NationStates Jolt Archive

So I'm ripping this off wholesale from a weblog--MyDD.com to be specific--but it's written pretty well, I think, and it's pretty accurate. Feel free to ignore me or blast this or whatever, but I think we're enough past the election that there's no excuse for anyone to get too exercised about the discussion. It's far tamer than what I wrote on my own blog, to be quite honest. So here we are.

Real conservatives value fiscal insolvency, including irresponsible tax cuts, corporate giveaways, massive spending increases, huge undisclosed pork-barrel spending projects hammered out during congressional conference, rather than actual budget legislation on the Congressional floor that is open to the public and recorded in the public record. You know that conservatives value these things, because these are the things the vast majority of self-proclaimed conservatives do.

Real conservatives do not value your personal liberties. They like disenfranchising voters, challenging voters, and making it more difficult to vote. They like it when the government is in your bedroom. They want to be able to spy on your personal files. They do not respect your right to privacy. They like to tell you who you can and cannot love, and what you can and cannot do to your own body. You know these are conservative values, because conservatives regularly pass laws of this nature.

Real conservatives like to recklessly use the military. They love war, and regularly resort to it as one of their first choices. They have no respect for the lives their policies destroy, as long as they have more bases overseas. They derive their values from violence, and detest peace. They will come up with any excuse possible, and cynically invent several more, to use force whenever possible, wherever possible. You know these are conservative values, because these are the actions conservatives take.

Now if you can dispute these charges with facts, then please go ahead. If you wish, however, to argue that the people currently in charge who are doing these things are not truly conservative (as I would), the you've got a problem--your tag has been misappropriated. And if that's the case, what are you gonna do about it?

Well only to point out that in many respects, Bush foreign policy is not really conservative (actually nor is the current fiscal policy).

I mean, I think Pat Buchanan, who is a sort of archtype conservative, would disagree with characterization and tell you while it was a description of bush policy, not what a real conservative would do.

I mean, I think Pat Buchanan, who is a sort of archtype conservative, would disagree with characterization and tell you while it was a description of bush policy, not what a real conservative would do.

but then again, pat buchanan endorsed the bush administration. i seem to recall something about the relative volumes of actions and words...

Well only to point out that in many respects, Bush foreign policy is not really conservative (actually nor is the current fiscal policy).

I mean, I think Pat Buchanan, who is a sort of archtype conservative, would disagree with characterization and tell you while it was a description of bush policy, not what a real conservative would do.
I guess my point is that regardless of what anyone wants to argue a real conservative is, the people who are doing the above things are the ones calling themselves conservative, and are the ones who have co-opted the name. For all intents and purposes, they are conservative. Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, the Bush administration--these people have taken over the term conservative and turned it into what we see today, like it or not.

And if that's the case, what are you gonna do about it?

might i suggest to any of you conservatives reading this that one option would be to join us in calling a fascist a fascist.

but then again, pat buchanan endorsed the bush administration. i seem to recall something about the relative volumes of actions and words...

Yes he did.

But he's also been extremely critical of Bush policy, I think it was more a case of Bush over Kerry I think. Like Ed Koch in NY.

I guess my point is that regardless of what anyone wants to argue a real conservative is, the people who are doing the above things are the ones calling themselves conservative, and are the ones who have co-opted the name. For all intents and purposes, they are conservative. Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, the Bush administration--these people have taken over the term conservative and turned it into what we see today, like it or not.

True, I suppose it I was an old school conservative I would tell you that those people do not really represent the viewpoint of a lot of conservative voters, and it was more a case of Bush being preferred over Kerry, not that Bush was dead good or anything.

Rather like liberals who supported Kerry, but can't, I imagine, have been all that impressed with his platform on many issues.

Conservative? More like conservative.

Well, some liberals have decided that the term has been too demonized by the right to continue to use it, so they've gone with Progressive. Others have argued that we need to fight to reclaim the word and restore its rightful meaning. I use the two interchangeably--I have no qualms about being called either of them, no matter what anyone else thinks of the terms.

Fiscal conservatives and Libertarian conservatives are going to have to decide what they're going to do about their current situation. Do they try to win their name back, or do they think that their current situation in terms of power is worth selling out their traditional principles?

Well, some liberals have decided that the term has been too demonized by the right to continue to use it, so they've gone with Progressive. Others have argued that we need to fight to reclaim the word and restore its rightful meaning. I use the two interchangeably--I have no qualms about being called either of them, no matter what anyone else thinks of the terms.

Fiscal conservatives and Libertarian conservatives are going to have to decide what they're going to do about their current situation. Do they try to win their name back, or do they think that their current situation in terms of power is worth selling out their traditional principles?

Yes, I think they do to be honest. LBJs programmes have become so demonized that people still get incensed about them. Also Reagan is a huge hero to them (remember that a lot of them blame the democratic congress for the deficits under Reagan).

And I'm glad to see progressive making a comeback. Liberal was sort of co-opted in the first place anyway. Did you know that NYC no longer has a liberal party.

Yes, I think they do to be honest. LBJs programmes have become so demonized that people still get incensed about them. Also Reagan is a huge hero to them (remember that a lot of them blame the democratic congress for the deficits under Reagan).

And I'm glad to see progressive making a comeback. Liberal was sort of co-opted in the first place anyway. Did you know that NYC no longer has a liberal party.

Out of curiousity, if you had to place one of those two labels on me, which would it be?

So if traditional conservatives decide that they have to distance themselves from those who have co-opted their name, what should they call themselves?

Out of curiousity, if you had to place one of those two labels on me, which would it be?

I think I would have put you down as liberal, - small governemt pro personal freedom..

I - probably from the amount of time I spent in Europe (UK)- always tend to think of liberal as more right wing than the US version. (That's wrong over here, but once you get used to it you can't stop, and I'm not about to listen to the amount of Limbaugh required to de-program myself)

And Rudolph Guliani had the Liberal Party endorsment when he ran for mayor.

I think I would have put you down as progressive.

I - probably from the amount of time I spent in Europe - always tend to think of liberal as fairly right wing. (That's wrong over here, but once you get used to it you can't stop, and I'm not about to listen to the amount of Limbaugh required to de-program myself)

Sigh. I think I'm losing my mind. Is there something so fundamentally flawed with my opinion on gay marriage and abortions?

Sigh. I think I'm losing my mind. Is there something so fundamentally flawed with my opinion on gay marriage and abortions?

Re-read my post, I edited, comes from watching TV and typing at the same time. Sorry.

So if traditional conservatives decide that they have to distance themselves from those who have co-opted their name, what should they call themselves?

Traditionalist.

Traditionalist.
Ah--the O'Reilly word. I heard him describe himself that way in an interview. Better move fast before O'Reilly corrupts that one and you have to find another. :D

Ah--the O'Reilly word. I heard him describe himself that way in an interview. Better move fast before O'Reilly corrupts that one and you have to find another. :D


WTF, I just made that up. Bastards.

I just want to say how amazing it is to see two people who obviously don't have all the same beliefs not screaming their heads off at one another.

I just want to say how amazing it is to see two people who obviously don't have all the same beliefs not screaming their heads off at one another.

Did you re-read my edited post?

I meant liberal, not progressive, but I was paying to much attention to CSI.

David Caruso's bad acting cracks me up.

Did you re-read my edited post?

I meant liberal, not progressive, but I was paying to much attention to CSI.

David Caruso's bad acting cracks me up.

Yeah, I read it. I am just bent out of shape after going round and round in circles with pro-lifers in that abortion thread.

I just want to say how amazing it is to see two people who obviously don't have all the same beliefs not screaming their heads off at one another.
Well, I generally try to be mild-mannered. I don't always succeed, and really didn't succeed during the month of October, but I unplugged for a bit, had my piece of humble pie (I carry it in my signature currently), and am currently chilled out.

I also tend to avoid places where I'll wind up in a screaming match, namely, anything involving abortion and same-sex marriage.

Yeah, I read it. I am just bent out of shape after going round and round in circles with pro-lifers in that abortion thread.

That and gun control are the two things that people are most unreasonable about I find. More than gay marriage or the invasion of Iraq usually.

I am sorry.

That and gun control are the two things that people are most unreasonable about I find. More than gay marriage or the invasion of Iraq usually.

I am sorry.

Stupid people.

Well, I generally try to be mild-mannered. I don't always succeed, and really didn't succeed during the month of October, but I unplugged for a bit, had my piece of humble pie (I carry it in my signature currently), and am currently chilled out.

I also tend to avoid places where I'll wind up in a screaming match, namely, anything involving abortion and same-sex marriage.

Well these boards are supposed to be fun after all.

I guess my point is that regardless of what anyone wants to argue a real conservative is, the people who are doing the above things are the ones calling themselves conservative, and are the ones who have co-opted the name. For all intents and purposes, they are conservative. Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, the Bush administration--these people have taken over the term conservative and turned it into what we see today, like it or not.
Shit like that happens all the time. Anarchists used to call themselves libertarians to distinguish themselves from the bomb tossing terrorists. Now its used by rightwing capitalists!

Stupid people.

LOL
:)

Anarchists used to call themselves libertarians to distinguish themselves from the bomb tossing terrorists.

or to get around laws outlawing the use of the word 'anarchism'

So I'm ripping this off wholesale from a weblog--MyDD.com to be specific--but it's written pretty well, I think, and it's pretty accurate. Feel free to ignore me or blast this or whatever, but I think we're enough past the election that there's no excuse for anyone to get too exercised about the discussion. It's far tamer than what I wrote on my own blog, to be quite honest. So here we are.



Now if you can dispute these charges with facts, then please go ahead. If you wish, however, to argue that the people currently in charge who are doing these things are not truly conservative (as I would), the you've got a problem--your tag has been misappropriated. And if that's the case, what are you gonna do about it?

Missapropriated tag. The solution is a split in the GOP - likely in the 8 to 20 year range, which will hopefully leave the unholy neo-con Christian alliance out in the cold....

Missapropriated tag. The solution is a split in the GOP - likely in the 8 to 20 year range, which will hopefully leave the unholy neo-con Christian alliance out in the cold....

I don't see it. Sadly, neoconservatism is looking more and more like it's here to stay. With the Democrats becoming so moderate and generic that they appeal to almost nobody, I think that we're more likely to see a new second party or a radically restructured Democratic party than a GOP split.

I don't see it. Sadly, neoconservatism is looking more and more like it's here to stay. With the Democrats becoming so moderate and generic that they appeal to almost nobody, I think that we're more likely to see a new second party or a radically restructured Democratic party than a GOP split.Sadly, I think you may be right on this one. I know what it means to be to be a progressive (not necessarily Democrat anymore, notice), but the party as a whole has been poor at defining itself as something other than "not the Republicans" for the last couple of years. In 2002, it was Republican-lite, so maybe we're working slowly toward reestablishing our identity as a party. I hope so, because I truly believe that we're in the tunnel and the train's coming economically and militarily speaking.

Sadly, I think you may be right on this one. I know what it means to be to be a progressive (not necessarily Democrat anymore, notice), but the party as a whole has been poor at defining itself as something other than "not the Republicans" for the last couple of years. In 2002, it was Republican-lite, so maybe we're working slowly toward reestablishing our identity as a party. I hope so, because I truly believe that we're in the tunnel and the train's coming economically and militarily speaking.

I hope so as well. It's not in the best interest of the country to have only one strong political party, no matter who it is. It's even worse for the country when the only strong party we have is a hawk party that cuts taxes without cutting spending.

I hope so as well. It's not in the best interest of the country to have only one strong political party, no matter who it is. It's even worse for the country when the only strong party we have is a hawk party that cuts taxes without cutting spending.
It's going to catch up with us, too. Economists have already said that the 2006 budget will require slashes in benefits and tax increases in order to come anywhere near balance. Now, looking at the record of this Congress, what do you suppose the chances of the tax increases of happening are? The benefit slashes I think we'll get--and that may restore the balance to our governmental system. If neither happens, we'll only forestall the inevitable crash, but a crash there will be eventually.

It's going to catch up with us, too. Economists have already said that the 2006 budget will require slashes in benefits and tax increases in order to come anywhere near balance. Now, looking at the record of this Congress, what do you suppose the chances of the tax increases of happening are? The benefit slashes I think we'll get--and that may restore the balance to our governmental system. If neither happens, we'll only forestall the inevitable crash, but a crash there will be eventually.

To be fair though, both candidates were pretty evasive about the budget. They both said they would halve the deficit somehow.

So I'm ripping this off wholesale from a weblog--MyDD.com to be specific--but it's written pretty well, I think, and it's pretty accurate. Feel free to ignore me or blast this or whatever, but I think we're enough past the election that there's no excuse for anyone to get too exercised about the discussion. It's far tamer than what I wrote on my own blog, to be quite honest. So here we are.



Now if you can dispute these charges with facts, then please go ahead. If you wish, however, to argue that the people currently in charge who are doing these things are not truly conservative (as I would), the you've got a problem--your tag has been misappropriated. And if that's the case, what are you gonna do about it?

ARGH! Ok first of all I'm in an ornery mood from other posts so forgive me if any inflamatory words sneak into this reply. They are not intended and I apopologize in advance if any sneak in.

Conservatism and Liberalism have jack squat, nothing, zero, the absolute absence of ANYTHING to do with, fiscal insolvency (or solvency), personal liberties, or use of the military. Now the Republican part and the Democratic party (as well as the "other parties" --snicker--) have posistions on these issues for sure. But this adoption of the words conservative and liberal by BOTH parties would be laughable were it not so annoying to people with clues.

A true liberal is someone who advocates a change from the status quo. Progressive is a damn good word btw. A true conservative is someone who thinks everything is just hunky dory fine the way it is. Therefore, no matter if it is a republican or democrat, if they are holding back progress on the grounds that it is not in fact progress they are a conservative. If they are advocating a change EVEN if its a change that throws us back to the middle ages they are in fact liberal.

Here's a real world look (sort of) I am pro-choice. This makes me a liberal in the eyes of the clue-impaired. However, being pro-choice is actually a conservative position! I advocate NO change to Roe V Wade. Working as intended. Amen. People who are pro-life and trying to overturn Roe V Wade are called conservatives. Huh? They are advocating a change that THEY see as progress. Thats a liberal.

What's my point? The people who attach these labels to themselves with absolutely no idea what they actually mean are ignorant. The people who propogate the myth that liberal = democrat and conservative = republican take advantage of that ignorance.

I'm a conservative (more or less... I'd like to see the gay marriage thing changed to give them equal rights) I voted for John Kerry because, in my opinion his policies would have returned us to the last known "working" (again more or less) system. To me Bush is insanely liberal, he has changed more (for the worse) in my lifetime than any other politician. Remember liberal is about change not neccessarily GOOD change. To the whacko jihad religious (not to be confused with the religous who don't advocate religion mixing with policy) the changes are probably very good.

Now where the REAL shift has taken place is between Republicans and Democrats. THERE you have me. I'm pissed off as heck with the change in the Republican platform in the last 12 years or so. Republicanism was all about minimizing government involvement and government burden on the average American, be it some radical new policy (aka liberal) or fighting off yet another legislative attempt to make us better people for our own good (aka conservative).

To the original poster, I agree that the term conservative has been miss-applied to the current administration and minions. However, Mr. Bush and his cult can call themselves whatever they like. That is legal in this great country and as true conservative I say "working as intended". :) Free speech working as intended. :) But you sir are simply fueling the problem! You cling to you the idea that liberal = good? Or, maybe you are clinging to the idea that liberal = democrat?

Lastly this is the TRUE conservative agenda: Stop sending jobs overseas! Stop the intrusion of the government into our personal lives! Stop passing laws to limit freedoms set forth in the bill of rights! Maintain what works resist what won't! And a true Republican would say keep the damn government out of who can get married! (but that would be liberal :P)