NationStates Jolt Archive

im interested in people's perceptions of 'conservatives'
when you hear the word conservative what first springs to mind?
what characteristics would you expect a conservative individual to have, both positive and negative?
i think i will start a similar thread for liberals, but for now this will do

until lately I had a pretty good perception of them........but current events have left the word with a bad connotation.

Define conservative.

Pretty damn negative.

If I met a conservative who is conservative as the republican party in america seems to be I would probably consider him/her a right-extremist.

EDIT: Which is negative.

Are we talking about Conservatives or conservatives?

See, this is what happens when nations flippantly use the terms ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’.

Your overtly-trendy refusal to capitalise your OP leads your question to become ambiguous. There is a world of difference between big-C and little-c C/conservatives.

any definition of conservative i give you will be biased, im interested in how others define it...
whether you associate it with moderate or extreme views, or whether you associate it social or fiscal conservatism, whether you judge it as watered down fascism or an attempt to conserve our rights and freedoms, there are all indications of YOUR perception of conservatism, which i what i am interested in

little c conservatives :)

define conservative.

I'd respect them more, as I sometimes feel lucky just to meet people with any developed political views. Apathy seems to be the dominant paradigm.

I especially like them if it's a nuanced conservatism (or a nuanced liberalism).

I'm about as liberal as they come, even edging into you-know-who territory as often as not; look at my country.;) But I've also got tons of good friends and family who're conservative, although it's easier since they're generally more the Burke sort (i.e. reasonable) than the Bush sort; so I guess it would depend (as with some posters above) on the type of 'conservative' we're talking about here...

A friend of mine is a conservative. I don't let the whole 'political belief' thing cloud my judgment of a person's character.

Define conservative.
define conservative.
Conservative (con·serv·a·tive) –noun 1. two or more slices of bread or the like with a layer of meat, fish, cheese, etc., between each pair. 2. a person with a mania for setting things on fire

There, now you have a definition; not a correct definition, but that's not what you asked for, is it?

i've sent this post already but it hasnt appeared so im sending it again...
i dont want to define conservatism as its the connotations of the word that im interested in, so to impose a strict definition would defeat the point

The word conservative makes me wonder why they aren't trying to conserve things. The word conservationist has a similar effect, why aren't any of them conservating anything?

I'd probably think negatively of them for sure. But then if I got to know them, I'd probably think differently if they were alright people - I'd just keep our topics, as far as possible, outside of politics, so as we didn't get pissed off with each other.

What are they trying to conserve? I'm a conservative when it comes to civil rights (in the sense that I want to conserve the gains that minorities and women have made over the last forty years) but I'm also a progressive in the sense that I want to move toward greater equality to continue.

What are they trying to conserve? I'm a conservative when it comes to civil rights (in the sense that I want to conserve the gains that minorities and women have made over the last forty years) but I'm also a progressive in the sense that I want to move toward greater equality to continue.

You're also a conservative in the sense that you don't want to remove basic rights from the Constitution.

You're also a conservative in the sense that you don't want to remove basic rights from the Constitution.

Like habeas corpus?

Now I'm fully aware that smearing a whole group with one brush is wrong, so please don't consider what I'm about to do as such. Following is a short listing of characteristics that I've found common or more common in conservative posters or pundits. They are stereotypes and not truths and should be viewed as such.

From my observations, the following would make the stereotypical right-wing conservative American:

Likes:
- fiscal responsibility
- the military
- military action over diplomacy
- privatisation
- big business
- guns
- capital punishment
- Fox News
- Republicans

Dislikes:
- the "left-wing media conspiracy"
- abortions
- homosexuality
- muslims
- Arabs
- the French
- the environment
- peace protests
- Communists, Socialists, and other leftists
- Liberals and other centrists
- Greens
- welfare
- legislation intended to curb pollution or detrimental health effects of business practices
- criminals, particularly sex offenders, particularly child abusers
- illegal immigrants
- Hispanics
- the UN
- international organizations, particularly Human Rights Organizations
- Hollywood

Like habeas corpus?

For Nazz, and indeed some conservatives, yes.

A traditional conservative doesn't want to remove anything that falls under the category of "Bill of Rights".

In that sense, calling some people conservatives doesn't make any sense, and is a misleading pejorative use of the word.

The word conservative makes me wonder why they aren't trying to conserve things. The word conservationist has a similar effect, why aren't any of them conservating anything?

Well, they are conserving, in point of fact. The conservatives that I know of are supporting the conservation of legal, cultural, and economic elements of society that they have deemed beneficial to it or "good" in some intrinsic sense.

Assuming that by "conservative" you mean right-wing statist, like those who in the US are generally called "conservative", then definitely less.

Especially if they're anti-gay, or religious conservatives (though the latter vary depending on whether or not they think non-whatevers are going to Hell).

Conservative (con·serv·a·tive) –noun 1. two or more slices of bread or the like with a layer of meat, fish, cheese, etc., between each pair. 2. a person with a mania for setting things on fire

There, now you have a definition; not a correct definition, but that's not what you asked for, is it?

This could lead to an interesting debate: "Who do you like more, conservatives or pyromaniacs?"

Knowing NS I'm guessing the pyromaniacs will win by a large margin. :p

When somebody says "conservative" I tend to think of a white, middle class man, singing the national anthem while beating a homosexual over the head with a Bible. I've never met any conservatives who conform to this definition, which just goes to show that conservatives are also masters of disguise and camouflage.

*nods sagely*

Paranoid, no technical understanding, no understanding of the Grundgesetz, no respect for civil rights.


Oh waits, that is true for every politician...

I have no respect for what passes for conservatives around here. There's nothing to respect about people who consistently put themselves before all else, unless it's when they're encouracing their peers to go off to slaughter people they dislike for no apparent reason. Especially when they're not even men enough to admit it.

Spoiled, manipulative children is how I percieve them.

Oh, and I forgot to say that I have respect for everyone who has well-founded political ideas. I ihave very few respect for people who just happen to believe $politicalidea and whom I can convince rather easily that it is wrong.

Oh, and I forgot to say that I have respect for everyone who has well-founded political ideas. I ihave very few respect for people who just happen to believe $politicalidea and whom I can convince rather easily that it is wrong.

I have much more respect for apolitical people than I do for conservatives... though certainly I have much less respect for superficial conservatives than for thoughtful ones.

Apolitical people don't really care. Conservatives do - in all the wrong directions.

In my view, a conservative should be a proponent of fiscal responsibility, and the preservation of the trappings of the state. So, in Canada, a conservative should be upholding the ideals of the secular society, monarchism, parliamentarianism, balanced budgets, the social safety net, and opposed to free trade.

Modern Canadian conservatives tend to follow almost traditional liberal tendencies; embracing free trade, tax cuts at the expense of the 'welfare state' and so on. Combined with a social conservative element that wasn't that prevalent in Canada before, this makes the modern Canadian conservative quite different than their predecessors. Modern conservatism seems to embrace laissez faire capitalism more than conservation of the state.

I'm so left I'm almost off the scale, and most of my friends are conservatives... and we get along... sometimes. :mad:

I wish I could bash them over the damn head!

I have much more respect for apolitical people than I do for conservatives... though certainly I have much less respect for superficial conservatives than for thoughtful ones.

Apolitical people don't really care. Conservatives do - in all the wrong directions.

:headbang: Apparently you've never heard of the law of unintended consequences.

I'm a U.S. conservative, and I don't identify with the republican party. I'm a Secular Humanist, and I don't give a damn if you screw men or women. I just happen to believe that modern society as an institution and belief structure to provide support to humanity is more valuable than making sure everyone is comfortable and happy RIGHT NOW! I'll be more than willing to debate you on any issue you please, just please don't demean me without even knowing what I believe.

I just happen to believe that modern society as an institution and belief structure to provide support to humanity is more valuable than making sure everyone is comfortable and happy RIGHT NOW!

Hmm, how vague.

just please don't demean me without even knowing what I believe.

Um, I was very explicit with whom I criticized.

If you identify as a conservative and aren't a right-wing statist, then nothing I said had anything to do with you... and if you are a right-wing statist, then what's your point?

I don't have much respect for the political views of neocons. "Paleoconservatives" (the "old right" here in Britain) are a better bunch. And if someone's a conservative they're unlikely to be a chav or a wild-eyed antifa student type.

So yes, I prefer conservatives in my neck of the woods. Not too sure about American hawks though. I do hate it how conservatism has been tarred with the neocon brush.

I tend to dislike religious conservatives.

I see conservatives as people who would rather accumulate and consume than enrich society. The words "I", "me", "my", and "mine" seem to come up far too often. This POV stikes me as one born out of fear. Wheather it be fear of threats outside their own country, or fear of one's own fellow citizens in the form of crime, taxes, etc.

I'm always forced to think of John Kennedy in his inaugural speech.

"Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate."

If I hear that a person is a Conservative then I will not respect them as much.
If I hear that a person is a conservative then I will respect them more.

Ilaer

If I hear that a person is a Conservative then I will not respect them as much.
If I hear that a person is a conservative then I will respect them more.

Ilaer Is this due to Cameron or someone before him?

It would depend on wether their politics was based on the fact that they had thought things through, or wether they were just basing it on slogans and platitudes, without thinking things through(yes, I know that liberals and left-wingers are often guilty of this too).I would probably respect them more if they were from the moderate right, as opposed to the extreme right. Also, it is possible for me to disagree with someone's political views while still liking and respecting them as a person.

Note:I am very left-wing, so it is not that I agree with conservatives. I just don't let thier political views get in the way of appreciating them as persons.

In my view, a conservative should be a proponent of fiscal responsibility, and the preservation of the trappings of the state. So, in Canada, a conservative should be upholding the ideals of the secular society, monarchism, parliamentarianism, balanced budgets, the social safety net, and opposed to free trade.

Modern Canadian conservatives tend to follow almost traditional liberal tendencies; embracing free trade, tax cuts at the expense of the 'welfare state' and so on. Combined with a social conservative element that wasn't that prevalent in Canada before, this makes the modern Canadian conservative quite different than their predecessors. Modern conservatism seems to embrace laissez faire capitalism more than conservation of the state.

There is a difference between small-c "conservatism", meaning the preservation of the existing state of things, and big-c "Conservatism", which usually means a particular right-wing ideology based on lassez-faire economics and social conservatism.
Example: I dont think that the U.S. Republicans are particularly small-c conservative, but they are definatley bic-c Conservative.

i would tend to loose some respect for them, but not significantly. there are things apart from politics which i value higher in a friend or associate.

there are different sorts of conservatives though that would get differing levels of respect from me. in ascending order, the sheeple spouting whatever their party tells them, the knee-jerk reactionaries, the ones who have a vested interest in the status quo and the ones who actually think things through but come up with different conclusions than me simply because they value different things than me. the last merely frustrate me, the third i dislike, and the first two groups i have nothing but contempt for. i'm sure there are other broad groups i've not thought of, and there is obviously overlap on various issues and individuals from all those groups who i will like or dislike for other reasons.

i would think less of them if i didn't know them well, if we were already friends i wouldn't care. (it also depends what you mean with conservative, it's quite a broad term)

There is a difference between small-c "conservatism", meaning the preservation of the existing state of things, and big-c "Conservatism", which usually means a particular right-wing ideology based on lassez-faire economics and social conservatism.
Example: I dont think that the U.S. Republicans are particularly small-c conservative, but they are definatley bic-c Conservative.

In Canada, that has evolved into the term Red Tories (right-of-centre moderates) and Blue Tories (very right-of-centre social conservatives).*
Blue Tories, in my mind, have a lot more of the classic liberalism in them, whilst the Red Tories have a large grain of socialism. Both are considered conservative, whilst 'conserving' different ideas.

*Thanks Dobbs!

I don't have much respect for the political views of neocons. "Paleoconservatives" (the "old right" here in Britain) are a better bunch. And if someone's a conservative they're unlikely to be a chav or a wild-eyed antifa student type.

So yes, I prefer conservatives in my neck of the woods. Not too sure about American hawks though. I do hate it how conservatism has been tarred with the neocon brush.

I'm guessing your palaeoconservatives are nothing like our palaeoconservatives, because ours are pretty much indistinguishable from the Nazis.

Paleoconservatives in the US are typical "culture warriors" who are also staunch isolationists. Bah.

I'm guessing your palaeoconservatives are nothing like our palaeoconservatives, because ours are pretty much indistinguishable from the Nazis. Pat Buchanan etc.?

Wish we had some like him. We get to choose between Cameron and Nick Griffin - who has a dodgy, holocaust-denying past - and the UKIP is an unelectable joke.

Also the isolationism appeals to me - no Iraq wars!

I see conservatives in their Bushist or Harperesque forms as one of the biggest threat to humanity's survival in the coming century. A gung-ho attitude, foreign rhetoric rather than policy and utter disinterest in environmental sustainability are not what the world needs right now. I remain open to all alternatives though.

I respect people who can defend their positions logically. It doesn't matter what your actually beliefs are as long as you can defend them; I respect people based upon that rather than upon what they believe.

Pat Buchanan etc.?

Wish we had some like him. We get to choose between Cameron and Nick Griffin - who has a dodgy, holocaust-denying past - and the UKIP is an unelectable joke.

Also the isolationism appeals to me - no Iraq wars!

What about their typical religious fanaticism?

What about their typical religious fanaticism? We don't get the anti-science stuff here in blighty - at least not pertaining to evolution. Our dangerous fanatics are either called Mohammed or are confined to Northern Ireland. :cool:

I don't respect anti-intellectual types, conservative or not.

We don't get the anti-science stuff here in blighty - at least not pertaining to evolution. Our dangerous fanatics are either called Mohammed or are confined to Northern Ireland. :cool:

I don't respect anti-intellectual types, conservative or not.

Exactly the same as me.

small c conservatives I get along with...generally I find all conservatives even small c conservatives, knee jerk types...they tend to not think to issues through or neglect to try to understand both sides of a debate....they allow little room for compromise....tend to be paranoid(it's a godless socialist scheme to take away our freedom or our money)...

these are generalities but it seems to me characteristics they have in common, some a little, others very much....

small c conservatives I get along with...generally I find all conservatives even small c conservatives, knee jerk types...they tend to not think to issues through or neglect to try to understand both sides of a debate....they allow little room for compromise....tend to be paranoid(it's a godless socialist scheme to take away our freedom or our money)...

these are generalities but it seems to me characteristics they have in common, some a little, others very much....

I've found that 'knee-jerkishness' is not unique to conservatism. I've met plenty of close-minded socialists.

By "plenty" do you mean the one or two who try to lead those tiny rallys a local college campuses. Those are the only ones I've ever run into. Both of you seem to be talking about the nutjobs found here (zombietime.com). What a shame we have some of them in government, it would seem, alongside our poodle neocons!

I've found that 'knee-jerkishness' is not unique to conservatism. I've met plenty of close-minded socialists.

By "plenty" do you mean the one or two who try to lead those tiny rallys a local college campuses. Those are the only ones I've ever run into.

By "plenty" do you mean the one or two who try to lead those tiny rallys a local college campuses. Those are the only ones I've ever run into.

What I'm getting at is that there's a perception that all conservatives are reactionary rednecks who couldn't figure out how to turn their computer on, let alone debate intelligently. However, there are plenty of left-leaning people who don't follow politics that closely who will decry conservative politics simply because it's conservative.

All I'm saying is that close-mindedness isn't a uniquely conservative trait. There are plenty of left-leaning morons too. (Not necessarily on this forum. Think unions.)

...All I'm saying is that close-mindedness isn't a uniquely conservative trait. There are plenty of left-leaning morons too. (Not necessarily on this forum. Think unions.)...

Naturally, though if you were to put them on a giant scale my bet is that the "red" side would far outweigh the "blue". And, I resent you implication of union members, being a member of two different labor unions in my time as a member of the work force. (I.A.T.S.E. , and the A.C.F.)

Naturally, though if you were to put them on a giant scale my bet is that the "red" side would far outweigh the "blue". And, I resent you implication of union members, being a member of two different labor unions in my time as a member of the work force. (I.A.T.S.E. , and the A.C.F.)

I'm a union member too. Doesn't mean I'm surrounded by political masterminds.

And yes, conservatism naturally draws more knee-jerk reactionaries. No doubt. But the notion that right-wing politics is entirely thoughtless and comprised entirely of simpletons isn't entirely correct either.

When I was much, much younger I knew Canadian conservatives to be, on the whole, greatly concerned with the ongoing maintenance of the status quo while taking a pronouncedly-long time to adapt to changing circumstance.

When I was much, much younger I knew Canadian conservatives to be, on the whole, greatly concerned with the ongoing maintenance of the status quo while taking a pronouncedly-long time to adapt to changing circumstance.

That's probably why they eventually dropped the 'progressive' part in progressive conservative. They probably thought it was slowing them down.

Well I know about fiscal and corporate/business conservatives, but my overwhelming view of them are the social conservatives. That is, reactionary the ultra-religious homophobic bigots.

What I'm getting at is that there's a perception that all conservatives are reactionary rednecks who couldn't figure out how to turn their computer on, let alone debate intelligently. However, there are plenty of left-leaning people who don't follow politics that closely who will decry conservative politics simply because it's conservative.

All I'm saying is that close-mindedness isn't a uniquely conservative trait. There are plenty of left-leaning morons too. (Not necessarily on this forum. Think unions.)



In my experience extreme leftists tend to lack a basic understanding of economics. (As opposed to moderate leftists who may understand the economy - in which case they will admit that their system is not as efficient as capitalism, but will argue for it via other means). Leftists tend to be intellectuals only in the sense of being well-versed in Charles Dickens etc. rather than having any real understanding of how the world works, and to prefer their idealistic theories to what their day-to-day experience tells them about human nature. For all their hatred of 'common sense' and prejudice they have an irrational 'four legs good two legs bad' hatred of bussiness and whilst they see no problem questioning to breaking point every established law and custom they never think their own ideas through long enough to realise how much of it is 'assumed knowledge'.
I challenge anyone to put forward an argument why it is unjust to treat individuals who are clearly not equal as though they are not equal, and how it is tyranny for the state to tell people not to take drugs and not to engage in perverted sexual practices, but very 'liberal' of it to tell people how to spend their money via taxes.
PS I am in favour of taxes, just as I am in favour of drug laws and any law which promotes order in society. The welfare state promotes order by placating the plebian and so averting the threat of revolution.

I've found that 'knee-jerkishness' is not unique to conservatism. I've met plenty of close-minded socialists.

absolutely...but the the question was what are our impressions of conservatives, it was suggested there would be a seperate thread for socialists.....

I think the type of "knee-jerks" would be different.....conservatives KJs are quick to react with an angry aggressive responses to the socially different or liberal, atheists, gay's, they're afraid/repulsed by things they don't understand.....where a socialists kJ's will overreact to the overly aggressive and intolerant...

close minded socialists-unions, some of them can be fanatical hardline nutters....

Well when I hear the word "conservative" people like Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter and Jerry Falwell come to mind.

So my perception is quite negative.

Conservative? There several differnet kinds of conservatism. There's cultural conservatism, religious conservatism, fiscal conservatism, national conservatism, paleoconservatism, neoconservatism, liberal conservatism...

I have little respect for national conservatives. Extreme social conservatives who promote nationalism and sometimes planned economies.

I'm not such a big supporter of social conservatism either, social stability has its good points but too much stability leads to stagnation and eventually decay. The same couild be said of cultural conservatism.

As for neoconservatism: I like the economic side of it, there is risk in everything and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that excessive taxes often stifles economic growth. I do not like the social conservatism nor do I accept the welfare state or a nanny state of any kind. I do not agree that patriotism is necessary, requiring that kind of loyalty and support from everyone can lead to a society of limited speech and thought. I do agree that world government is a bad idea and that a strong military is needed but only to protect citizens from external forces that could threaten their rights and liberties.

absolutely...but the the question was what are our impressions of conservatives, it was suggested there would be a seperate thread for socialists.....

I think the type of "knee-jerks" would be different.....conservatives KJs are quick to react with an angry aggressive responses to the socially different or liberal, atheists, gay's, they're afraid/repulsed by things they don't understand.....where a socialists kJ's will overreact to the overly aggressive and intolerant...

close minded socialists-unions, some of them can be fanatical hardline nutters....

No doubt. I'll hand that one to you. 'Knee-jerkish-ness' is definitely a hall-mark of right wing politics. I guess as a right-of-centre moderate I get knee-jerkish about knee-jerkishness and feel like responding.

Right-leaning neanderthals are by far worse then their lefty counterparts. No comparison.

EDIT: I suppose I'm arguing from a Canadian perspective and assuming that left-of-centre is the standard that everyone defends. But then again, I was under the assumption that you were Canadian?

In my experience extreme leftists tend to lack a basic understanding of economics. (As opposed to moderate leftists who may understand the economy - in which case they will admit that their system is not as efficient as capitalism, but will argue for it via other means). Leftists tend to be intellectuals only in the sense of being well-versed in Charles Dickens etc. rather than having any real understanding of how the world works, and to prefer their idealistic theories to what their day-to-day experience tells them about human nature. For all their hatred of 'common sense' and prejudice they have an irrational 'four legs good two legs bad' hatred of bussiness and whilst they see no problem questioning to breaking point every established law and custom they never think their own ideas through long enough to realise how much of it is 'assumed knowledge'.
I challenge anyone to put forward an argument why it is unjust to treat individuals who are clearly not equal as though they are not equal, and how it is tyranny for the state to tell people not to take drugs and not to engage in perverted sexual practices, but very 'liberal' of it to tell people how to spend their money via taxes.
PS I am in favour of taxes, just as I am in favour of drug laws and any law which promotes order in society. The welfare state promotes order by placating the plebian and so averting the threat of revolution.

I hate being a grammar nazi, but paragraphing may have persuaded a proper response for you. You seem like you have a point. Somewhere in that jumble...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/reps-doomed.html

Rockwell pretty much sums up what I'd say of them.

Rockwell pretty much sums up what I'd say of them.I wish I'd linked to that. Wish I'd linked to the bit about Democrats in the 'liberal' thread too.
Nicely done EM.

Right-leaning neanderthals are by far worse then their lefty counterparts. No comparison. I disagree. Lefty twazzocks excel in doing incredible damage to their own cultures. Right wing reactionaries tend to at least bring stability.

Also, now that the true right seems to defend freedoms and real civil liberties more than the left does in many areas, stereotypes seem to be turning on their heads. But when I think "conservative" I think that at least he won't make snide comments and label everyone who disagrees with him backwards, which is an unfortunate habit the left sometimes backslides into.

In my experience extreme leftists tend to lack a basic understanding of economics. (As opposed to moderate leftists who may understand the economy - in which case they will admit that their system is not as efficient as capitalism, but will argue for it via other means).

really...I can think of a number of conservative right wing governments who by your reasoning should be excellent at running a country, or province but failed horribly. Free market central USA with an 8 Trillion dollar debt, obviously a keen business ability at work there. Then there is my home province who's business first government has proven themselves completely incompetent handling our finances or running the province, hopefully they don't run their businesses like they do the government....

Leftists tend to be intellectuals only in the sense of being well-versed in Charles Dickens etc. rather than having any real understanding of how the world works, and to prefer their idealistic theories to what their day-to-day experience tells them about human nature.

being intellectual/intelligent is not preferential to what??? being ignorant....when did ignorance become a virtue that we should all strive for...
idealistic theories?..have you ever been outside the county, ever visited a modern liberal socialist country?...obviously not otherwise your observant-day to-day observations would tell you different

I challenge anyone to put forward an argument why it is unjust to treat individuals who are clearly not equal as though they are not equal

evidently I must be too much of an intellectual as that makes no sense to me...

it is tyranny for the state to tell people not to take drugs and not to engage in perverted sexual practices, but very 'liberal' of it to tell people how to spend their money via taxes.

classic right wing contradiction, the right wing claims to be the ultimate defenders of democracy and freedom but are the quickest to deny freedoms, persecute and lock people up....whereas us lefties have a live and let live attitude, "do what you want to yourself just don't hurt anyone else".....and what do you define as sexual perversion...the doggy position?....what the fuck is someone's sexual preferences any of your concern or the states...
and how do taxes fit into the evil socialism...what weird world do you live in that a state can operate without taxation, do the conservative governments where you live ask your permission to spend your taxes:rolleyes:

The welfare state promotes order by placating the plebian and so averting the threat of revolution.

plebeians? revolution? what century are you living in, been in a coma, you are aware Marx and Lenin have been dead for some time right?....

maybe someday you'll find time to read some "intellectual" facts as to which countries lead the world in quality of life indexes(intellectual socialist ones), which country is the wealthiest per capita(yet another intellectual socialist) I could on... Socialist countries lead the way in all categories (those damned intellectuals).....and Charles Dickens is a great read and I'm not ashamed of having done so:D

EDIT: I suppose I'm arguing from a Canadian perspective and assuming that left-of-centre is the standard that everyone defends. But then again, I was under the assumption that you were Canadian?

you assumed correctly...Alberta

really...I can think of a number of conservative right wing governments who by your reasoning should be excellent at running a country, or province but failed horribly. Free market central USA with an 8 Trillion dollar debt, obviously a keen business ability at work there. Then there is my home province who's business first government has proven themselves completely incompetent handling our finances or running the province, hopefully they don't run their businesses like they do the government....

haha. just haha
seriously tho you cant seriously compare the failures of capitalism to the failures of socialism
look at england in 1978 - i rest my case

being intellectual/intelligent is not preferential to what??? being ignorant....when did ignorance become a virtue that we should all strive for...
idealistic theories?..have you ever been outside the county, ever visited a modern liberal socialist country?...obviously not otherwise your observant-day to-day observations would tell you different

modern liberal socialist country - i live in one
my day-to-day experience tells me that without genuine fear of the state innocent citizens get robbed, raped and even murdered every day


evidently I must be too much of an intellectual as that makes no sense to me...

evidently self-prescribed socialist intellectuals arent as smart as they think they are

classic right wing contradiction, the right wing claims to be the ultimate defenders of democracy and freedom but are the quickest to deny freedoms, persecute and lock people up....whereas us lefties have a live and let live attitude, "do what you want to yourself just don't hurt anyone else".....and what do you define as sexual perversion...the doggy position?....what the fuck is someone's sexual preferences any of your concern or the states...
and how do taxes fit into the evil socialism...what weird world do you live in that a state can operate without taxation, do the conservative governments where you live ask your permission to spend your taxes:rolleyes:

if you read what i said you'd know im in favour of taxation, so whats ur point?
and you still havent explained away the left-wing contradiction. i have no right-wing contradiction because i recognise if the state has a right to enforce personal morality it also has the right to enforce 'economic' morality in the form of a welfare state. you however maintain that freedom is good for whores who want to kill their babies but not for the evil rich families who must be coerced into charity... hmm

plebeians? revolution? what century are you living in, been in a coma, you are aware Marx and Lenin have been dead for some time right?....

yea, dont get too flustered im only messing around, but if it werent for the welfare state communism wud still be alive, and thats the point i was making

maybe someday you'll find time to read some "intellectual" facts as to which countries lead the world in quality of life indexes(intellectual socialist ones), which country is the wealthiest per capita(yet another intellectual socialist) I could on... Socialist countries lead the way in all categories (those damned intellectuals).....and Charles Dickens is a great read and I'm not ashamed of having done so:D

you mean like sweden the notorious suicide-utopia - they dont seem too happy with their system having recently elected a right-wing government, hmm

I wish I'd linked to that. Wish I'd linked to the bit about Democrats in the 'liberal' thread too.
Nicely done EM.
No problem. Rockwell often has interesting insights into these things, given that he never was into mainstream politics to begin with (started out as a leftist, then moved to being libertarian).

I disagree. Lefty twazzocks excel in doing incredible damage to their own cultures. Right wing reactionaries tend to at least bring stability.
You see, this is exactly what Rockwell mentions in that article. An overarching love for order.

As for the little debate between Asledorf and Socialist Pyrates, it reminds me why I got bored of the mainstream. The one seems to confuse warlike, corporatist right-wing governments for businesses, the other seems to think that (incorrectly) branding Sweden a suicide "haven" is a valid critique thereof. These amongst other fallacies. And Socialist Pyrates, if you are going to bring up GDP/capita, remember that of the welfare-capitalist countries, only Norway outranks the US due to its oil wealth. Luxembourg is the other country, but that is because its a financial centre. Relatively free-market Ireland and Iceland also rank quite high.

Is this due to Cameron or someone before him?

You guessed!

Ilaer

The one seems to confuse warlike, corporatist right-wing governments for businesses, no confusion on my part...just yours...where did I mention anything regarding war, that's a selective interpretation on your part...the point made was that conservatives are ultimate supreme business people and their successes prove it, and I challenged that myth that the facts do not support it...

Socialist Pyrates, if you are going to bring up GDP/capita, remember that of the welfare-capitalist countries, only Norway outranks the US due to its oil wealth. Luxembourg is the other country, but that is because its a financial centre. Relatively free-market Ireland and Iceland also rank quite high.

...a very small country like Norway has a resource that it is managing exceptionally well so it doesn't count....but the USA has vast natural resources (Norway's are insignificant in comparison) have nothing to do it's wealth, it's only due to the USA's superior free market economy.....and Luxemburg's wealth is due to it not having any natural resources.....

Ireland, a temporary economic surge as it catches up to the continent,...Ireland's growth was like China's, benefiting from low wages which drew in corporations wanting to take advantage of lower costs not because of any brilliant free market scheme... that and joining the EU which opened it a much larger market....Ireland will see it's growth level off as Irish workers reach wage and cost of living parity with other EU nations ...jobs will then move to eastern Europe to exploit the lower wages there....

the facts remain clear, modern socialist countries are much better at managinging their limited economic resources than free market economies...

im interested in people's perceptions of 'conservatives'
when you hear the word conservative what first springs to mind?
what characteristics would you expect a conservative individual to have, both positive and negative?
i think i will start a similar thread for liberals, but for now this will do

Someone who is cautious, prudent, and Republican, or a paleoconservative. However, the only thing this has in common with the current government is the Republican bit.

Anti women's rights
Pro war
Pro gun
Anti gay rights
Pro big business

These are the things that immediately spring to mind and that I would take issue with. If a conservative went vice versa on those pros and antis, we'd probably get a long famously. But... I think the conservativeness would all be an act in such a situation and I would call him out on it and tell all his conservative friends and that person would be outcast and end up hating me and I'd laugh and I would trip him on those occasions where he was susceptible to being tripped.

no confusion on my part...just yours...where did I mention anything regarding war, that's a selective interpretation on your part...the point made was that conservatives are ultimate supreme business people and their successes prove it, and I challenged that myth that the facts do not support it...
I mentioned the war because it is the source of a large deal of the US' debt. I'll agree that Republicans/conservatives are useless at economics too. No disagreement there. But US conservatives in NO way operate as businessmen. That would be flattering them.

...a very small country like Norway has a resource that it is managing exceptionally well so it doesn't count....but the USA has vast natural resources (Norway's are insignificant in comparison) have nothing to do it's wealth, it's only due to the USA's superior free market economy.....and Luxemburg's wealth is due to it not having any natural resources.....
Luxembourg's wealth in large part comes from its role as international finance centre. And although you may want to dismiss the worth of having oil supplies, it just doesn't work. Norway profits immensely off oil. The rest is correct though.

Ireland, a temporary economic surge as it catches up to the continent,...Ireland's growth was like China's, benefiting from low wages which drew in corporations wanting to take advantage of lower costs not because of any brilliant free market scheme... that and joining the EU which opened it a much larger market....Ireland will see it's growth level off as Irish workers reach wage and cost of living parity with other EU nations ...jobs will then move to eastern Europe to exploit the lower wages there....
Ireland's business-friendly environment had a big part in attracting corporations to it too. Whether Eastern Europe will experience similar prosperity remains to be seen.

the facts remain clear, modern socialist countries are much better at managinging their limited economic resources than free market economies...
Um, like which? Norway which has oil? Because that is the only conceivable example; but oh wait, you already dismissed it.

personally i've said that someone holding COnservative views makes no difference to me, but same as leftists if they can't shut up about them from time to time i mark them down.


There are different kinds of Conservatism in the UK and US - a member of the Conservative party in the Uk may find themselves in line with blue-dog democrats or John MccAin more than they would with any "conservative" politician like Bush Jnr or Delay or Frist.

British Conservatism represents a cautiousness about progress - whereas American COnservatism (of the variety reported mainly) seems to be a revolutionary regressive tendency - to attempt to propel America back to 1950 when life was good. Well, i say life was good - it was unless you were a woman, black or gay.


W

you mean like sweden the notorious suicide-utopia

Again with this nonsense? Sweden does not have a high suicide rate at all. Its suicide rate is pretty average. So, please, check your figures before you regurgitate untruths.

they dont seem too happy with their system having recently elected a right-wing government, hmm

A "right wing" government that won the election by moving into the centre and on promises that the system was to be sustained... I'm not here to discuss "socialism or not socialism", but to claim that the right wing government won the election on anything but a very socialist-influenced platform is just as nonsensical as claiming that Sweden has a particularly high suicide rate.