 hour stay on premises required. Or usage of public transportation. I don't know I'm not a dope user.


192 posted on 06/03/2006 8:24:04 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Immigration Control and Border Security -The jobs George W. Bush doesn't want to do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr

I suggest that you wait until Monday evening.


193 posted on 06/03/2006 8:25:16 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Immigration Control and Border Security -The jobs George W. Bush doesn't want to do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
So what do you classify a political conservative who tends to be a-social? Personally, I tend toward the conservative side socially. I'm not willing to compromise constitutional fundamentals on things like "regulating commerce" for social engineering. I don't think the end justifies the means, and will do more long term damage than can be offset by any anything to be gained from it.

If it needs done, then do it right. If it isn't worth the effort to do it right, then it didn't really need done.

194 posted on 06/03/2006 8:53:37 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory; Dominic Harr
You have to be careful asking this because you have many looney libertarians around here.

Short answer it is both and inseperable.

The effort to split the two is a Moby product of the Lackoff "win with words" propaganda scam to try and revitalize the left by arguing the myth that the two are seperate.

195 posted on 06/03/2006 9:24:08 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp
To: Dominic Harr

You guys like taking advantage of the organizational skills and the dedication of religious conservatives, but boy you hate it when it comes time to respect them for what they value!!!

Oh, you hit that one right between the eyes! Nice shooting...

Are all cultures equal? Hell no...

Only a cultural Marxist would think so.

Some just have an ax to grind with the Christians and the Jews... I do not. In fact, I have very little problem with the Hindu or the Buddhist (I have practiced the martial arts all my life, which is really a form of Buddhist movement meditation).

The Islamics and neo-pagans are another story. Their cultures exist only to tear things down.

Like a few quislings here and there, who have no other purpose but to tear down the conservatives in the Republican party and the culture that made this country what it is, I would rather just openly wage war upon them, just as I would unceremoniously nuke Mecca if given the opportunity.

It is no coincidence Islamic pagans hate Israel, Jews, Christians and Western Civilization. The entire basis of Western Civilization is Mosaic Law, something both the Neo-Pagan Left and the pagan Islamic thugs cannot abide and wish to destroy.

It is truly the only reason some are here now and within the Republican party, interlopers from the left who can only defeat America and the Republicans by rotting the party from the inside out.

They want more open primaries, non-partisan state legislatures (making it easier for them to hide and gut the primary process) for just this reason; like they want in Oregon, like the one Leon Puñetta tried to pull off in California, or some other electoral tampering scheme.

There are a few litmus issues you can tell who the enemy is. Just because they have a designer label, doesn't mean they can be trusted...

196 posted on 06/03/2006 9:33:22 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
I defer that "conservatism" as meant by the meaning of the word conservative means "Same old, Same old".. i.e. more of the same.. and that RADICAL is a better term..

People that want radical change BACK to Americas roots..
And that "conservatives"(of all types) are in fact RINOs.. and FEAR the word radical..

When radical political change is what most/many "conservatives" what..
When the "center" is defacto leftist(and it is) radical change is needed.. Gutting the federal givernment is(has become) a radical political platform.. Just USING the word conservative IS disinformation.. Words are important.. and the left has bogarded the language we use for far too long..

Time for a CHANGE, a radical change, when the "right" decides what "the WORDS" mean.. ANY so'called conservative knows that radical change is needed and the Federal Givernment NEEDS to be downsized. gutted like a fish..

Any that DON'T believe that are either a democrat or a RINO.. and that to happen (the gutting) would take radical political change..

NO... conservative MEANS "more of the same".. "Conservative" in ANY of its iterations.. Gradations of the word "conservative" is defeatism masked as intelligent.. using the word DEMOCRATS/leftists have given us.. and its as incorrect as the word "progressive" is.. There is absolutely NOTHING progressive about socialism.. And absolutely NOTHING conservative about destroying it.. It is purely a radical quest..

There is a time for conservatism and a time to be radical.. NOW is NOT the time to be conservative.. So I think you're premise is WRONG.. UNless you are a RINO.. talking to RINOs.. in this thread.. In that case, sorry.. d;-)~',',

197 posted on 06/03/2006 9:46:55 AM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Thank you for every well considered word of your reply to me! I may have hit between the eyes, but you swatted it out of the park and broke several park adjoining appartment windows!!!

Even your tagline has a super "ring" to it! The ring of solid American freedom and liberty. I just makes me wanna salute!!! Salutations to you, Sir Francis...

198 posted on 06/03/2006 3:43:26 PM PDT by SierraWasp ((2006)Arnold? Or NO Arnold? (2008)Gore? Or NO Gore? NO DEAL!!! (on either one))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]


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