[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
Mike Gravel, yes he does believe in nationalizing health care. But he also believes anti war, anti tax, and term limits on Congress. So for the most part he is conservative, just because one of his views is liberal doesnt that he isnt conservative.
[/quote]
By the way, how can a person believe in nationalizing health care and still be anti-tax? This stance seems contradictory.
Lots of Doublethink Juice.
It’s possible. However, some actions would actually need to take place to change the mentality toward the GOP.
Well, there’s always inflation.
The GOP has seen worst days, its just the ebb, and flow of American politics. The GOP just happens to be in a slump right now, but give them another four years, and they’ll be back in the limelight.
[/quote]
IMO, the GOP might eventually become irrelevant (possibly due to the eventual emergence of a ‘new’ New Right, which has been slowly gaining in internet popularity in recent months on reddit, as well as passive references in other places), or even renamed, but you can already tell from the reactionary attitude of the media, people who consume said media, & other politicians that the stage is being prepped for an eventual possible GOP reactionary “victory”.
Are you trying to defend conservatism? If so, read your post again. It seems more of an indictment than a defense. You and I were in complete agreement about a year ago. I even considered myself an “independent conservative”, not a “Republican”. I bashed the Republican Party for not being “conservative”. In fact, I wrote letters to “my” U.S. Senators and “my” U.S. Representative in Congress! YES! (I thought) I WILL WRITE LETTERS TO TELL THEM HOW I FEEL! THEY WILL CHANGE! THEY WILL SEE THE LIGHT! WE WILL RECLAIM THE HIGH GROUND OF CONSERVATISM FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY! Well, all that happened was that I began to realize how foolish I was to waste my time on such efforts.
Look, this is the reality: The Republican Party (RP) has not abandoned conservatism. The RP is exactly what it always was, and always will be. In fact, this is by design. It has not been “high jacked” by RINO’s. No. The Republican Party is EXACTLY what it intended to be: The Big Government Party. Look at what it has DONE, look at your own examples of what it has done. G.W. Bush was their two term President of U.S. He was their de facto “leader”. I voted for G.W. Bush twice! Ha! What a fool I was! I contend G.W. Bush represents the “essence” of the Republican Party. Isn’t it becoming more clear now?
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
We have to provide safety for our citizens FIRST before we go off trying to save the whole world.
[/quote]
How does government provide safety for our citizens? Then, do you imply that after this is accomplished, we should go off and save the world, or do we not save the world at all?
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
This is why American charities that help foreign countries piss me off. For example, when a charity asks for food to send to Africa. WHAT?! We have starving kids in America that we should be helping. Another thing that makes me furious is when people adopt in foreign countries. We have poor kids in America that need homes too. Are you just going to throw them under the bus because you rather help a kid in a foreign country?
[/quote]
What difference does it make if charities send food to Africa? Why should that disturb you? Why are there starving kids in America after the U.S. Congress has indebted the U.S. Taxpayer to the tune of $12 trillion, growing at $2 trillion per year? Isn’t it puzzling that the government still hasn’t “provided safety for our citizens” as you mention, and there are still starving kids? (Mmm, something fishy is going on here, but I’ll leave that up to you to figure out what it is. HINT: Keep reading Mises.org for the clues…) Along the same lines, what does adopting children from anywhere have to do with “conservatism”. Would conservatism propose to prevent these adoptions by force of law? You mention that America has poor kids; again I ask, what was the $12 trillion used for? It’s puzzling, isn’t it?
Please don’t take my somewhat sarcastic comments personally; I invested many years supporting the Republican Party. You are still young, there is time for you to realize that the two party system is a mirage. So, I offer free of charge the lesson I learned after being on this Earth twice as long as you have been; In the U.S., there is only one party, the Big Government Party. Two parties are required in order for those in power to obtain what they call “legitimacy”. Notice there is not “one party” (the people will suspect dictatorship), and there are not more than two parties (too difficult to play the game). There are exactly two parties. Now, the purpose of the Democratic Party is to 1) Implement socialism, and 2) enrage Republican voters so they show up at the polls (remember, “legitimacy”, there must be strong voter turn out no matter who wins). The purpose of the Republican Party is to 1) Expand the Empire, and 2) enrage Democrat voters so they go to the polls (voter turn out, legitimacy). You see, this is the One Party System. When you think about how both parties behave, isn’t it all beginning to make sense now?
I would say conservatism implies big government. Yes it sounds strange but step back and think about what we are talking about here. Establishing a moral code beyond basic rights concepts. Establishing the paternal family as the basis for familial society. Establishing marshal values. [ I think ] establishing a disregard for the actions of big corporations. I’m not saying they are completely anti-free market, in some sense they are, but there seems to be a projection of ‘Well progressives and socialists are anti-corporation…we’re not socialists or progressives..therefore we are pro-corporation’ which can rapidly degrade into a mentality of acceptance for any actions taken. You are exactly right though, the GOP was formed out of the Whig Party. This party was established on protectionism, mercantilism, evangelical values, and an unwavering faith in the centralization of government that could be utilized to bring about post-millenialist values. It is not as if the religious right just suddenly popped up out of nowhere, it was always there.
Here is an interpretation the “Mary Poppins” reply. For those of you that “got it”, skip this reply. For those of you, like me, who were slow on the uptake, here is what I believe it means:
Mary Poppins is the Republican Party. The “children” are the Republican voters who are unhappy that the Republican Party has abandoned “Conservatism”. The “sugar” is Conservatism. The “medicine” is Statism.
So, there we have it. Mary Poppins tells the children that “a spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down…IN A MOST DELIGHTFUL WAY!”
The analogy, I think, is spot on.
I agree. I did not intend to imply that “Conservatism” was something of value that should be defended.
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
We have to provide safety for our citizens
[/quote]
Do you work for the government? Or when you say “we” do you mean all the people in a geographic location? If it is the latter, could you please provide some evidence showing I have any responsibility to provide anything to anyone? Or was this just a Freudian slip and you meant to say “the government” instead of “we”?
I don’t know what “real conservative” is. No definition has been offered that has wide support. What make this a useful word?
I think the most reasonable definition of a conservative would be to link it to the great who opposed social mobility and loss of hierarchy during the Industrial Revolution. This group would support limited government and free markets, so long as it was superimposed on an institutional structure of cartelized banking and corporatism. This is exactly what the GOP tends to support today when it is “sticking to principles.” They shiver at the thought of harming that institutional structure. The party was formed to promote Whig type ideas under a new name, so if the GOP wants to go “back to its origin” it should support Obama’s “shovel ready” nonsense, and warfare. In short, I have no idea what a conservative is, and I don’t care.
You said that being a conservative means being isolationist, yet then you proceed to name the likes of Murray Sabrin and BJ Lawson as conservatives. Neither are isolationists. They don’t want to kill trade like the isolationists do. Also, why would you include the warmonger and dirty politician Newt Gingrich? Why would you include the socialist Mike Gravel on that list too?
To the original poster that’s trying to defend Newt Gingrich, here’s a fun fact, he supported a bill that would have given inner city and under-‘privileged’ children laptops and computers for home use. If he’s a conservative, why does he want or has wanted to spend like a drunken Democrat?
What exactly does it mean to be conservative? I never understood this. It always seemed like a mix of classic liberalism with arbitrary inconsistent holes filled up with nationalism. I always feel like they copy cat libertarian’s or AE economic arguments at their convenience to bolster arguments on a convenience basis but never follow through with the same arguments when it addresses their cultural values.
An honest person will tell you that the term is more or less dead nowadays, and it’s popular usage is typically used to identify anything that isn’t liberal, another dead term, which uses conservative as a term to identity anything not liberal, which is another dead ter-
:head explodes:
Wow that didn’t take long. Let me try again. Whats the meaning of life?
Hmm. Well, I suppose I’m in favor of ‘isolationism’, as a consequence of my rejection of the state. I would consider myself more of a social radical than anything.
Conservatism is more of a philosophical movement than an ideological one. My understanding of conservatism is that it consists of protecting and defending the traditions and customs of a particular society. Thus, conservatism can vary from region to region, based on the cultures present in those regions. A Chinese conservative, for example, has completely different ideological beliefs from a German conservative.
Calling yourself a conservative right now is akin to calling yourself a socialist of the nationalist variety. The same as Liberal now is a socialist of the lenninist variety. Agree with a conservative platform partially you are nazi. Agree with a liberal platform partially and you are a Commie. No wonder it’s so easy for liberty to slip.