Conservatism; then and now

[bascule]

Let me start by saying that I'm a liberaltarian and thus stand for a limited subset of conservative values. I'm also enamored with Ron Paul and the staunch disconnect he provides with modern (i.e. neo)conservatism.

 

Whatever happened to ideas like:

- fiscal responsibility

- limited government

- personal responsibility

- individual liberty

- states' rights

- isolationism

 

Neoconservatism, at least under Bush, has advocated a policy of:

- rampant, fiscally unsound spending

- massive expansion of governmental power

- governmental responsibility for individual safety

- stripping of liberties to promote the safety of the population as a whole

- increased federal control and responsibility

- neoimperialism and interventionism

 

Whatever happened to the Barry Goldwater conservatives? Why is Ron Paul, a man who stands for traditional conservative values, being shunned by both the mainstream press and mainstream conservatives? Why is he gaining greater traction among "liberals"?

[PhDP]

Ron Paul is not really better than neoconservatives; it's just that instead of quoting the bible, he's quoting the constitution.

[CDarwin]

Ron Paul is not really better than neoconservatives; it's just that instead of quoting the bible, he's quoting the constitution.

 

You're confusing neoconservatives with the Religious Right. Neoconservativism is a belief that the US should maintain an interventionist foreign policy. They don't quote the Bible necessarily.

[ParanoiA]

Ron Paul is not really better than neoconservatives; it's just that instead of quoting the bible, he's quoting the constitution.

 

What? You're actually smarting about someone quoting the constitution...a presidential candidate for the united states of america? How on earth could anything be more appropriate?

[geoguy]

The devil is in the details.

 

Does states rights include slavery? Segregated schools?

 

What's individual liberty? Polygamy and freedom to marry off oe's 16 year old daughter to a a 60 year old religious elder?

 

I know you are not advocating these and this is certainly not reflective of most conservatives or anyone else. The question, however, is where lines are drawn. One person's liberty is another's oppression. 'Limited' government is fine if one is holding the reigns of that government....not so great if you're a disenfranchised minority.

[PhDP]

You're confusing neoconservatives with the Religious Right.

 

Bascule said “Neoconservatism, at least under Bush”.

 

What? You're actually smarting about someone quoting the constitution...a presidential candidate for the united states of america? How on earth could anything be more appropriate?

 

You know what I’m « smarting » about ; a rigid and overly simplistic interpretation of the constitution. If draconian measures must be taken, then at least they should be supported by sound and rational arguments, not by a dogmatic endorsement of old documents.

[ParanoiA]

You know what I’m « smarting » about ; a rigid and overly simplistic interpretation of the constitution. If draconian measures must be taken, then at least they should be supported by sound and rational arguments, not by a dogmatic endorsement of old documents.

 

Firstly though, that's better and far more appropriate than the neoconservatives, which is what you said Ron Paul wasn't. Quoting the bible isn't appropriate in US government, but quoting the constitution is.

 

Second, let's look at the definition of dogma:

 

1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.

2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.

3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.

4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

 

We are a nation of laws. For that to work, the documents of those laws have to be more important than men. If we aren't dogmatic about the constitution, then what is it's value? I would argue it's the dogmatic belief in constitutional law that prevents the majority from deciding that all red headed people should be executed on sight.

 

How much of Ron Paul's message have you actually heard? If you're referring to 40 second answers on complex subjects and problems in the republican debates - I would say that's why you have that impression. 40 seconds gives you about enough time to state the constitutional position and the consequences of ignoring it - doesn't leave much room for expanding on these things. In this, the debates are a disservice.

 

Try watching the Youtube video of the Google interview with Dr. Paul. You may still disagree, but at least you'd have a more accurate impression since they go into the logic behind these constitutional positions.

 

As far as old documents go, Paul has confirmed the need and the intent of it's writers provide a balance between rigidity and flexibility to provide a mechanism to keep up with an evolving society. The problem is, we haven't been "updating it for the times", we've been "mangling it for our whims".

[Pangloss]

I saw a couple minutes of Ron Paul last night on Bill O'Reilly and was really disappointed. Granted BOR was being pretty stiff and maybe even rude with the guy, but all he was doing was making Bush wrong -- every answer he gave with regards to Iraq was "two wrongs" reasoning or some other illogical response. I couldn't tell if he was just flustered or what. For example, in answer to a question about Iranian operatives participating in suicide attacks, Paul asked what about Saudis participating in suicide attacks. Huh?

 

I need to dig in a bit and see what his real message is with regard to Iraq, but I've seen Paul do that before and frankly it just doesn't cut the mustard. We need answers and solutions, not two wrongs making a right.

 

Where RP scores points with me is when he gets back to the libertarian message of forgotten Republican positions, e.g. the points Bascule made earlier:

 

Whatever happened to ideas like:

- fiscal responsibility

- limited government

- personal responsibility

- individual liberty

- states' rights

- isolationism

 

That stuff is fine and dandy, but I don't think he can sell it by telling people how wrong neoconservatives are/were. You have to actually tell people what the benefits of these things are. Why we should pursue them. What they will give us. Why the negatives (and there are many!) outweight the positives.

[ParanoiA]

I saw a couple minutes of Ron Paul last night on Bill O'Reilly and was really disappointed. Granted BOR was being pretty stiff and maybe even rude with the guy, but all he was doing was making Bush wrong -- every answer he gave with regards to Iraq was "two wrongs" reasoning or some other illogical response. I couldn't tell if he was just flustered or what.

 

Yeah, I watched that too and was also dissappointed. I'm also not entirely comfortable with just pulling troops immediately because it's wrong to be there - in principle this is correct, but in reality that will make our original wrong, even more wrong. That's what Huckabee was saying, and that's what most of us probably agree with. I wish he would review his position in this regard.

 

I did say that I don't think he would actually pull troops the day after inauguration and would listen to his military personnel, but I'm uncomfortable with the idea that he personally prefers to up and leave and to hell with the consequences.

 

I'm also getting tired of the wienie stance by the libertarian ideology. I am quite libertarian, but I'm also all about defense. Libertarian candidates repeatedly reply "no war" to every scenario you give them. You can sink our ships, blow up our buildings, whatever and their answer is always something about war making it worse or some such pansy excuse.

 

I think there are such things as "acts of war" that should be replied as such. I appreciate the libertarian idea of not instigating anything - I swear by it - but we can't be wussies about our sovereignty. Like it or not, borders and cooperation are maintained by implied force - militarily.

 

That stuff is fine and dandy, but I don't think he can sell it by telling people how wrong neoconservatives are/were. You have to actually tell people what the benefits of these things are. Why we should pursue them. What they will give us. Why the negatives (and there are many!) outweight the positives.

 

He does this on sit-down interviews. I've watched several Youtube interviews with all kinds, and as long as he's not being asked to answer in 30 seconds he's quite spot-on with the logic of his positions, not demonizing the current crop. That's actually what I like about the guy.

 

The Google one was good, and he answers most of the questions that were burning me, and several I've seen on this board. Anything on economics is impressive. He may be a doctor but he's sure got a handle on money, debt, the federal reserve, the gold standard...good stuff.

 

Ok, I'll try to stop now. I know it's annoying...

[geoguy]

Bascule said “Neoconservatism, at least under Bush”.

 

You know what I’m « smarting » about ; a rigid and overly simplistic interpretation of the constitution. If draconian measures must be taken, then at least they should be supported by sound and rational arguments, not by a dogmatic endorsement of old documents.

 

Good point. Many folks view the Constitution almost as a third book of the Bible. Some how divinely inspired by and conceived by 'extraordinary and wise' minds. The input of Jefferson, Adams and others have taken on a kinship to the gospels of John and Mathew. the irony of this 'belief' in the Constitution is it's the antithesis of what Paine, Franklin and others wanted it to be .... they wrote against creating another entrenched set of laws binding future generations and stifling future revolution and social experiments. Each generation or at least every century free people should tear down the old and re-invent their institutions.

[gcol]

Each generation or at least every century free people should tear down the old and re-invent their institutions.

 

 

Sounds like a good campaign slogan, but for which party? I think it has been tried before, it was called revolution. Aux armes, citoyens!

[ParanoiA]

The input of Jefferson, Adams and others have taken on a kinship to the gospels of John and Mathew. the irony of this 'belief' in the Constitution is it's the antithesis of what Paine, Franklin and others wanted it to be .... they wrote against creating another entrenched set of laws binding future generations and stifling future revolution and social experiments.

 

So what makes Paine and Franklin so special? Why does it matter what they wanted it to be?

 

I know that I trust that document written by them more than a brand new one written by modern opportunists and theives, otherwise known as politicians.

 

I don't believe we have the same quality of legislators as they did of these men, in terms of honest intellect and motivations.

[geoguy]

Sounds like a good campaign slogan, but for which party? I think it has been tried before, it was called revolution. Aux armes, citoyens!

 

It wasn't about 'which party' but 'the system'. Conservative philosophy in Revolutionary revolved around the teachings of Burke. It wasn't a British/colony split but a philosophical one. Tradition vs change. It wasn't even a question of change to what as much as 'how' does one bring about change. Since the Revolution the USA has embraced Burke's conservative philosophy of chage. This is the antithesis of what many of the revolutionary leaders accomplished by independence. For the most part the USA has functioned well since the Civil War but as layers are added it gets harder to turn around the ocean liner in the bath tub. Regardless of what party controls what, fewer citizens remain content and get disconnected from the political process. Governments and politicians become 'them' insead of 'us'. Send 'them' to Washington and despite good intentions 'they' act the same . The process is cumbersome and has an inertia. The original colony representatives might have sat down and changed some provision on state rights in an hour over a mug of ale whereas today the same provision might not have a hope in heck of being changed after a decade of lobbying even if the majority of Americans were in favor of it. The suppression of the will of the People was what the Revolutionaries wanted to avoid. They understood that there is never a single answer but that the consensus of the People shouldn't get buried under a landslide of systemic obstacles.

[ParanoiA]

But it's the landslide of systemic obstacles that provides much of balance of powers and keeps one entity from ruling the day - like a King. Much of the consititution was more or less a direct aversion to absolute monarchy.

 

I used to make the same complaint; the lethargy of our government, but the alternative allows too much risk to the foundation of power to the people. It needs to be difficult to make massive changes in order to minimize the potential damage of a persuasive power - like the presidency.

 

Imagine if George Bush had the kind of swift action, easy moving government you're advocating - can you imagine the fallout then?

 

For the most part the USA has functioned well since the Civil War but as layers are added it gets harder to turn around the ocean liner in the bath tub. Regardless of what party controls what, fewer citizens remain content and get disconnected from the political process.

 

These layers are the "mangled to meet our whims" I was talking about. These layers is what Dr. Paul is advocating against. It's the lack of respect for the constitution that has allowed the layers to happen. It's the kind of thinking you and Phil are asserting that creates the momentum to dismiss the validity of these "old documents" and add a bunch of fluff and "social engineering" that has NO place in government. Paine disagrees with you too.

[CDarwin]

Bascule said “Neoconservatism, at least under Bush”.

 

It doesn't matter who neoconservatives are under. They don't quote the Bible. That's not what neoconservativism is.

[PhDP]

I know that I trust that document written by them more than a brand new one written by modern opportunists and theives, otherwise known as politicians.

 

yea… but politicians are elected, if nobody would have voted for Bush in 2000 the U.S. wouldn’t be stuck in Iraq. Politicians have to take some responsibility for their actions, but the people voting for them should also be held responsible for the people they’ve elected.

 

How much of Ron Paul's message have you actually heard?

 

I mostly read interviews and articles about him. He wants to repel the 16th amendment. Why ? Because it allows income taxes to be levied (which, BTW, is not even true), and that’s his argument; income taxes should be levied because it’s unconstitutional. Not only his claim is blatantly false, but it's just stunning to see a "serious" politician justify a draconian change with little rational arguments.

 

It's the lack of respect for the constitution that has allowed the layers to happen.

 

We call that progress. Just face it, the constitution HAS to change, it’s why it has been amended so many times, either because of social changes (to allow women to vote) or simply because the context has changed. It’s why I hope the American people would try to improve (in your language; “not respecting”) this document, otherwise at some point it’ll have to be replaced.

 

The constitution has no supernatural qualities, and the U.S. will continue to change, like it or not, the constitution will adapt, or it’ll break. Many things just don’t make sense in the U.S., like the fact that president are not elected by the popular vote, or that you have to be BORN in the U.S. to become president (not that I’m interested in the job, but I don’t like the idea that, even if I go live in the U.S. to teach, then get my U.S. citizenship, for some reason people would not even have the right to elect me president, like I would be some sort of second class citizen).

 

I find it funny that, for many conservatives, what “respecting” means is “shut up and don’t criticize”. I respect the U.S. and I have a great deal of admiration for the constitution. But for me, respect doesn't imply worship.

[pioneer]

Conservativism is different now because times have changed. For example, the breakup of the core family added all types of social problems. A good case in point are the African Americans. Back in the 1950's the family was strong but segregation was keeping them from enjoying the American dream. All Martin Luther King asked was an even shake. The black community was strong and only needed opportunity.

 

In current times, there is about 80% less discrimination. But what also happened was the family unit was destroy for a large segment of this population. The result is, where the family remained strong there is far more American dream. Where the family is weak there is poverty, illiteracy, high crime, etc.. Looking at only this segment of the blacks, one gets the impression there is still a high level of discrimination. But in reality the loss the core family neutralized all the social benefits.

 

If one look at the data, to see the family correlation for the blacks, those with a stable family core are going much better. But even suggesting this reality data would be called political incorrect. The correct way is to ignor the underlying problem, and then pour money into the situation, with the hope it will get better. The Conservative is hogged tied by this. They can't preach common sense, or they are portrayed as trying to impose religion. But they can't see wasting money on band-aids, over a simple treatment so they are called cold and insensitive.

 

What has happened, the Democrats and liberals are like a nagging wife, who has screwed up and can't admit it. The Republicans are the hen peck husband. One can see this everyday with the Demo's alway complaining and criticizing, while doing the things they project on the Republicans. The Repulicans should fight back, but know this is not how you deal with a nagging wife. She will only nag more trying to deflect any blame. Bush fired a dozen attorney generals but Clinton fired ten dozen. It is different when the nagging wife does it.

 

The Republican try to keep the family together and avoid confrontation, so they say, yes dear, and then do what they think is in the best for the the family. He decides to invest the money in the future, so she won't spend it all on her hairbrain schemes. It is not like in the old days, when the man's home was his castle. The wicked witch of the west now lives there. She is charming but is constantly complaining and trying to fix problems that she created the last time she tried to fix a problem. She can't see that or admit that, so she blames her husband. He has to do his best to stay one step ahead.

 

It came down to, if you can't beat the nag, beat her at her own game. The idea is to spend the money first, but on things that create jobs. All the defense spending creates a lot of good paying jobs. When people earn money from a good job and can buy a house, they feel empowered. With that empowerment comes the American dream which means family. With less dependancy then you also give a tax decrease. This puts more money in the economy where it amplifies. Govenment decreases the value of money via inefficiency, so one gets less for the dollar. Inspite of the tax decrease and high miltary spending the national debt is falling.

 

Conservative values implies loving your enemy. That is why inspite of the Democrats having more corruption still in place, the Republicans take the heat. The hen pecked husband puts it nose to the grindstone and makes flour. But according to the nagging wife he is cheating them. The conservative are showing their values by sticking with their nag.

[ParanoiA]

Politicians have to take some responsibility for their actions, but the people voting for them should also be held responsible for the people they’ve elected.

 

Oh, but I put most of the blame on the people that elect them. I don't blame a dog for being a dog, I blame the person that left the food on the floor.

 

Because it allows income taxes to be levied (which, BTW, is not even true), and that’s his argument; income taxes should be levied because it’s unconstitutional. Not only his claim is blatantly false, but it's just stunning to see a "serious" politician justify a draconian change with little rational arguments.

 

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

 

That removes the direct/indirect tax argument. Repealing this amendment is necessary to getting rid of the income tax, which violates our privacy and right to relative anonymity. Being forced to share personal information with the government is basically forcing me to risk the security of my private information. It's completely unnecessary and is a destructive, wasteful, terribly beaurocratic, not to mention despicable practice to analyze incomes with ridiculous complicated documents and procedures.

 

For crying out loud people actually go to school and get degrees solely on understanding the american tax code - a book. A book that should be a pamplet. Look at the empire built on this behemoth. It's insane. There are far easier ways to collect taxes without jeopardizing anybody's privacy at all - starting with a sales tax. Let a politician try to lie to me about lowering taxes when the rate is common knowledge.

 

The point is, this has all been explained by Dr. Paul - plenty of rational argument, though you may disagree. Not what you're going to hear on 30 second responses.

 

We call that progress. Just face it, the constitution HAS to change, it’s why it has been amended so many times, either because of social changes (to allow women to vote) or simply because the context has changed. It’s why I hope the American people would try to improve (in your language; “not respecting”) this document, otherwise at some point it’ll have to be replaced.

 

It's simply in the libertarian opinion that this change has been thoughtless rather than careful. I agree with that. With the two party seige, power swinging back and forth, we don't really have a constitution that represents and evolved public like it may imply, we have a constitution that's a mangled aftermath of this opportunist power struggle we call american politics.

 

You bet I think the constitution needs to be changed, it needs to have the money taken out of it.

 

...that you have to be BORN in the U.S. to become president (not that I’m interested in the job, but I don’t like the idea that, even if I go live in the U.S. to teach, then get my U.S. citizenship, for some reason people would not even have the right to elect me president, like I would be some sort of second class citizen).

 

I would never expect to be able to run for office in any capacity in any other country. That seems quite fundamental to me, for any society.

[iNow]

I mostly read interviews and articles about him. He wants to repel the 16th amendment. Why ? Because it allows income taxes to be levied (which, BTW, is not even true), and that’s his argument; income taxes should be levied because it’s unconstitutional. Not only his claim is blatantly false, but it's just stunning to see a "serious" politician justify a draconian change with little rational arguments.

For those who have a genuine interst, and wish to put these issues into context, I advise the reading of the Federalist Papers, specifically numbers 30 through 36.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa30.htm

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa31.htm

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa32.htm

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa33.htm

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa34.htm

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa34.htm

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa35.htm

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa36.htm

 

We call that progress. Just face it, the constitution HAS to change, it’s why it has been amended so many times, either because of social changes (to allow women to vote) or simply because the context has changed. It’s why I hope the American people would try to improve (in your language; “not respecting”) this document, otherwise at some point it’ll have to be replaced.

To be clear, I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your position, but I find it important to call to light the fact that the Constitution is a living document. It is not some set of absolute commandments carved in a block of stone. It is an approach, a method. It serves as the footings of the large building which we call our society, buried deep and structurally sound. It was written with change as a given, and we must be cautious if replacing it, as today's society is rife with a desire for instant gratification and a definition of "long-term" which only extends into the next news cycle.

 

 

The constitution has no supernatural qualities, and the U.S. will continue to change, like it or not, the constitution will adapt, or it’ll break. Many things just don’t make sense in the U.S., like the fact that president are not elected by the popular vote, or that you have to be BORN in the U.S. to become president (not that I’m interested in the job, but I don’t like the idea that, even if I go live in the U.S. to teach, then get my U.S. citizenship, for some reason people would not even have the right to elect me president, like I would be some sort of second class citizen).

Can you clarify for me, does the Constitution mandate an electoral college? I'm all for voting by text message. At least then we'd include the thinking people, and not limit our representation to those isolationist, fence building, abortion loathing, bible thumping, octogenerian, gay bashing, research hating, evolution doubting, jingoist nut jobs. Just because I'm hung over on the Tuesday when I'm supposed to pull the lever doesn't mean I don't care. So how about we adjust the system so my concerns can be voiced more appropriately aligned with my lifestyle?

 

I find it funny that, for many conservatives, what “respecting” means is “shut up and don’t criticize”.

This isn't a "conservative" value, it's a dictatorship value. There is intentionality in the wedges being driven through the populace, and polarization of ideology is being leveraged to gain positions of power. It's not accurate to classify this issue as "conservative," it's just morally inept and socially short-sighted. Further, it is used by those who wish to advance because it's successful, and it's successful because we let it be.

 

 

I respect the U.S. and I have a great deal of admiration for the constitution. But for me, respect doesn't imply worship.

Little difference these days from the pew and the voting booth. Too bad people who don't kneel on the pew also don't tend to vote.

 

 

When will we collectively realize that these archaic isolationist ideological groupings are only serving to help us avoid the real issues we all face as a species and a planet?

 

I tell you what. You keep arguing over fences and who gets to fornicate, I'll keep thinking about how my kids and grandkids can survive, and how they can have kids and grandkids as well.

 

 

Ah... Catharis.

[bascule]

You know what I’m « smarting » about ; a rigid and overly simplistic interpretation of the constitution. If draconian measures must be taken, then at least they should be supported by sound and rational arguments, not by a dogmatic endorsement of old documents.

 

The Constitution is effectively America's social contract. As long as you keep in mind it's an evolving document and must be interpreted in the scope of the entire SCOTUS case history, it's something that Americans should respect.

[ParanoiA]

When will we collectively realize that these archaic isolationist ideological groupings are only serving to help us avoid the real issues we all face as a species and a planet?

 

When will you realize that these archaic isolationist ideological groupings come from in-group/out-group psychology which has served us well - caused us to group up in the first place? How is eliminating competition between large groups good for humans? Look at the big picture - and I don't mean the zoomed out picture provided by Sagan and the "dot" - I mean over time, evolution and etc.

[iNow]

When will you realize that these archaic isolationist ideological groupings come from in-group/out-group psychology which has served us well - caused us to group up in the first place? How is eliminating competition between large groups good for humans? Look at the big picture - and I don't mean the zoomed out picture provided by Sagan and the "dot" - I mean over time, evolution and etc.

 

Out of all of the words in that post, this is the set you chose to attack?

 

Okay. Let's be clear here. I said nothing about "eliminating competition between large groups," and everything about increasing cooperation. Additonally, your flame against the YouTube video linked in the username portion of my signature implies to me that you're arguing for the existing status quo, in opposition to an open discussion on how to move forward. Again, let's be clear. I don't pretend to know the best approach for us collectively, but when it comes to the future of life on Earth I'd much rather talk about alternative possible approaches than attack someone for being passionate and trying to inspire those around them to do the same.

 

 

God save strawberry jam and all the different varieties.

[ParanoiA]

Actually, I just wanted to engage you on your "all one world" position that you bring up from time to time. Thought you might want to elaborate on it, teach us something. These ideo-geographical groups create a natural competition. Wouldn't destroying these groups remove the competitive edge that helps to drive human advancement?

[iNow]

Let's just say that groupings will only ever be removed in an academic way, but the groupings themselves derserve updating and expanding of scope.

 

 

Hey, personA, you're from India, and you're just like me. Hey, personB, you're China, and you're just like me. Hey, personC, you're from Brazil, and you're just like me. Hey, personD, you're from EARTH, and you're just like me.

[DrDNA]

Can you clarify for me, does the Constitution mandate an electoral college? I'm all for voting by text message. At least then we'd include the thinking people, and not limit our representation to those isolationist, fence building, abortion loathing, bible thumping, octogenerian, gay bashing, research hating, evolution doubting, jingoist nut jobs. Just because I'm hung over on the Tuesday when I'm supposed to pull the lever doesn't mean I don't care. So how about we adjust the system so my concerns can be voiced more appropriately aligned with my lifestyle?

 

 

Article 2 of the constitution does in fact mandate an electoral system. Then the 12th Amendment modified the way the electoral college chooses the president after there was some issue in an early election (around 1796 I think) where the pres was from one party and the vp was from another and they fought like cats and dogs.

The electoral system was devised to prevent just what you are advocating. It effectively prevents a few densely populated states from determining the outcome of the election.

I don't think it is going anywhere anytime soon. And, being from a state of only around 3 or 4 million, personally, I'm actually glad we have it.