Log In | Register
IARNUOCON
Think outside the box? First show me evidence of any thinking going on INSIDE the box.
Articles Posted: 287; Links Seeded: 1276
Member Since: 6/2006Last Seen: 2/09/2010
Member Since: 6/2006Last Seen: 2/09/2010
21 Votes
73 Comments
Newt Gingrich warns of 'destructive' GOP primaries
News Type: Event — Seeded on Sat Nov 21, 2009 9:46 AM EST
Article Source: Politicoadvertisement
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich predicted disaster for his party if the conservative wing of the GOP continues to field independent candidates to the right of the party's nominee.
"If we get into a cycle where there are tea parties and there are conservative third-party candidates, we will make [Nancy] Pelosi speaker for life," Gingrich told POLITICO in an interview Thursday, calling the practice "totally destructive."
But Gingrich, who broke with many fellow conservatives by getting behind the liberal Republican who was nominated but ultimately dropped out and backed the Democrat in a New York special congressional election, admitted that Dede Scozzafava was too far to the left to hold the GOP's center-right coalition together.
"That's a mistake," he said, referring to a candidacy such as Scozzafava's. "But it's equally clear that you can't be a right-wing party and govern the country."
Published to:
- iarnuocon's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: Left of Center, Liberal Atheists, The Big 2008 Election
- Regions: Washington DC
 | Talk About Tainting A Jury Pool | Politico | Wed Nov 18 | 2 |
- Public Discussion (73)
- Left of Center
- Liberal Atheists
- The Big 2008 Election
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
30
9.4
{"commentId":10814936,"authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}
Even the hardcore GOP operatives understand that if conservatives keep throwing conservative-moderates under the bus, it's a recipe for irrelevance. I wonder if they'll get that message through to the ACORN/Birther/Tea-bagger crowd? My guess is "probably not."
{"commentId":10814936,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}
- 25 votes
#1 - Sat Nov 21, 2009 9:50 AM EST{"commentId":10816427,"authorDomain":"ungerbn"}
The GOP is reaping what they have sown.
No sympathy here.
They are singularly ideological and don't give a rat's a$$ about the American public.
{"commentId":10816427,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"ungerbn"}
- 23 votes
{"commentId":10817758,"authorDomain":"AdrianThorn"}
You know this demonstrates why Representative "Democracy" is a joke, why this country fundamentally doesn't work, and why we will forever be stuck with crooks and criminals as leaders. Voting is suppose to be about what YOU want, not about winning a damn election. We vote for people we KNOW will betray us, who we KNOW won't advocate our interests but because we're so set on "winning" we're willing to sell ourselves out. It doesn't matter how terrible the politician is so long as half the nation hates the other side.
{"commentId":10817758,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"AdrianThorn"}
- 7 votes
{"commentId":10817870,"authorDomain":"rkymtnwoman"}
I think he is warning us about Palin and Huckabee
{"commentId":10817870,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"rkymtnwoman"}
- 9 votes
{"commentId":10820811,"authorDomain":"ulicnyp001"}
I like Newt, and he is very gracious in person, but he is no conservative...as his endorsement of ultra-liberal Scuzzyfava in NY23 shows....seemingly, the GOP has not learned a thing from the 2008 loss by McCain..which was caused by disaffected conservatives not voting......and there has been no public disciplinary action against Scuzzyfava for endorsing Owens....doubtless the GOP moderates are blocking it...
I view the moderates in the GOP as the problem....Newt considers it a victory if a Republican wins an election, but if they are all but indistinguishable from a Democrat, I consider the 'victory' Pyrrhic in the extreme.
The GOP takes conservatives for granted, just as the Democratic Party takes blacks for granted....thinking that they have nowhere else to go, politically speaking...
{"commentId":10820811,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"ulicnyp001"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":10821529,"authorDomain":"ThinkingIsGood"}
They are singularly ideological and don't give a rat's a$$ about the American public.
Blind partisanship is at the root of our problems. The idea that one political party is all bad and the other all good is dangerous blind trust. This is the fuel for manipulation of the electorate and the guarantee that politicians will continue to pursue their own interests at our expense.
{"commentId":10821529,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"ThinkingIsGood"}
- 8 votes
{"commentId":10822196,"authorDomain":"ThinkingIsGood"}
Adrian
Voting is suppose to be about what YOU want, not about winning a damn election. We vote for people we KNOW will betray us, who we KNOW won't advocate our interests but because we're so set on "winning" we're willing to sell ourselves out. It doesn't matter how terrible the politician is so long as half the nation hates the other side.
A frustrating reality.
Direct democracy would eliminate the problem we are discussing by eliminating all politicians. We then have the profound challenge of providing a system of direct democracy that a) actually works (logistically) and b) is a net improvement over what we have.
But what if we found a way to infuse more direct democracy into our constitutional republic? We keep representatives to maintain a full time focus on the many complex issues but we institute online referendum's to provide a clearer and more timely voice. We would start with non-binding referendums but evolve to binding as our process sophistication matures.
Assuming we could somehow coerce Congress to enable such referendums do you think something of this nature makes sense? That is, do you believe we can employ modern technology to bring the electorate closer to the workings of government (referendums are but one idea) or are we doomed to wait for a profound disruption of the entire system?
{"commentId":10822196,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"ThinkingIsGood"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":10823348,"authorDomain":"AdrianThorn"}
"But what if we found a way to infuse more direct democracy into our constitutional republic?"
Why keep the King when you can just have the Parliament?
"We keep representatives to maintain a full time focus on the many complex issues but we institute online referendum's to provide a clearer and more timely voice."
Or, in the care of America, vote for bills they've never read. Our representatives don't do very much. They promise things, they have their staff write up Bills, then they introduce them to the Legislature. They're an antiquated apendege and if I had a choice between having a tiny group of people write the bills, having a tiny group of people approve the bills and having a tiny group of people write the bills and then getting to review/argue about them myself...well you know what I'd pick.
"We would start with non-binding referendums but evolve to binding as our process sophistication matures."
Naturally if our decisions are non-binding it would be up to the full disclosure of the politicans as to when our decision making had "matured" to the point where they should liquidate their own positions of authority and resigned for the good of the People. Wow. Sounds like the Leninist conception of the path from Socialism to Communism.
"Assuming we could somehow coerce Congress to enable such referendums do you think something of this nature makes sense?"
No. Part of what makes democracy successful is how active people are in it. If I am simply being bombarded by solutions I haven't had a word in developing regarding issues no one has talked with me about until now, then my interest in participating will be small. Easing our way into democracy as determined by the very people who subvert our wishes already will simply lead to a system designed to be purposefully poor. It will be alienating, complex, slow, and boring to the point where they can come out and say "Well geez, we told you so! You need us! Now lets get back to the Wall Street bailouts, tax increases, and Congressional Pay Raises!"
"That is, do you believe we can employ modern technology to bring the electorate closer to the workings of government (referendums are but one idea) or are we doomed to wait for a profound disruption of the entire system?"
We CAN employ modern technology. Just like we CAN feed all the hungry. The question is really "What reason do the powers that be have to utilize such technologies"? Nothing short of mass protest and rebellion would give them a reason to change - at which point one can only wonder why we would ask for "just a little acknowledgment of our will" when we can simply assert it. Profound disruptions occur regularly. Its not that we need some global catastrophe, its that we need the people to actually WANT to change the system in a significant way. Read through this thread. What do you see? Liberals and Conservatives joining together to assert the retention of the system despite the fact that they're all acknowledging how it is fundamentally rotten. If these people can't even be motivated to not let the corrupt behave criminally and then make a get away with their tax dollars, how could they possibly be convinced to come out in the hundreds of millions to support the radical revision of our constitution and the redefinition of our society as a whole?
{"commentId":10823348,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"AdrianThorn"}
{"commentId":10826609,"authorDomain":"ispeedtoo"}
What is wrong with hunting down the NEOCONs and punishing them?
{"commentId":10826609,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"ispeedtoo"}
{"commentId":10827418,"authorDomain":"AdrianThorn"}
{"commentId":10827418,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"AdrianThorn"}
{"commentId":10833569,"authorDomain":"ThinkingIsGood"}
Adrian
I am not surprised that you recognize problems in what I proposed. I am well aware of the challenge of wrestling power away from Congess:
"Assuming we could somehow coerce Congress to enable such referendums ..."
My reason for asking your opinion is this. With all the thinking that continues on this topic, it is difficult to believe that nobody has offered ways to infuse certain elements (that just happen to be part) of Marxism into our existing system to seek improvement in place (reform). My comments clearly are along this line. So you have found no ideas that you would entertain - nothing can be done short of a total paradigm shift? (I understand that the whole effect you desire requires the entire package - I am seeking selective improvement - attempting to cherry-pick ideas.)
Or, in the care of America, vote for bills they've never read. Our representatives don't do very much. They promise things, they have their staff write up Bills, then they introduce them to the Legislature. They're an antiquated apendege and if I had a choice between having a tiny group of people write the bills, having a tiny group of people approve the bills and having a tiny group of people write the bills and then getting to review/argue about them myself...well you know what I'd pick.
I agree. One thing you and I have not disagreed on is the dysfunctional nature of Congress. However, what you perceive as systemic problems (representative government as a flawed concept) I perceive as a need for refinement. To me it is a net positive to find ways for we the people to be more involved in the decisions made by government. It is a step in the right direction. Thus more direct democracy seems to be an appropriate objective.
Sounds like the Leninist conception of the path from Socialism to Communism
It is certainly analogous. I recognize how difficult it is to change the system in place but I also recognize the difficulty in a successful paradigm shift resulting in a net improvement.
Part of what makes democracy successful is how active people are in it.
I understand your point, always have. Now bear with my seeming contradiction ... My problem with that reasoning is that it holds faith in the ability to achieve this by growing a system from the ashes of capitalism (recognizing proletarian class consciousness would have to also exist) yet categorically dismisses the possibility of meaningful reform. Both of these are tough nuts to crack. (more on this below)
If these people can't even be motivated to not let the corrupt behave criminally and then make a get away with their tax dollars, how could they possibly be convinced to come out in the hundreds of millions to support the radical revision of our constitution and the redefinition of our society as a whole?
We likely agree on this point: if the people are not sufficiently motivated to act/demand in a consistent fashion then nothing will happen. If we keep fighting among ourselves we simply raise the dust which provides cover for corruption and manipulation.
In the future, we will either become entirely docile or start fighting. Both incremental action (reform) and radical action (revolt) depend upon we the people rising against oppression. Why is it more likely to generate the level needed for revolt when the level sufficient for reform is less demanding? (That is a genuine question - I am expecting that this question is answered routinely in your domain. In fact, I suspect the answer is something along the lines that incremental reform might accomplish some improvements but they would be short-lived and eventually reversed by the still-existing system. In the meantime, some of the 'steam' of reform has been released and would need to regenerate. Revolt on the other hand would destroy the system and make its reversal impossible. So the conclusion is that no amount of reform will ever work. Is that the idea?)
{"commentId":10833569,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"ThinkingIsGood"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":10837719,"authorDomain":"AdrianThorn"}
"I am well aware of the challenge of wrestling power away from Congess:"
You're thinking like a liberal. You should know that just because they give you something that doesn't mean its good. I'm pointing out that the problem is multifold, that it is not simply a matter of obtaining power.
"it is difficult to believe that nobody has offered ways to infuse certain elements (that just happen to be part) of Marxism into our existing system to seek improvement in place (reform)."
They did, it was called Social Democracy. You can look into Green politics - Parecon and what not.
"So you have found no ideas that you would entertain - nothing can be done short of a total paradigm shift?"
We know for a fact that you can take elements from Socialist thought and superimpose them on the system. The abolition of Child Labor and the universal provision of education are actually one of the 10 key components Marx listed for the transfer to Communism. These acquired adaptations end up not actually reforming the system but instead perpetuating it. If the Capitalist establishment had not adopted social safety nets and labor reforms during the great depression, Capitalism would have gone the way of the dodo. These reforms are ultimately meaningless without a change to the very core of the system, something which can only occur during a total paradigm shift.
"To me it is a net positive to find ways for we the people to be more involved in the decisions made by government."
It is, but a step in the right direction by a fearful population and dishonest leadership caste can easily become two steps backward. Liberalism is the epitome of the "step in the right direction". It never achieves what it is shooting for, it is always a work in progress, and whenever something goes wrong people abandon the project and return to square one - conservatism.
"It is certainly analogous. I recognize how difficult it is to change the system in place but I also recognize the difficulty in a successful paradigm shift resulting in a net improvement."
As do I, but again I consider the consequences. I'm living in a world of bioengineering, nano research, increasingly portable nuclear weaponry, economic and ecological crisis, and positioning technologies which can locate me anywhere on the planet. The possibilities for genocide, oppression, and the annihilation of humanity as a whole have never been more extreme. Am I going to take my chances and "wait it out"? Am I going to risk another Stalin or Hitler? At what point do the risks of waiting outweigh the risks of change?
"Why is it more likely to generate the level needed for revolt when the level sufficient for reform is less demanding?"
I don't deny that support for reform is easier to come by, I deny the possibility of reform. America is a nation of reform. Have we made progress in some areas? Of course. But not only is this progress slow to come but so is the burden of carried by the exploited or the mistreated constantly being shuffled around. And one doesn't even need to look at America to understand this. Europe has a strong Socialist contigent. The French have overthrown their governments numerous times. The Nords are some of the most collectivist people on the planet. As we speak, Anarchists are warring with the Greek government. These people, their aims, and their committment to reform-minded Socialism? Has it really produced a superior society? Many would say yes, I would say no. A "socialist" reformed state is still a state that is built upon the fragile balance of Capitalism. Right Wingers are signaling Europes rightward shift as proof that Obama-style government won't work, but thats not what is occuring. The money has dried up, so the reforms are being undone. A world where equality and democracy last only as long as Capitialism allows them too? Thats not change and thats not Socialism.
{"commentId":10837719,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"AdrianThorn"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":10837944,"authorDomain":"ThinkingIsGood"}
Adrian
You're thinking like a liberal.
... never been accused of that before.
You should know that just because they give you something that doesn't mean its good. I'm pointing out that the problem is multifold, that it is not simply a matter of obtaining power.
Don't stop there. It is obtaining power and ... ____— ? Do I insert total paradigm shift here?
They did, it was called Social Democracy. You can look into Green politics - Parecon and what not.
I am referring to contemporary Marxists whom you identify with. I was speaking outside of social democracy (I should have stated that more clearly.)
The rest of your post is self-explanatory and clear. While depressing, I appreciate your insight. The one follow-up I have is related to my hypothesis on revolution:
"I suspect the answer is something along the lines that incremental reform might accomplish some improvements but they would be short-lived and eventually reversed by the still-existing system ..."
I am inclined to think, by your answers, that my hypothesis is consistent with contemporary Marxist thinking (my label for your view of Marxism). Is it?
{"commentId":10837944,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"ThinkingIsGood"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":10896794,"authorDomain":"AdrianThorn"}
"Do I insert total paradigm shift here?"
Of course, but not just that. Our thoughts are shifted and our energies are consistently redirected by forces working not through the instruments of government. If you were simply graft a directly democratic organ onto our current system today, sure we would see improvement in some respects, but ultimately the debate would still be focused on trival things rather than on how to continue reform and progress. A paradigm shift doesn't just occur in our thoughts but also in the way we conduct our affairs.
"I am inclined to think, by your answers, that my hypothesis is consistent with contemporary Marxist thinking (my label for your view of Marxism). Is it?"
Marxism dictates that communists - being the class-conscious division of the working class - have no agendas counter to the overal proletariat movement. In political implimentation, you'll generally find that most Radicals are in support of reform that they think will ease the suffering and pain of the working class - even if those reforms prove detrimental to the long term goal of achieving socialism. While there is significant debate over this matter (not to mention plenty of immature dick measuring) overall I think it is a nonissue for most of the Left. I vote, although I think it is a pointless excerise. I protest, though I feel no one is listening. I debate civil matters, although I feel that doing so is nothing more than a distraction from greater issues. I have little faith in reform or pushes towards reform, but I am committed to helping the people in any way imaginable.
{"commentId":10896794,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"AdrianThorn"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":10815157,"authorDomain":"phillips-brian"}
Moderates in both parties are the future.
Churchhouse politicking and ignorant social-conservatism are on the track towards extinction.
{"commentId":10815157,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"phillips-brian"}
- 13 votes
#2 - Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:15 AM EST{"commentId":10820905,"authorDomain":"ulicnyp001"}
" Moderates in both parties are the future. " Really ? Then how do you explain the ultra-left Administration currently in the WH ?? I would argue that to counter that, the GOP has to change into a hard-core conservative party, to offer the American people a genuine choice... which they don't have at the moment....which explains the popularity of Sarah Palin... somebody the average American can identify with...
{"commentId":10820905,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"ulicnyp001"}
{"commentId":10815307,"authorDomain":"Lola-Ohio"}
Corporate GOP- stole all of our money. Conservative GOP- want to steal more of our money and our souls
{"commentId":10815307,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"Lola-Ohio"}
- 12 votes
#3 - Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:29 AM EST{"commentId":10815390,"authorDomain":"sgsteitler"}
Republicans wont win if they are simply an obstructionist party without constructive alternatives to policies they dont want. Simply shouting NO, doesnt make you a leader. It makes you a 3 year old tantrum thrower!
{"commentId":10815390,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"sgsteitler"}
- 9 votes
#4 - Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:37 AM EST{"commentId":10822820,"authorDomain":"arsine3463"}
They'll win if the Democrats mess up badly enough. It took eight years for Bush to do that. The first four weren't bad enough to drum him out of the White House.
{"commentId":10822820,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"arsine3463"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":10815496,"authorDomain":"sonnetizer"}
Newt's a textbook example of one generation's firebrand becoming the old curmudgeon in the next. He gets no respect from the party he built and, by his comments, and he's not making friends with moderates of any stripe. He dismisses the hateful rhetoric in one breath and spews hate in the next. He's the next Pat Buchanan.
{"commentId":10815496,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"sonnetizer"}
- 12 votes
#5 - Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:48 AM EST{"commentId":10815711,"authorDomain":"bonosrama"}
": "I wouldn't underestimate the level of hostility in the secular, socialist wing of the Democratic Party … toward all religion."
Gingrich, a recent convert to Catholicism, said Pelosi, also a Catholic, was among such Democrats.
"I would say that as a San Francisco liberal, she's probably proudly part of that wing," he said. "
Says the adulterous hypocrite.
{"commentId":10815711,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"bonosrama"}
- 20 votes
#6 - Sat Nov 21, 2009 11:07 AM EST{"commentId":10815803,"authorDomain":"Lola-Ohio"}
They plucked Palin from Alaska in 2008 thinking they could get the woman vote from unhappy Hillary supporters after a hard-fought Democratic primary, with no concern regarding intellect or anything else except (R) after her name. The GOP will use her to stir up the base and do the dirty work bashing the new President as he tries to clean up their nasty mess,stall, and sit around sleeping with their feet up on the desk. Why do you think she resigned from her own "high profile" job? Higher calling or avoid any scrutiny of her own job performance. The corporate GOP is playing her like a banjo and will dump her like puppet Bush on their own terms.
{"commentId":10815803,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"Lola-Ohio"}
- 20 votes
#7 - Sat Nov 21, 2009 11:16 AM EST{"commentId":10816348,"authorDomain":"time5428"}
Old Newt is brighter than I have been giving him credit for, can see the Screamers listening to him, all the better for the Democrats.
{"commentId":10816348,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"time5428"}
- 4 votes
#8 - Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:01 PM EST{"commentId":10817699,"authorDomain":"time5428"}
can not see the Screamers listening...
{"commentId":10817699,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"time5428"}
- 8 votes
{"commentId":10820914,"authorDomain":"Mosephus"}
Steven, your right. We, being the dem's. had better listen to him before the Screamers start to understand his message.
{"commentId":10820914,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"Mosephus"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":10827440,"authorDomain":"time5428"}
Your right but we will not. I just keep hoping the Republicans and/or the Teabaggers keep acting badly.
{"commentId":10827440,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"time5428"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":10816617,"authorDomain":"paradoxlost"}
what I don't get is how such a smart man can make the leap from wanting 501(c)3's to abide by their legal requirement to stay out of politics, and claiming that Democrats are simply anti-religion.
{"commentId":10816617,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"paradoxlost"}
- 5 votes
#9 - Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:23 PM EST{"commentId":10817116,"authorDomain":"billy-witchdoctor-com"}
The GOP does have an uphill battle....the GOP need the best help they can get........so I am asking please in 2010..."Mr. President Obama will you please campaign for democrats in Key elections for Republicans?...you are our best Hope for Change"
Thankyou
signed : those who think Joe Citizen should not be burdened with the taxes of healthcare when Insurance companies are evil. and the 2009 elections
{"commentId":10817116,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"billy-witchdoctor-com"}
- 1 vote
#10 - Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:01 PM EST{"commentId":10817414,"authorDomain":"Lola-Ohio"}
Yes, using taxdollars to pay for healthcare is wasteful, when we could be sending it to corrupt defense contractors.
{"commentId":10817414,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"Lola-Ohio"}
- 9 votes
{"commentId":10827291,"authorDomain":"billy-witchdoctor-com"}
No...use your brain.. we could use insurance companies to make this happen ....Example...tax credits to insurance companies which subsidize healtjhcare for those who cant afford it......let govt set the standard for who qualifies...and if Government did not want to tax Joe Citizen,they could use a tax free option, there are more options out there so they dont have to tax people to death....but you are right on one thing we could send it to corrupt defense corporations...instead we send it to corrupt companies which get you loans for a house for illegal aliens who are underage woman and will comiit prostitution...and with their profis from the loans, they will pay drunks at homeless shelters in Ohio to vote 73 times...they are a bunch of nuts.
{"commentId":10827291,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"billy-witchdoctor-com"}
{"commentId":10829913,"authorDomain":"Lola-Ohio"}
Did you ever consider why the immigrants are here? They are coming here for jobs and someone is hiring them. Ever heard of union busting, billy? Start using your brain and follow the money.
{"commentId":10829913,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"Lola-Ohio"}
{"commentId":10818031,"authorDomain":"DirkAZ"}
Don't give Newt and his guys to many ideas. Let them figure it out the hard way. It seems like that some starting to get the drift. I think a lot of mainstream republicans feel uncomfortable with the uprising right wing, as they should. I wouldn't be proud of it either.
{"commentId":10818031,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"DirkAZ"}
- 3 votes
#11 - Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:11 PM EST{"commentId":10818717,"authorDomain":"btco"}
F the GOP. May they die off and be run over by a bus load of corporate tea baggers heading to the next idiots on parade event.
{"commentId":10818717,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"btco"}
- 7 votes
#12 - Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:04 PM EST{"commentId":10827315,"authorDomain":"billy-witchdoctor-com"}
Once again the left goes to the deathcard......why dont you try the race card next time...or better yet go back to what you lefrties do best ...like making laws that pertain to some citizens and not all citizens ...or go back to keeping minorities out of school by not funding the DC voucher program, maybe you could show utter lack of regard for the Constitution....Great Job
{"commentId":10827315,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"billy-witchdoctor-com"}
{"commentId":10829124,"authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}
I suggest you both knock it off.
{"commentId":10829124,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":10819017,"authorDomain":"alexcroley"}
Conservatives are not the problem, the actual Grand Old Party isn't the problem, its the extremist that people believe that think that they have a corner market of what is right. The minority, have become the 'majority' just from either having deeper pockets or louder mouths. I hope that the moderates can wrestle control back.
Happy would be the day where there was debate in the government that was for the best interests of America and not their own.
{"commentId":10819017,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"alexcroley"}
- 4 votes
#13 - Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:27 PM EST{"commentId":10819124,"authorDomain":"themick90068"}
I thinks We should take a cue from Limbaugh and his "Operation Chaos"
-Call conservative talks shows as a conservative who have left the Republic party because
it wasn't conservative enough
- Crash the RNC and demand sarah Palin be named as God's voice of Conservatism on Earth. Demand she is their candidate 2012.
- Change your party affiliation for the primaries, if their are open primaries vote for the farthest out of touch winger. And of course...the Palin.
We could also throw money to whoever the club for growth supports, as the always back a losing horse.
{"commentId":10819124,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"themick90068"}
- 3 votes
#14 - Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:36 PM EST{"commentId":10821688,"authorDomain":"michaellonkouski"}
I have to disagree with Newt, and many other conservatives on this one. I think the GOP needs to make a hard right turn, and regain the true conservative ideology.
I am probably to the right of most mainstream republicans, but to embrace victory over philosophy is part of how the GOP lost it's voting base.
Newt needs to either embrace true conservatism, or watch the real conservatives abandon the GOP, and embrace a new party, focused on advocating the ideological principles that make-up the true conservative philosophy.
{"commentId":10821688,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"michaellonkouski"}
- 1 vote
#15 - Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:47 PM EST{"commentId":10822217,"authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}
Right now, the people abandoning the Republican party are anything BUT true conservatives. They wouldn't know true conservatism if it jumped up and bit them on the ass, as shown by their wholehearted embrace of every conspiracy theory coming down the pike, and their desire to make Sarah Palin the spokeperson of their party. Frankly, if true conservatives abandon the Republican party, and the nutroots abandon the Republican party, you're looking at a three-way split on the part of conservatives, and even less relevance for whatever message they try to get across.
There's only so much crazy a thinking conservative should be willing to embrace. The party of Palin is probably way past that line of demarcation. The conservatives that I know, and they're pretty mainstream, avoided voting for McCain precisely because Palin was attached to the ticket.
{"commentId":10822217,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}
- 9 votes
{"commentId":10822573,"authorDomain":"michaellonkouski"}
the people abandoning the Republican party are anything BUT true conservatives
People aren't abandoning the GOP, as much as the GOP is abandoning true conservatives.
Elements of the GOP have seemingly chosen Sarah Palin as their standard bearer, and that's just bad for the movement. If the GOP wants to shore up their base, and re-capture defectors, all they need to do is get back to the Ronald Reagan philosophy of conservatism.
I am loyal to my political philosophy, not to any party or candidate!
{"commentId":10822573,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"michaellonkouski"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":10822920,"authorDomain":"arsine3463"}
What is a "true conservative?" Is George Will a good example? Is a true conservative fiscally conservative, religious, what? Can you be fiscally conservative but atheist and be a "true conservative?" Are some religions too liberal for a "true conservative" to believe in?
What the hell is a "true conservative?"
{"commentId":10822920,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"arsine3463"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":10823017,"authorDomain":"michaellonkouski"}
{"commentId":10823017,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"michaellonkouski"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":10823261,"authorDomain":"ThinkingIsGood"}
What is a "true conservative?
Here is a starting point:
- non-corrupt 'free' competitive markets
- limited government (control remains with the people)
- government focus on infrastructure, defense, monetary policy, law & enforcement, international diplomacy, etc.
- individual liberty
- personal responsibility (encourage each to care for themselves in direct contrast to enabling dependents of the state)
- equal opportunity but no man-made attempts to engineer equal results
- effects change carefully (in contrast to forcing changing and worrying about the unintended consequences later)
- traditional values (cares about tradition but is not obsessed with it)
Conservatives seek a society in which everyone contributes, everyone has the means to be succesful and the interests and freedom of all are protected by a government that works on our behalf.
Just a starting point .... I am interested in where other conservatives vary from the above.
{"commentId":10823261,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"ThinkingIsGood"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":10823331,"authorDomain":"michaellonkouski"}
{"commentId":10825239,"authorDomain":"arsine3463"}
- non-corrupt 'free' competitive markets
Non-corrupt, fee, and competitive do not occur naturally. At best, you might be able to engineer two of the three. Left unregulated, markets quickly become corrupt and grid-locked. Businesses do best when there is no competition. Society, on the other hand, benefits from competition.
- limited government (control remains with the people)
All government is limited. In general, conservatives push for stricter limits than liberals, because the latter employ government to the benefit of society more.
- government focus on infrastructure, defense, monetary policy, law & enforcement, international diplomacy, etc.
Government allows tasks that do not conform themselves to profitable enterprise to be performed for the benefit of society. The set of appropriate government activities varies between liberals and conservatives.
- individual liberty
A love of freedom does not distinguish a conservative from a liberal.
- personal responsibility (encourage each to care for themselves in direct contrast to enabling dependents of the state)
Liberals strive to help those who cannot help themselves. Take, for example, my disabled son. He will benefit from social programs that are typically the purview of liberal policy.
- equal opportunity but no man-made attempts to engineer equal results
What of man-made attempts to engineer unequal results? Liberal policies attempt to correct such unjust behavior.
- effects change carefully (in contrast to forcing changing and worrying about the unintended consequences later)
Change requires effort and courage. Policy stagnation does not serve the society well. Nor would policy chaos. If either excessive dithering or charging off pell-mell is taken to extremes, it is silly. More subtly, waiting for perfection in human endeavors never accomplishes a damn thing.
- traditional values (cares about tradition but is not obsessed with it)
Again, liberals are not anti-tradition but they may emphasize different traditions than conservatives. Community parenting, the "it takes a village" approach is very traditional, but such is promoted by liberals rather than conservatives.
--
It is interesting that you did not mention religion. Many conservatives believe that fundamentalist religion is a necessary component in their self-definition. There are also government-loathing conservatives - those who actually believe that government performs in an inefficient manner in everything it does.
Of course, we can toss the No-True-Scotsman fallacy around the term "true conservative." Mike answered in Carlin-like fashion, "am the only one." That is probably the truest answer to my question.
But it really doesn't make all those other conservatives not conservatives. It just makes them special.
Conservatives seek a society in which everyone contributes, everyone has the means to be succesful and the interests and freedom of all are protected by a government that works on our behalf.
One can say the exact same thing about liberals. Exactly the same. Contribution, means to be successful, protected interests and freedom, government that works for society.
{"commentId":10825239,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"arsine3463"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":10825942,"authorDomain":"ThinkingIsGood"}
Buckeye Voter
Non-corrupt, fee, and competitive do not occur naturally…
I completely agree. In fact, it is likely impossible to achieve this ideal.
All government is limited. In general, conservatives push for stricter limits than liberals, because the latter employ government to the benefit of society more.
The conservative idea of limited government is focused primarily on limiting the power government has over the people. Size is but a measurement, it is not the intent. For example, conservatives generally have no problem supporting a strong defense (which clearly grows the size of government). But we are very much against the government/state taking control over the means of production and/or gaining control/power at the expense of our liberty.
Government allows tasks that do not conform themselves to profitable enterprise to be performed for the benefit of society. The set of appropriate government activities varies between liberals and conservatives.
Yes. Conservatives see government as an oversight entity that provides overall regulation (set and enforce the macro rules of the game) for the private sector but NEVER itself enters as a player. Government is (and this is all ideal) the agent of we the people.
A love of freedom does not distinguish a conservative from a liberal.
I would hope not, but the two camps have very different ways in which liberty is preserved. The individual liberty (since you prefer to discuss conservatism in relative rather than absolute terms) is in contrast to the liberal preference for statism. Conservatives see statism as an encroachment on liberty while liberals see it as the only way to accomplish certain objectives (with the intent of improving society). For example, liberals tend to favor single payer (and beyond to nationalized health care). Conservatives see this as giving far too much power to government and would prefer government provide leadership and oversight to ensure a competitive market for private sector execution.
Liberals strive to help those who cannot help themselves. Take, for example, my disabled son. He will benefit from social programs that are typically the purview of liberal policy.
Conservatives do as well. Consider the charitable organizations as one example of the concern for fellow man. The key difference has been practical implementation concerns. Liberals are happy to throw money at a problem where conservatives want to identify and address the root cause. Plenty of political spin ensues. Conservatives are demonized - the principle of self-sufficiency is distorted from its meaning of 'teach a man to fish ...' to 'let him die'.
What of man-made attempts to engineer unequal results? Liberal policies attempt to correct such unjust behavior.
You are implying that conservatism seeks unjust behavior? I suspect the word ‘unjust’ is operative. The sounds like it will be an issue by issue discussion.
Change requires effort and courage. Policy stagnation does not serve the society well. Nor would policy chaos. If either excessive dithering or charging off pell-mell is taken to extremes, it is silly. More subtly, waiting for perfection in human endeavors never accomplishes a damn thing.
Agree, the extremes are both very wrong. Conservatives are more cautious and contemplative (longer term consideration); liberals are more risk-taking and impatient (shorter term consideration). Both want results, both seek to take action.
Again, liberals are not anti-tradition but they may emphasize different traditions than conservatives. Community parenting, the "it takes a village" approach is very traditional, but such is promoted by liberals rather than conservatives.
I said traditional because I think most conservatives respect their traditions more than liberals. Frankly (even though it is a common attribute) I think traditional values should have nothing to do with the definition of conservatism. But, it is a common attribute of conservatism to change slowly where liberals are, almost by definition, willing to move on and make the future.
It is interesting that you did not mention religion.
It sure is!! I purposely did not because religion has nothing to do with conservatism. If a conservative has certain religious beliefs those beliefs are a result of his/her religion; not conservatism. That is, religion is not a component of conservatism. Most conservatives are, I believe, religious. Most aethists seem to be liberal (or at least are left of center). Frankly, I think most people think of the hard-core religious right when they use the term conservative. Well, that is certainly a strong group who self-identify as conservatives (which is perfectly fine) but religious beliefs are just that - religious beliefs.
One can say the exact same thing [society where everyone contributes, …] about liberals. Exactly the same. Contribution, means to be successful, protected interests and freedom, government that works for society.
Of course. And that is an appropriate way to end the post. It has been my position for quite some time that the various ‘-isms’ are not as far apart as we think. We are a society of labels and stereotypes. We build up meaning for our labels and when someone comes along who matches attributes of our stereotype we assume that we know all about them as if all conservatives or liberals are identical.
Stereotyping kills useful discourse.
{"commentId":10825942,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"ThinkingIsGood"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":10828751,"authorDomain":"arsine3463"}
You are implying that conservatism seeks unjust behavior?
No. Just that liberals are more likely to utilize the power of government to address them. Overuse of this leads to Nanny-state laws. Underuse allows prejudice to flourish.
{"commentId":10828751,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"arsine3463"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":10834923,"authorDomain":"ThinkingIsGood"}
Buckeye Voter
liberals are more likely to utilize the power of government to address them
There might be two areas where liberals and conservatives disagree on this point. First, unjust ranges from purposeful abuse (e.g. prejudice) to unfair (e.g. some people are born with the skill to hit a 99 mph fastball into the bleachers).
Second is the use of government. Liberals tend to favor government defined, managed and executed solutions while conservatives favor operations to take place in the private sector with effective (another debate) oversight by government. Ideally, the individual is enabled to handle their problems through their own choices ("teach a man to fish ...").
But what seems to gets lost in the heated debates is that there is common ground - that there are 'unjust' factors in our society that we need to address.
{"commentId":10834923,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"ThinkingIsGood"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":10823657,"authorDomain":"Mosephus"}
Tig, you sound like me, I consider myself a moderate. Liberal on some things, conservative on others, and in the middle on many things.
personal responsibility (encourage each to care for themselves in direct contrast to enabling dependents of the state)
I agree, but I believe we should help those who are unable or need a helping hand. Not those that want to suckle at Uncle Sam's tit.
{"commentId":10823657,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"Mosephus"}
- 5 votes
#16 - Sat Nov 21, 2009 9:21 PM EST{"commentId":10824340,"authorDomain":"ThinkingIsGood"}
Mosephus
I believe we should help those who are unable or need a helping hand.
Suffice it to say I would be interested to hear the reasoning of someone claiming to be conservative while arguing that society should ignore the truly needy. I know many like to demonize conservatives - to be like Ebeneezer Scrooge ("... and if they would rather die, they had better do it and decrease the surplus population.").
But, like I said, I am interested in how conservatives differ with what I offered.
{"commentId":10824340,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"ThinkingIsGood"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":10824464,"authorDomain":"michaellonkouski"}
That's exactly it in a nutshell. I am not opposed to helping (even taking care of) the truly infirmed or handicapped. We are attempting to be a civilized and just society. I don't want the truly needy to suffer. What I don't want, is an increased entitlement class. The people that drain from society, but offer nothing in return. I truly believe that if you "give a man a crutch, you make him a cripple".
We can still do our best to help those that truly require our help, without creating entire micro-societies of people who think that the government will take care of them simply because they don't want to take care of themselves.
Conservatives are painted as hate-mongers, racists, war-mongers and religious fanatics...but just because you want the government to live within it's means, doesn't make you anything other than a person who understands math.
{"commentId":10824464,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"michaellonkouski"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":10824590,"authorDomain":"ThinkingIsGood"}
mike
Since you believe there are very few 'true' conservatives, would most self-labeled conservatives agree or disagree with our side-bar topic?
{"commentId":10824590,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"ThinkingIsGood"}
{"commentId":10824656,"authorDomain":"michaellonkouski"}
I honestly don't know. At present, I am not even sure where most conservatives would place themselves on most issues. I think the conservative movement has been corrupted by a few different entities. One is the hyper-religious, the other are people who are basically "democrat-lite".
It seems like most people don't understand the difference between being a fiscal conservative and a strict constitutionalist; and being a social conservative or border-line progressive.
{"commentId":10824656,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"michaellonkouski"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":10824699,"authorDomain":"ThinkingIsGood"}
mike
I have noticed that the terms we use like conservative, liberal, socialist, etc. have truly remarkable variations in definitions. If the nouns do not carry consistent semantics, discourse is next to impossible.
This is one of the reasons we have so many irrational arguments ...
{"commentId":10824699,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"ThinkingIsGood"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":10824761,"authorDomain":"michaellonkouski"}
I am sure you are right. The first thing you do when you want to marginalize someone, is put a "label" on them.
{"commentId":10824761,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"michaellonkouski"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":10824912,"authorDomain":"Mosephus"}
TiG and mike, what a great conversation and exchange of ideas. I agree, the label we place on each other and ourselves is our biggest mistake. Keep pressing your thoughts to both/all sides.
But, like I said, I am interested in how conservatives differ with what I offered.
Or liberals.
Very enlightening. It's proof they we, as a nation need to unite and work together. Our differences aren't that big.
{"commentId":10824912,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"Mosephus"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":10825430,"authorDomain":"AdrianThorn"}
I won't get into the content of your post, because that content irritates me. However I will say that YOU have labeled yourself. If you're unwilling to carry the burdens of that label, don't wear it.
{"commentId":10825430,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"AdrianThorn"}
{"commentId":10825924,"authorDomain":"Mosephus"}
Adrian, what a thoughtful reply. It's obvious you read all of them.
We didn't shirk the burdens, we looked to work together.
It's always nice to see someone can keep the flame of hatred burning. It looks like it irratated your bowels from the crap your writing. Keep up the great work.
{"commentId":10825924,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"Mosephus"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":10826063,"authorDomain":"ThinkingIsGood"}
Mosephus
Adrian was directing his comment at me. His position is that I am ignoring the fact that the term conservatism is an abstraction. The term encompasses many good and bad variants. Adrian wants me to acknowledge and take responsibility for everything that can fall under the label conservatism.
For practical reasons I have not done that but rather I choose to define conservatism in terms of fundamental principles. That irritates Adrian but I am not going to hobble my ability to have discussions on conservatism by entertaining and qualifying the variants each time. Especially since I do not agree with all the variants.
It is personal style. But I will say this, Adrian is not asking (actually he sort of demands) me to do something that he is not himself doing with respect to the label 'socialism'.
{"commentId":10826063,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"ThinkingIsGood"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":10826230,"authorDomain":"Mosephus"}
TiG, I appreciate your clarification.
Again I thought there was a very energetic and lucid conversation taking place.
I guess my question is: why can some posters do this and our so called leaders can't. I see this as the biggest problem in our government.
I've really enjoyed yours and mike's posts tonight. It's nice to interact with people with different viewpoints and engage in valuable discussion. These are just my thoughts.
Thanks.
{"commentId":10826230,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"Mosephus"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":10826288,"authorDomain":"ThinkingIsGood"}
Mosephus
I spend most of my time with those of opposing perspectives. Adrian, for example, and I have logged literally hours in posts (and we DID NOT agree most of the time). It was a valuable experience.
But, I would like to find a way to identify common ground that surely exists across the '-isms'. I am giving that some serious thought right now.
{"commentId":10826288,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"ThinkingIsGood"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":10826433,"authorDomain":"Mosephus"}
TiG,
My time is spent about half and half. The liberal viners hate my conservative views and the conservatives hate my liberal views.
Follow this thread to my more conservative side:http://eric-albert.newsvine.com/_news/2009/11/20/3527078-the-critical-unraveling-of-us-society
I agree with the common ground. That's the only we as a country will move forward.
Again I've enjoyed your comments.
{"commentId":10826433,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"Mosephus"}
{"commentId":10827428,"authorDomain":"AdrianThorn"}
"We didn't shirk the burdens, we looked to work together."
I'm talking about the ideological burdens that come along with a label, not with the theoretical burdens of shaping a society according to your image of its proper funcution. Clearly my post went over your head.
"Adrian was directing his comment at me."
No, it was directed at Mike. I don't like people who @!$%# about being judged but then go out of the way way to assert themselves as a person to be judged. I know your thoughts on the matter.
{"commentId":10827428,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"AdrianThorn"}
{"commentId":10827452,"authorDomain":"AdrianThorn"}
"It is personal style"
Its a No True Scotsman is what it is.
{"commentId":10827452,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"AdrianThorn"}
{"commentId":10829974,"authorDomain":"ThinkingIsGood"}
Adrian
Its a No True Scotsman is what it is.
It is a practical necessity. Terms like liberal, conservative, socialist are overloaded. The use of fully qualified terms (variants and specializations) produces awkward language, esoteric terminology and does not clarify the discussion.
When you discuss socialism you do so at the definitional level. Your discussion presents a sharper, more focused definition than the unqualified semantics carried by the term itself. I similarly discuss conservatism with a focused definition. In the past, I have enumerated principles of conservatism to sharpen the focus. This irritates you because you see this as me redefining conservatism. I see it as dispensing with the noise and enabling a discussion.
The 'No True Scotsman' fallacy is the dynamic redefinition of a term to fit the needs of a particular situation. It is an evasive technique that does not hold fidelity to a definition. Contrast that with a consistent and considered definition of an overloaded term.
{"commentId":10829974,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"ThinkingIsGood"}
{"commentId":10832035,"authorDomain":"AdrianThorn"}
"Contrast that with a consistent and considered definition of an overloaded term."
Which I don't consider your definition of conservatism to be. You make of pointing that you've never met a conservative who didn't agree with the principles you put out, but when I make a criticism of a person or their actions that agrees to such principles, suddenly a conservative isn't a conservative if they just profess to these principles but rather if they adhere to these priniciples in a manner that you approve of. Its a self-selective definition that, at its heart, works just like the No True Scotsman.
I remember right after the invasion of Afghanistan when I was arguing with conservatives over the merits of Bush. I deplored him, they praised him as a true and blue conservative to be followed. Two quagmires and an economic meltdown and suddenly all of the self-professed Neo-Conservatives never voted for Bush and were "always" Libertarians. Their arguments haven't changed, those basic principles haven't changed, but now that they and all their little heroes have been discredited we've once again seen the "redefinition" of what a conservative is.
I do discuss the definition of Socialism, I do weed out the lies and distortion - but that is only accomplished by relying on source documents and materials. I don't define socialism, I simply connect the dots and disprove definitions that do not fit with that reality. If tomorrow morning we had the revolution, if the day after that a dicator emerged by the vote of the people and filled 800 million people, I would have to answer for that. I wouldn't get to say "well, thats not in line with socialist principles" or "thats not what I intended" or "thats not what I believe socialism produces". I don't see that from you. Instead I see the same kind of Trotskyst semantics which convienently place blame on people who look curiously like you but "just aren't you".
{"commentId":10832035,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"AdrianThorn"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":10832682,"authorDomain":"AdrianThorn"}
That was a terriblely written post...
{"commentId":10832682,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"AdrianThorn"}
{"commentId":10834273,"authorDomain":"ThinkingIsGood"}
Adrian
You make of pointing that you've never met a conservative who didn't agree with the principles you put out,but when I make a criticism of a person or their actions that agrees to such principles, suddenly a conservative isn't a conservative if they just profess to these principles but rather if they adhere to these priniciples in a manner that you approve of. Its a self-selective definition that, at its heart, works just like the No True Scotsman.
It would be 'No True Scotsman' if what you described actually happened (bold) - especially your use of the phrase 'approve of'. Reading your interpretation (and trusting this is not simply gamesmanship) explains your attitude towards my view of conservatism. If you criticize a person who identifies as conservative and the criticism is not of principles of conservatism but of specific actions of an individual why would I accept that as a criticism of conservatism? Conservatism is not the union of beliefs from those who identify as 'conservative'. (This sounds like a familiar argument.) If a person's actions are not consistent with conservatism then they are not acting according to conservatism, right? They are acting based upon a foreign bias or philosophy.
Apply this to yourself. If a self-labeled Marxist professes to the principles of orthodox Marxism (e.g. direct democratic control over the functions of business and government) but when given the opportunity institutes an authoritative single-party state I would think you would not 'approve' of that. You would find that to be a violation of Marxism. If a Marxist argues for a strong central state which rations ALL property (including personal) in an egalitarian society then you would say their position (and actions) are inconsistent with Marxism. Suddenly this Marxist is not a Marxist. Not because you decided so but because the actions are now inconsistent with Marxism (as you understand it, by the way).
Back to me. If a 'conservative' runs around arguing in favor of government control over private sector businesses (e.g. GM) or argues that world peace requires the USA to set the example by disarmament or that government should actively engineer 'fairness' then it really does not matter what principles he/she 'professes to'. This behavior is inconsistent with conservatism.
Orthogonally, if a conservative argues that being gay is an unnatural 'choice' then he is speaking from a bias that has nothing to do with conservatism. (Yet this person may in fact be otherwise well-aligned with conservatism.) If a conservative argues that society should ignore those who 'cannot keep up' he is not channeling conservatism. (There was a guy on NV who made this argument.)
There is no perfect application of any ideology, belief or philosophy. I do not see much point in using human beings as exemplars for conservatism (or any other -ism). Conservatism is, in my view, better described in terms of principles than people.
I will accept criticism when I am inconsistent. If I were to change the definition of conservatism I describe to fit the situation then you would be correct to criticize. Since I have never knowingly done that, I am confident your criticism is misplaced.
{"commentId":10834273,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"ThinkingIsGood"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":10827276,"authorDomain":"right-to-sucede"}
I think Newt is off base. Polls show most Americans have libertarian style, Thomas Jefferson style views. The Socialist Party (democrats) and the World Superpower Party (republicans) are not putting forth the policies most Americans believe in. The liberty movement is huge and will become dominant. Socialism still holds promise for some but the party of world empire is dead. The party of the religious right is dead. This is the republican party Newt knows. If if remains of this refuse to accept the liberty movement, then a Liberty Party will form and take the republican party's place. Newt thinks the solution is to incorporate 'moderates'. Maybe he thinks Republicans can continue their big government ways if they just incorporate some socialist big government ways too. THe old guard republicans need to recognize neoconservativism is dead. The people want limited government. The liberty movement if accepted as the new republican platform will attract new moderates, independants and people of all types.
{"commentId":10827276,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"right-to-sucede"}
#17 - Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:34 AM EST{"commentId":10829351,"authorDomain":"Wheel"}
Even here in NC, a long time bastion of the Republican party I'm seeing deep fissures. Especially between the old and the young. The old are ultra conservative but the young are facing a future without much hope of employment and they (rightly IMHO) blame the Republican party for that.
I find myself in an unusual position. I've been Democrat and liberal all my life, making me not too popular in political debates. :) Suddenly, people that have refused to discuss politics with me for YEARS are starting to open up, just a bit, to the notion that the Republican party might just not be what they've been lead to believe it was, at least nationally.
Locally I suppose you could say it's still got some legs but in acuality a lot of the so called Republicans in local elections would be considered conservative Democrats anywhere else but here. By that I mean fairly liberal socially but conservative fiscally. You won't see people picketing abortion clinics but you will see them protesting govt waste and excess spending.
{"commentId":10829351,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"Wheel"}
- 2 votes
#18 - Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:15 AM EST{"commentId":10830029,"authorDomain":"EllieP"}
Wheel, my friend, I must disagree with what you've said about NC politics. Though the citizens are conservative, the Democrats sadly are not (fiscally) conservative and have run the state for decades - to its detriment, imho. Among southeastern states, we are highly taxed. And, I don't know of anyone who blames Republicans for NC's unemployment rate. It has been rising under Democrat leadership for a long time. Perhaps you are saying NC young people blame national Republicans for their unemployment? I've still not heard that; but, then again, I haven't heard everything.
FISCAL conservatism is going to be the unifying issue in the state, and probably nationally. Focusing on fiscal conservatism will bring many independents and Blue Dogs on board, too.
{"commentId":10830029,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"EllieP"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":10832408,"authorDomain":"Wheel"}
Ellie, I'm going to make some guesses here. Tell me if I'm wrong.
You live either in the Charlotte/Wilmington axis or around Asheville (maybe Raleigh/Durham). Nowhere near southside Va or any of the poorer counties out on the coast. Am I right about that?
I live on the border with southside. Whenever I go to work in the Charlotte or Asheville areas it is literally like going to another state.
{"commentId":10832408,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"Wheel"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":10833505,"authorDomain":"EllieP"}
Greensboro. Not far from you. (We'll call you when frostyone comes through town headed to Danville.) The Triad is very "blue" in the cities surrounded by red. Not much different from other southern towns. I agree that Asheville and Charlotte, even RDU and down east are even moreso.
{"commentId":10833505,"threadId":"729875","contentId":"3528260","authorDomain":"EllieP"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":10838146,"authorDomain":"c123456789"}
{"canLink":false,"threadId":"729875","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop Tracking
COMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2010 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
