NationStates Jolt Archive

I found this image online this morning--didn't make it myself. My image making skills leave more than a little to be desired. But take a quick glance at it.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7710/90/1600/Neoconservatives2.jpg

This seems to me to be the basic way that a hardcore conservative's mind works--never challenge your basic idealogy. When everything goes to shit, accuse your leaders of betraying the cause.

That's not to say that the extreme left hasn't done the same on its own--anyone who yells about "true communism hasn't been tried yet" is essentially making the same argument from a different starting point, because there's no way that a "pure" form of any economic system is ever going to be implemented--we judge economic and governmental systems based on how they're implemented, not how they work in theory.

But you know something has gone horribly, terribly wrong in a person's mind when he or she thinks Dick Cheney is a liberal.

Hahahaha, Bush, Cheney et al. as Jacobin?!?!

That's the biggest laugh I've had all day!

I think you've missed the point.

Neo-conservatives have their roots in 'classic liberalism' (aka laissez-faire capitalism.

It's also hints at the irony of this particular group of people being referred to as 'conservatives'. If Bush et al are conservative what the frig do radicals look like? I mean they only friggen invaded two countries...while giving away tax cuts...that's pretty darn radical!

Which brings us to the Jacobin reference. Initially quite an 'elitist' group, known as radicals their attempts to reconfigure France and the 'French society' ended in disaster.

It's all true! George Bush was cloned from a wart on Lyndon Johnson's backside and Dick Cherney is actually a giant Muppet made by Jim Henson and remotely controlled by Al Gore. It's a liberal plot I tells ya! Sure taxs cuts and invasions didn't work this time, but this just proves that we need bigger tax cuts and bigger invasions. Let's invade the sun and have a negative tax rate! Then everything will be just peachy!

Well yes, Bush and co. are really conservative, but I have no respect for conservative people who suddenly realize it now. Where were they five years ago, or even one year ago? Voting for Bush for the most part.

I think you've missed the point.

Neo-conservatives have their roots in 'classic liberalism' (aka laissez-faire capitalism.

It's also hints at the irony of this particular group of people being referred to as 'conservatives'. If Bush et al are conservative what the frig do radicals look like? I mean they only friggen invaded two countries...while giving away tax cuts...that's pretty darn radical!

Which brings us to the Jacobin reference. Initially quite an 'elitist' group, known as radicals their attempts to reconfigure France and the 'French society' ended in disaster.

Never-the-less the Jacobin movement was a democratic one, especially in the provinces of France. Besides, they were seen as revolutionary, a label which can hardly be applied to the current US president, and the fact that in current usage 'Jacobin' is a reference to left wing politics rather than radicalism.

This seems to me to be the basic way that a hardcore conservative's mind works--never challenge your basic idealogy.

If that were the case I'd never have become a conservative (libertarian) in the first place. I was a flameing liberal through school and college and for a few years after.

And as for the title of your thread, if you ever read any of Orwell's work you'd know that his fears were fears of big government liberal statism...limited government conservatism (that would be "hardcore") is the enemy of this ideology. But that won't phase the moron's who also refer to far left Nazisms as conservative when it too is the opposite.

Young and ignorant liberals are all about images and groupthink (politics as a fashion statement), not substance and independant critical thinking. :(

The word "conservative" is wrong. "Reactionary" is a bit better... Conservatives say either "everythings fine, so leave it" or "its too big a risk, so leave it". First one's patently wrong, the second one has some points for it... Reactionary is basically "Things are old-fashioned enough!" by which is meant - puritan morals. Domination by an elite. Maintainance of power at all costs. Rights being relative to station. Liberal is "specific things aren't good, but we can fix them within the system that exists". Radicalism is "The system is wrong. Rip it down and build something new". Liberalism seems the best of those. Things are wrong. Always will be. But trying to replace the system is FAR to big a risk.

Well...

...there are times when I can see where they're coming from. They're wrong - but that doesn't mean they're totally irrational. Look at this current immigration thing. The people shown up above come from the pro-business, "give them Guest Worker status because it makes economic sense" wing of the party, not the racist "keep American jobs American" palaeoconservative wing. I think the people in the picture are, every one of them, cunts, but I wouldn't necessarily say they are the die-hard conservatives they're sometimes painted as.

Except McCain. He's just a **** with cheese on top.

And as for the title of your thread, if you ever read any of Orwell's work you'd know that his fears were fears of big government liberal statism...limited government conservatism (that would be "hardcore") is the enemy of this ideology. But that won't phase the moron's who also refer to far left Nazisms as conservative when it too is the opposite.

I'll only reply to this point--I was using "Orwellian" in the 1984 "doublespeak" war is peace sense. The idea was that there are conservatives out there--not the majority in any sense--who, rather than face the possibility that their ideas rather than their leadership are lacking, try to pawn their leadership off as the opposition.

And by the way, I've not only read much of Orwell's work, I've taught it at both of the universities where I've worked.

Ideologies are just like religions without the supernatural element. I don't like them.

That is so weird. That lot being considered 'liberal'.

The conservatives in power have fucked things up completely. ergo, they're not conservatives.
Yes, quite.

Can we say cognitive dissonance, people?


I guess the only good we can take from this is that they're being attacked by all sides now.

Never-the-less the Jacobin movement was a democratic one, especially in the provinces of France.
I would suggest that probably wasnt the connotation intended by the image, although since I am not its author, this is merely speculation on my part...;)

Besides, they were seen as revolutionary, a label which can hardly be applied to the current US president, and the fact that in current usage 'Jacobin' is a reference to left wing politics rather than radicalism.
They were also seen as revolting when the blood got gushing.

I think you are missing some of the connotations that the author/s (of the image) were intending to convey.

I dont think the point was to illustrate 'tolerant-liberalism' and 'democratic leanings' but rather to imply radicalism, elitism, arrogance, the destruction of established tradition and ways of life, the arrogance to attempt to completely re-engineer an entire society and culture to conform to one's own "vision", not to mention the big mess they left in their wake...

It seems to me that the image is intended to play on the elements that could be cited as examples of similarity between the Bush administration and the early Jacobins, not only by contrasting those elements with the 'conservative ideal' but also by the linking the Bush administration to a group that in many ways could be construed as representive of "left leaning (ie not conservative) 'folly'".

Can we say cognitive dissonance, people?

I think cognitive dissonance explains a lot of things.

Ideologies are just like religions without the supernatural element. I don't like them.

You don't have a view on how the world/society should be run?
... Why be on a politics forum?

You don't have a view on how the world/society should be run?
I have opinions on issues, but I don't have an ideology that dictates my views, and that I must not deviate from.

If that were the case I'd never have become a conservative (libertarian) in the first place. I was a flameing liberal through school and college and for a few years after.

And as for the title of your thread, if you ever read any of Orwell's work you'd know that his fears were fears of big government liberal statism...limited government conservatism (that would be "hardcore") is the enemy of this ideology. But that won't phase the moron's who also refer to far left Nazisms as conservative when it too is the opposite.

Young and ignorant liberals are all about images and groupthink (politics as a fashion statement), not substance and independant critical thinking. :(

You have a completely brainwashed vision of what liberal means. Liberal does not automatically mean authoritarian big government. Quite the opposite, in fact. Conservative is not a synonym for liberatarian (as you seem to think.)

Groupthink is the antithesis of real liberalism. Liberalism is all about independence of thought and the rejection of stagnant and outdated convention. It's about rejecting predjudices and trying to put oneself in another's shoes. It's about attempting to engender a greater sense of social fair play...a level playing field with rules that apply equally to all.

Your impression of what liberalism sounds like regurgitation of such pundits as Coulter, Hannity and Rush. As such, it seems like YOU, my friend, are the one guilty of "groupthink."

How about you listen to what REAL liberals (such as Nazz and I,) have to say?

Now, that being said, liberals do tend to want certain programs that increase the size of government. One governmental size increase liberals favor is the "social good" kind that includes education, healthcare, and various "safety nets" such as welfare, employment insurance and sociual security. The thing is, the size of the programs the government already has in place are more than able to "get the job done" if only they were administered more efficiently and in a more targeted way. In fact, Americans pay more for healthcare taxwise than several countries that have universal healthcare. In that regard, I, as a liberal, do not want to see these programs expanded, but reformed.

The other form of "government size increase" I, as a liberal, favor are those elements of government that restrict the power and scope of government power. Governemnt would be smaller without provisions for oversight and regulation, but we would not appreciate the greater intrusion such unchecked institutions would have in our life. This is a case where larger government is actually smaller government in practice.

I, as a liberal, would love to see a drastic decrease in pork. I think that the government could easily do more with less of our money. We need to demand and expect more from our government.

I also think our military suffers from a gross misuse of funds. Everyone has their hand in the military industrial complex. I think the military could do just as much, if not more, with less expenditure. Unfortunately, anyone who suggests cutting the military budget (which is a big as the rest of the world's military budget COMBINED,) is seen as being soft on defense rather than hard on waste.

So really, it's not the amount of money spent, it's how it's used.

Anyway, you have a childish and ignorant view of liberalism that has clearly been spoon fed to you by those who aren't really conservatives at all, but are merely traditionalist radicals in conservative clothing.

I'll only reply to this point--I was using "Orwellian" in the 1984 "doublespeak" war is peace sense. The idea was that there are conservatives out there--not the majority in any sense--who, rather than face the possibility that their ideas rather than their leadership are lacking, try to pawn their leadership off as the opposition.

Well conservatism is very diverse, there are many types of conservatives.

I voted for Clinton twice but regreted it towards the end of the 90s...so it's not valid for someone to change their mind?

You have a completely brainwashed vision of what liberal means. Liberal does not automatically mean authoritarian big government. Quite the opposite, in fact. Conservative is not a synonym for liberatarian (as you seem to think.)

I would classify mainstream libertarianism as a flavor of conservatism (maybye not pure libertarianism). Belief in limited government, states rights and economic liberty.

Sometimes there is overlap with liberalism in civil liberty spheres but it's rare and ineffective. Some liberals are against drug prohibition but they don't push it. (So are some conservatives.) Too many liberals are rabid anti-2nd amendment warriors, which is fundamental to individual rights (and an electoral loser).

And as far as economic liberty, forget about it...there's no case for liberals there. Social welfare, socialized medical care, taxes, etc.

The only thing libertarian that liberals are consistant with is abortion and homosexual issues...both are electoral losers.

Groupthink is the antithesis of real liberalism.

Hah!

Liberalism is all about independence of thought and the rejection of stagnant and outdated convention.

Then why the DNC convention didn't allow any anti-abortion or anti-gun control speakers in 2004? I got banned from DU for suggesting that I didn't beleive that homosexuality was equivalent to being of a particular race. Is that why liberals attack conservative commentators with pies?

I don't know, I don't see any evidence that liberalism tollerates independant thought.

As an experiment for yourself, go check out a few conservative only forums and a few liberal only forums...see how much more disagreement and debate you find on the conservative forums.

It's about rejecting predjudices and trying to put oneself in another's shoes.

Liberals promote prejudice. Look at the attitudes of liberals towards Christians. If a black person has conservative values liberals trip over themselves to call them uncle toms and other racial insults (Rice, Keyes, Powell, etc.) Liberals have nothing to say about the oppression of whites in africa or women in the middle east.

It's about attempting to engender a greater sense of social fair play...a level playing field with rules that apply equally to all.

A level playing field is fine, everyone supports that. But what you really mean to say is you want to rob from the productive classes to give to the unproductive classes.

Your impression of what liberalism sounds like regurgitation of such pundits as Coulter, Hannity and Rush.

What an ironic thing to say...that accusation is a regurgitation. Well here's your facts, I was a liberal for many more years then I have been conservative. I was a card carrying member of the ACLU, a registered Democrat (though I felt the party was too far to the right for me) and voted straight Democrat for the first decade of my adult life.

In fact I voted for my first Republican - EVER - in 2004. So sorry, no.

As such, it seems like YOU, my friend, are the one guilty of "groupthink."

How about you listen to what REAL liberals (such as Nazz and I,) have to say?

I do, I read forums, such as DU and others, and read what liberals say. I listen to NPR more then I listen to conservative talk radio. I listen to the BBC more then I watch FOX news.

Now, that being said, liberals do tend to want certain programs that increase the size of government. One governmental size increase liberals favor is the "social good" kind that includes education, healthcare, and various "safety nets" such as welfare, employment insurance and sociual security. The thing is, the size of the programs the government already has in place are more than able to "get the job done" if only they were administered more efficiently and in a more targeted way. In fact, Americans pay more for healthcare taxwise than several countries that have universal healthcare. In that regard, I, as a liberal, do not want to see these programs expanded, but reformed.

OK, well fair enough.

See conservatives are not against education, and health care and charity and helping the poor. We just don't beleive that government is the right solution to these problems.

I would be delighted for these programs to be reformed with their current budgets. But there is no way that these programs can become so without competition.

The greatest idea in education has been vouchers...make schools work to compete and earn their students and dollars. I might not have such a problem with vouchers for poor people to purchase private health insurance as well.

The other form of "government size increase" I, as a liberal, favor are those elements of government that restrict the power and scope of government power. Governemnt would be smaller without provisions for oversight and regulation, but we would not appreciate the greater intrusion such unchecked institutions would have in our life. This is a case where larger government is actually smaller government in practice.

You lost me here.

I, as a liberal, would love to see a drastic decrease in pork. I think that the government could easily do more with less of our money. We need to demand and expect more from our government.

Completely agree. What's the solution? Line item veto?

I also think our military suffers from a gross misuse of funds. Everyone has their hand in the military industrial complex. I think the military could do just as much, if not more, with less expenditure. Unfortunately, anyone who suggests cutting the military budget (which is a big as the rest of the world's military budget COMBINED,) is seen as being soft on defense rather than hard on waste.

Alan Keyes said "No dollar vote, without a ballot vote." That would solve a lot of pork generated from the military industrial complex as well as the drug war loveing prison IC as well...not to mention seeing things like Clinton selling government access to China.

So really, it's not the amount of money spent, it's how it's used.

I mostly agree with that.

Anyway, you have a childish and ignorant view of liberalism that has clearly been spoon fed to you by those who aren't really conservatives at all, but are merely traditionalist radicals in conservative clothing.

*yawn* (already addressed)

To a certain class of conservatives this makes perfect sense. They tend to be extremely protectionist and isolationist. They also despise government spending in all it's forms. They fret about the military-industrial complex just as much as folks on the left. It's not real surprise to me that this exists.

Well conservatism is very diverse, there are many types of conservatives.

I voted for Clinton twice but regreted it towards the end of the 90s...so it's not valid for someone to change their mind?
If you go back and read my opening post, you'll see that I specifically mentioned that the people who believe the image were, I assume, a minority of conservatives, so yes, it's obvious I believe there's room for variation in conservatism, just as there's room for variation within liberalism.

And of course, people are able to change their minds--it's important that they do so from time to time. But changing one's mind about what one considers best for him or herself (like your claimed conversion from liberalism to conservatism), and trying to redefine another's position so as to disclaim their position within a political movement are two different things.

Which brings us to the Jacobin reference. Initially quite an 'elitist' group, known as radicals their attempts to reconfigure France and the 'French society' ended in disaster.

A disaster ? Hum, well, the rise to power of Napoleon can be seen as a disaster, true. But the Jacobin managed to reconfigure deeply the french society. The values of French Revolution, and the symbol of it, are still very present in today's french society. The Jacobin ended up divided, and fought against each other in the revolutionnary France, but they still managed to reshape, for the best, the french society.

And they even changed the world, with the metric system, for example.

This seems to me to be the basic way that a hardcore conservative's mind works--never challenge your basic idealogy. When everything goes to shit, accuse your leaders of betraying the cause.

That's not to say that the extreme left hasn't done the same on its own--anyone who yells about "true communism hasn't been tried yet" is essentially making the same argument from a different starting point, because there's no way that a "pure" form of any economic system is ever going to be implemented--we judge economic and governmental systems based on how they're implemented, not how they work in theory.

It would be perfectly legitimate for a supporter of, say, Pat Buchanan to argue that George W. Bush was not pursuing the right-wing politics with which he identifies. Bush's failures, except when he pursues policies the paleocons support, cannot be blamed on them. The same applies to the libertarian right.

In parallel fashion, it would be perfectly legitimate for a non-Leninist Communist or a Trotskyist to disassociate themselves from Stalinist failures and atrocities, because the movements with which they identify opposed the policies which led to them, and are quite explicit about what they would do differently.

The word "conservative" is wrong. "Reactionary" is a bit better... Conservatives say either "everythings fine, so leave it" or "its too big a risk, so leave it". First one's patently wrong, the second one has some points for it... Reactionary is basically "Things are old-fashioned enough!" by which is meant - puritan morals. Domination by an elite. Maintainance of power at all costs. Rights being relative to station. Liberal is "specific things aren't good, but we can fix them within the system that exists". Radicalism is "The system is wrong. Rip it down and build something new". Liberalism seems the best of those. Things are wrong. Always will be. But trying to replace the system is FAR to big a risk.

You seem to have forgotten to define reactionary, You have radicalism in there and you use it to discribe the group you refered to as reactionary ealier.

Then why the DNC convention didn't allow any anti-abortion or anti-gun control speakers in 2004? I got banned from DU for suggesting that I didn't beleive that homosexuality was equivalent to being of a particular race. Is that why liberals attack conservative commentators with pies?

There's you're problem right there. You're equating rich, priviledged, mostly old white men with liberals.

I don't know, I don't see any evidence that liberalism tollerates independant thought.

The very definition of liberalism is independent thought. Again, you're buying the advertising.

As an experiment for yourself, go check out a few conservative only forums and a few liberal only forums...see how much more disagreement and debate you find on the conservative forums.

I have, and I find those who self-identify as conservatives tend to be of a rather inflexible group on average, though there are always exceptions.


Liberals promote prejudice. Look at the attitudes of liberals towards Christians. If a black person has conservative values liberals trip over themselves to call them uncle toms and other racial insults (Rice, Keyes, Powell, etc.) Liberals have nothing to say about the oppression of whites in africa or women in the middle east.

You are entirely full of crap. The only "Christians" liberals, in general, have a problem with are those Christians (not even the majority of Christians, but certainly the most vociferous subset,) who don't practice what they preach and are steadfastly anti-science.

Now, I have rarely heard, from liberals, criticism pointed at Powell, Rice or Keyes that has anything to do with their race. You ASSUME it has to do with race, obviuously because that's what you WANT to read into the criticism. I could not care less their race. As far as oppression goes, I object to it, WHEREVER it is, and so do all the liberals I personally know.

A level playing field is fine, everyone supports that. But what you really mean to say is you want to rob from the productive classes to give to the unproductive classes.

I think you and I have different definitions of productive. From your comment, it seems like you think the only measure of how "productive" one is is how much money one makes. What exactly is a "productive class" anyway? It sounds like your value system revolves completely around the bottom line. You, sir, were never a liberal, merely a poseur influenced by the fashion of your peer group.



What an ironic thing to say...that accusation is a regurgitation. Well here's your facts, I was a liberal for many more years then I have been conservative. I was a card carrying member of the ACLU, a registered Democrat (though I felt the party was too far to the right for me) and voted straight Democrat for the first decade of my adult life.

It's clear again you were never really a liberal.

In fact I voted for my first Republican - EVER - in 2004. So sorry, no.


If you could vote Republican in 2004, then there is no chance you were ever a liberal. You were only a liberal in name only.


I do, I read forums, such as DU and others, and read what liberals say. I listen to NPR more then I listen to conservative talk radio. I listen to the BBC more then I watch FOX news.

Yes, you listen to others rather than forming independent opinions. You were never a liberal. Liberalness is a foreign concept to you.

See conservatives are not against education, and health care and charity and helping the poor. We just don't beleive that government is the right solution to these problems.

I believe that the sum is more than it's parts. There is more purchasing poiwer in pooling resources, clearly, than everyone working independently. To make a simplified example, who can buy more food for the same money, 10 people buying what they need independently or 10 people pooling their resources? You need the buying power of a single collective entity to have a functioning military much like you need the buying power of a single collective entity to have a truly functioning education system. Everyone going it alone is wasteful, inefficient, and much more costly.


I would be delighted for these programs to be reformed with their current budgets. But there is no way that these programs can become so without competition.

Private business has to make a profit. More can be accomplished on a given budget when that necessity is removed. I notice that you don't advocate privatising the military. Why is that? If privatisation is the cure-all to remove waste, how come no one suggests privatising the military? Not only that, but with competition comes advertising, so you'd have schools spending their money telling parents how great the education at their school is rather than spending that money educating kids.

The greatest idea in education has been vouchers...make schools work to compete and earn their students and dollars. I might not have such a problem with vouchers for poor people to purchase private health insurance as well.

And what happens in communities too small to make a school profitable, or too small to support more than one school? You can't force business to form an unprofitable business. Private business without competition is power completely unchecked.

You lost me here.

Oversight. A single branch government would be much less costly, money-wise. The GAO could be disbanded. But power would be too concentrated. The corruption hat would ensue would make today's corruption look like playschool. Sometimes bereaucracy is the only defense against tyranny. That's why we have 3 branches in government ans 2 houses to Congress.

Completely agree. What's the solution? Line item veto?

Or perhaps a President willing to veto ANY legislation that contains pork. Bush has vetoed nothing, and the only things he's threatened to veto has been for ideological reasons.

Alan Keyes said "No dollar vote, without a ballot vote." That would solve a lot of pork generated from the military industrial complex as well as the drug war loveing prison IC as well...not to mention seeing things like Clinton selling government access to China.

Gee, you think the $20 million taxpayers paid to investigate Clinton would have found that out. It's not like Ken Starr left any stone unturned.

I was wondering when your "But Clinton!" would surface.


*yawn* (already addressed)

As always, mostly you conservatives sound all alike. Don't kid yourself. You were never a liberal. You decked yourselves in liberal clothing in order to get chicks. You don't "get" liberalism. It's a foreign language to you.

I would suggest that probably wasnt the connotation intended by the image, although since I am not its author, this is merely speculation on my part...;)


They were also seen as revolting when the blood got gushing.

I think you are missing some of the connotations that the author/s (of the image) were intending to convey.

I dont think the point was to illustrate 'tolerant-liberalism' and 'democratic leanings' but rather to imply radicalism, elitism, arrogance, the destruction of established tradition and ways of life, the arrogance to attempt to completely re-engineer an entire society and culture to conform to one's own "vision", not to mention the big mess they left in their wake...

It seems to me that the image is intended to play on the elements that could be cited as examples of similarity between the Bush administration and the early Jacobins, not only by contrasting those elements with the 'conservative ideal' but also by the linking the Bush administration to a group that in many ways could be construed as representive of "left leaning (ie not conservative) 'folly'".


Fair points all of them.

Still, i'll stand by my initial reaction now, but I can see more of what the images authors were trying to say, esp. with the way you put it.

Meh, I guess it's the difference of what people see as Jacobian.

This Somearea is a blundering fool, I mean

I don't know, I don't see any evidence that liberalism tollerates independant thought.
How can liberalism tolerate anything? It's a bloody ideology, words on a page! Only people can be tolerant or intolerant.

Something makes me think Orwell is having a good laugh about this.


Or else a good cry...

Something makes me think Orwell is having a good laugh about this.


Or else a good cry...

Probably both.

Probably both.
I think I may join him.

although, he's probably still rolling over from the Spanish putting surveillance cameras up in the square that bears his name

Neoconservatives are enemies of conservatism. Genuine conservatives favor limited government, laissez faire capitalism, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and traditional values. Neoconservatives favor massive government, corporatism, a beligerent warmongering foreign policy, and generally adopt whichever position on traditional values they believe will win them the most votes.

Neoconservatives are enemies of conservatism. Genuine conservatives favor limited government, laissez faire capitalism, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and traditional values. Neoconservatives favor massive government, corporatism, a beligerent warmongering foreign policy, and generally adopt whichever position on traditional values they believe will win them the most votes.
Maybe--but that doesn't make them liberal. Maybe just douchebags claiming conservatism?

What's unique about neoconservatives, though, is that everyone- and I mean everyone (except fellow neocons)- hates them: paleoconservatives, liberals, libertarians, National Socialists, communists, socialists, social democrats, centrists, anarchists, fascists...everyone hates them.

What's unique about neoconservatives, though, is that everyone- and I mean everyone (except fellow neocons)- hates them: paleoconservatives, liberals, libertarians, National Socialists, communists, socialists, social democrats, centrists, anarchists, fascists...everyone hates them.
Well, they've certainly earned it.

Well, they've certainly earned it.

Aye.

Neoconservatives are enemies of conservatism. Genuine conservatives favor limited government, laissez faire capitalism, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and traditional values. Neoconservatives favor massive government, corporatism, a beligerent warmongering foreign policy, and generally adopt whichever position on traditional values they believe will win them the most votes.

Hey, you know who also favored laissez-faire capitalism? Hoover. That worked out great, huh?

Hey, you know who also favored laissez-faire capitalism? Hoover. That worked out great, huh?

Hoover favored laissez-faire capitalism? Nothing could be further from the truth. Read America's Great Depression and A History of Money and Banking in the United States by Murray N. Rothbard.

Hoover favored laissez-faire capitalism? Nothing could be further from the truth. Read America's Great Depression and A History of Money and Banking in the United States by Murray N. Rothbard.

So, I should trust a single source that goes against everything I've learned in my 32 years, and I should run out and buy the book just on your say so?

Methinks not.

How about you supply a summary of how Hoover was not a "let them sort it out themselves," shepherd of the economy?

Genuine conservatives favor limited government, laissez faire capitalism...and traditional values.

of course, the first two directly conflict with the last. and when this contradiction becomes unavoidable, they always give up the first two in favor of the last.

of course, the first two directly conflict with the last. and when this contradiction becomes unavoidable, they always give up the first two in favor of the last.

Where's the contradiction? It depends entirely on how you define traditional values.

Where's the contradiction? It depends entirely on how you define traditional values.

'traditional values' as demanded by the mainline of conservatives calls for homosexuality to be outlawed, porn stores to be outlawed, abortion to be outlawed, things making fun of jeebus to be outlawed, media to be heavily censored, women to be forced out of the workplace and out of politics, etc.

there are almost no things at all that fall under 'traditional values' (as they use the term) that don't demand vast amounts of government surveillence, regulation, and power. and the free market is right out - that has never once shown itself to be friendly to 'traditional values', because it turns out that people really like to buy things that conservatives hate.

if they were capable of looking at evidence and using reason, american conservatives would quickly remember why conservatives never trusted capitalism in the first place. it is a revolutionary, not conservative system - it largely overthrows the old ways at least twice per generation. it automatically leads to a wild dash through constantly changing social and economic relations. fortunately for the capitalists, american conservatives do not appear to be capable of that.

How do you attach "Orwellian" and "conservative"?

Orwell wrote at length about socialism and communism.

And not in a very favorable light.

Maybe you need to go back and read.

How do you attach "Orwellian" and "conservative"?

Orwell wrote at length about socialism and communism.

And not in a very favorable light.

Maybe you need to go back and read.

Orwell wrote about Stalinism; he was a socialist himself.

Orwell wrote about Stalinism; he was a socialist himself.
He wasn't happy with socialism either, towards the end.

How do you attach "Orwellian" and "conservative"?

by noting the fact that they constantly engage in precisely the behaviors the term is used to describe?

He wasn't happy with socialism either, towards the end.

only insofar as he saw socialists falling into line behind stalin (which far too many of them were more than happy to do)

only insofar as he saw socialists falling into line behind stalin (which far too many of them were more than happy to do)

Yeah. I don't think he ever reneged on his core beliefs.

How do you attach "Orwellian" and "conservative"?

Orwell wrote at length about socialism and communism.

And not in a very favorable light.

Maybe you need to go back and read.First page (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10973769&postcount=10), DK--maybe you're the one who needs to go back and read.