Free Republic

“So before the mods go yanking this one, there’s a reason behind this post.”

Realize this sounds bad. My apologies: by this, I mean that I’m not some liberal coming here looking for a fight.

A friend posted this article, and I respond, asking exactly how it is that liberals get to define "true conservatives". An argument ensued, and is now at the point where I'd like to get direct feedback from self-identified conservatives on two questions:

1) The article lists what the author considers three good things about conservatism. They are:

* "First, conservatives are suspicious of innovation and therefore subject all grand plans to merciless interrogation" * "Second, conservatives respect old things and old habits." * "third ... a suspicion of human nature and a belief that humans cannot be remolded like plastic."

(Make sure you read the article to put these quotes in context)

So question #1: How accurate do you think these descriptors are of conservatism as you personally understand it?

2) When I argued that it was not this person's place to be defining "true conservatives", one person respond with the following claim: "...the article is not specifically targeted towards conservatives as a way to improve themselves. The article is by a liberal, intended to entertain liberals. To take it any other way is kind of silly..."

So my question to you: if you read this article without any lead-in or explanation, would you take it, as a conservative, as addressed to you?

I'd like to get as much feedback as possible, agreeing or disagreeing, to make this scientific inquiry. I think it's absurd on some level to think that it was not addressed to conservatives, but perhaps I am wrong, and I alone am not the one to make that determination.

Just to clarify, I am not a self-identified conservative, but I have been on this board a long time, have posted multiple articles, taken part in many conversations, and have been politically active in pro-freedom causes all throughout my life. So even though I'm not here much these days, I didn't just start posting here for this. Take it as you will, but I believe in full disclosure. Thanks for all of your feedback.

Hard to believe, I know. He doesn't vote for nearly enough spending.

That statement is in direct odds to the quote I posted. His statement again: "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism". That is a very different statement than claiming that he only agreed with libertarianism where it happened to have a cross-section with conservatism.

You can NOT suggest that Ronald Reagan wanted anything to do with libertarianism. He didn’t.

So he "didn't want anything to do with" a philosophy that he himself stated is at the core of his own? How does that work?

Only one of the above two statements can logically be correct. So which is it? Your own interpretation, or Reagan's own direct words? (And do note: I never "interpreted" his words. I did nothing more than post them exactly as he said them. As far as I can see, the only person "interpreting" them is you. I also, as an aside, never claimed that you did not read the quote, but simply posted it either way.)

Please feel free to show me exactly how it was “misinterpreted”.

What Obama is doing is exactly the sort of subtle race-warmongering that I was most afraid of. This will be the final thing that breaks us as a people for good. Reparations are as abhorrent as it gets.

But...

This is also the reason for any problems "blacks" might be having as a group. They are every last bit as capable as any other group, and any suggestions to the contrary is outright racism. But when you are treated like a victim, you start thinking like one, and that is exactly what is happening here. In other words, the oligarchical powers have a vested interest in making everyone feel helpless, and wholly dependent upon their good graces. They do it with everyone, but it is easier to do with blacks given the history of how we all got here.

When you react like this, you only feed right into their plan. To the extent that modern blacks are "victims", it is that they are victims of the state, not of any race. They are more victims of the first black president than any one of us. To get them, and anyone, to think that way is exactly their game. *Don't* play along.

"I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. ... The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom, and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

-Ronald Reagan, 1975

“I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. ... The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom, and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”

-Ronald Reagan, 1975

I stopped posting on here years ago when it became BushBot central. Every now and then something makes me poke my head back in to see if this place has become any saner.

Ron Paul is as clear a litmus test on limited government as we'll get in our lifetime. He has a pro-freedom resume as long as the entire rest of the GOP field put together. "Not conservative"? Heh, yeah. Hey, tell me, who did you guys nominate in 2008 again?

I'm quite happy to watch from the sidelines and wait for the GOP to admit that Paul is right. And if they don't... I'll find my freedom with or without them. I would just prefer with.

He, in fact, predicted 9/11 would happen as a result of Clinton’s foreign policy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZtPzOukjZA

If Ron Paul isn’t conservative, then there is no principle left in conservatism worth fighting for. End of story.

He never said that, he never said that, yes, and he never said that. Next.

There were a small number of them that I saw. There were also quite a few people complaining specifically about the Democrats and/or Obama. The crowd was definitely not 100% politically homogeneous; just about every ideology was accounted for at some point. Though from what I saw I'd say general anarcho-leftist followers accounted for probably (goes out on a limb here) ... say 90-95%?

Well yes, quite a few.

>Wrong.

>It is the reality of our system of government

I can't believe this simple point isn't getting through. I'll try again.

Both our system of government and what we do with that system is the collective result of our individual choices. Remember that whole concept? I know that the god of "individual choice" kind of get left out of the GOP pantheon a few elections back, but trust me, it still exists.

There is nothing, zero, nada, not a single thing in the world preventing us from collectively choosing to elect someone to the presidency besides these two. Nothing. Heck, for that matter, there's nothing preventing us from nominating someone else: the convention hasn't actually been held, you know. The "reality of our system of government" is so because we choose it to be so. The reality of who we tend to vote for given that reality is also our choice. If the odds are low of a minor party candidate winning, it's because we have chosen to make them low, nothing more.

So I didn't ignore your points. I simply maintained, and continue to do so, that they are irrelevant. I'd also disagree strongly that it is those points solely that have gotten us into the ugly mess we're in now, but that's a separate topic. The point is that those systems, like what we do to them, continue to exist by the choice of people like you. Without your support, they wither and die. The "odds" are of our making, nothing more or less.

Still don't believe me? Let's try an exercise. Let's pick a random person on the street. Now before we talk to them, let's bet whether or not this person has worn a blue tie around his ankle that day. What are the odds of that, you think?

Let's say a billion to one. OK, then. Let's move it to me. Will you bet me one billion of your dollars to one of mine that I haven't worn a blue tie around my ankle today? Hey, that's what the odds say. That must be "reality". I have no control over it. Right?

Our system of government and what we do with it are not "hands dealt to us" or "realities" handed down from above, or anything else that implies that someone else besides us are in control of them. We are in control of them. Completely. If we wanted, we could elect Mike Schmidt. Or Albert Einsten. Or the entire Brady Bunch. Or we could move the election to tomorrow. Or never. Or we could all stay home and play Parcheesi.

And the only thing that affects whether or not these things happen is our choice. Nothing more. Let me repeat: nothing more.

I have NEVER suggested, nor would I, that it is impossible to change our system of government

I'm sorry to have gleaned that, but that is what your statements translate to to me. If you really believe that, though, then there is at least some hope for our agreement.

If that's the case, then I have to disagree with you. In my opinion, our system of governmental system has became a zombie: dead, and doesn't know it.

I suggest that it is my studied conclusion that it would be quite STUPID to change our system of government, *in regard to the three particulars set out above,* no matter how easy or hard it is.

Well, I would take all of what this election is showing us as proof that our system is fragged and a reboot is needed. When there is an election in which not only does half of the population doesn't participate but most of them don't like their candidates, and it's been like this several cycles in a row, I would suggest that the time for change has come.

Don't worry: I have no illusions about how hard it is. But it is my God-honest opinion that at this point, there is absolutely nothing left to lose. As far as I'm concerned, this election might as well have been held in Russia. And just to be sure, I am working on something. The chances of it coming off right?

Oh, I'd say about a billion to one. :-)

Cheers. I think we've gotten to the center of the disagreement, and as such, have probably taken this thread as far as it will go.

Really? Well, I'll be! So could you be so kind as to pass on tomorrow's lottery numbers? The results of the next Super Bowl would be grand. And you can throw in a stock tip or two while you're at it.

You continue to miss the point; the whole target, for that matter. Yes; if you were to give me even money, I would bet that a major party candidate would win. I'm not questioning that.

What you're missing repeatedly, is that it is this way because you make it so. Election results are not handed down from the heavens, nor or they dice rolls. The realities of what makes them true are so because of the people that participate. People like you.

The point of this is not to make some prediction about what is going to happen. Unlike you, I don't claim that power. The point is to remind you that history is not something that exists outside of our actions like some movie that we passively watch. We make history. The point isn't too predict; it's to decide what our actions will be today. Not the 1830's, not during Teddy Roosevelt's time, not during the Reagan era. Today.

And today, I see not a single reason to enable this one-arty-two-headed disease of a state any longer.

Let me point out something that you might have forgotten: every revolutionary force in history was so because they broke with historical trends, not followed it. See my image above for Exhibit A in this category. If you want to keep telling yourself that you can't do this, be my guest. Bragging that you're doing what history has ordered you to do only engraves your name deeper on those chains around your wrists. And I'm not telling you that you need to take them off. Feel free to keep them. Just please don't suggest that because you don't want to do what is necessary to take them off that it must simply be impossible.

Thank you. Like these men, I have no intentions of it.

Just rather a shame that their spirit is so foreign to a forum like this that should be the among the first to understand it.

No actually, responding to an analogy by claiming it is not a fit descriptor is the first resort, not the last.

Doesn't matter that American Idol is all you said.

No actually, it does. I did "deal with the analogy" by pointing out that you are right, that it is nothing more than a circus that we don't have to honor.

Beyond that, of course, it's flawed, because you don't pick the winner. If we were all David Hasselhoff and Paula Abdul then you'd have a point. If that were the case, each of them could still damn well pick someone who hadn't qualified. Not a damn thing stopping them.

Your analogy would be more apt if you stated, "Well, I like this other show better, but nobody watches it, so I guess I'm just forced to watch Idol."

but that does nothing to take away from the fact that it's pretty stupid to sit in the stands and cheer for a team to win that is NOT EVEN PLAYING IN THE GAME.

And what if the team were actually in the game but just had a smaller but still non-zero chance of winning like, oh, a third-party candidate?

Nobody, least of all me, is trying to tell you how to think.

But you are happy to let other people tell you. Is John McCain your first choice?

>>There is no reason that it is any less possible for anyone to win this election.

>Yes, there is. It's called reality.

Then your reality is apparently different from mine, since in mine "difficult" and "impossible" are not synonyms.

You are right back where you felt prompted to post to me in the first place: cheering for the Ravens, so to speak, in a Super Bowl between the Giants and the Patriots.

And you're right back to me showing you the flaw in your analogy. If everyone in your hypothetical Super Bowl cheered for the Ravens, they would still not win. If everyone in November voted for Ross Perot, he would win. You seem incapable of understanding this critical distinction.

I'm not a slave because I realize and accept the reality that in a Super Bowl between the Giants and the Patriots, either the Giants or the Patriots are going to win.

No, but you're a slave if you think you have as much control over the outcome of a game as nothing more than a fan as you do as a voter fully exercising his rights in an election.

For my part, I would say that the "moment you decide that REALITY---the hand you've been dealt---is too hard," and therefore you decide to nurture fantasies such as someone other than the Republican or Rat nominee will win the presidential election in 2008, that's when you've got a problem.

My "problem" then, as you seem to agree with, is nothing more than the realization that my reality is what I make it to be, not what some higher powers beside God "deal" me. And God didn't create the GOP.

And I agree: in this world, feeling this way is something of a problem. But the power to change your own world... that is reality. And you're the one running from it because it's too difficult to consider.

The same evidence that anyone without a time machine has. Zero.

And I believe that today he would say exactly the same about the party he went to after them.

Writing in Reagan as an independent. The thought of that is almost enough to get me back into the voting booth.

A corporate-controlled beauty contest of an evil corporate media oligarchy in which has-beens that can't get a job anywhere else decide for us who of the pretty, plastic vapid entertainers is going to represent our world, while all of the hypnotized viewers that are leeched from ignore the fact that the whole circus would be pointless and would stop existing on a dime if we just stopped giving them all our attention and energy and lived our lives the way we wanted to, societal pressure or banal institutions be damned?

OK, now you've got the beginnings of a good analogy.

I don't let other people tell me how to think. I support who and what I want, and don't put my finger up to the wind to do it for me.

Besides, your analogy fails on one other critical point. The people watching the Super Bowl don't decide who wins. The players do. Every last person in the stands could be a Patriots fan, but if the Giants score more points, it doesn't matter half a hoot.

The media, the corporations, the established parties, none of these people decide who will win the election. The voters do. You do. There is absolutely no reason we are ever forced to only choose from the choices we are given, especially when they're as much a nightmare as this election is. There is no reason that it is any less possible for anyone to win this election. The moment that you decide that what you really want is too hard, so you'll just always settle for the restricted set of options your rulers have been so kind as to force feed to you, you become a slave.

Enjoy that life, if that's what you want.