NationStates Jolt Archive

Simple question: the United States of America is just as technologically advanced, wealthy, and democratic as the rest of the industrialized world. And yet, the U.S. is almost inevitably more socially and economically conservative than other nations. Not by a lot, but it's noticeable. Why? History? Geography? Science? Divine Will?

Simple question: the United States of America is just as technologically advanced, wealthy, and democratic as the rest of the industrialized world. And yet, the U.S. is almost inevitably more socially and economically conservative than other nations. Not by a lot, but it's noticeable. Why? History? Geography? Science? Divine Will?

Divine stupidity more likely.

Because it was settled by poor people and religious fanatics?

Conservatism is generally an affirmation of our values from the Revolution to the present day. It is also the policy of common sense and pragmatism. That is not to say that all of the polices of the Libertarian or Republican party are conservative policies. Conservatism is essentially the recognition that liberty and equality are both essential American values but when there is a reasonable debate where the two come into conflict, liberty concerns trump equality concerns.

We are a conservative people and I am proud of that. There are some positions that are called conservative that really are not conservative such as being pro-Life. It is important to recognize this.

Simple question: the United States of America is just as technologically advanced, wealthy, and democratic as the rest of the industrialized world. And yet, the U.S. is almost inevitably more socially and economically conservative than other nations. Not by a lot, but it's noticeable. Why? History? Geography? Science? Divine Will?

Uneducated people are fucktards.

Because it was settled by poor people and religious fanatics?

I don't know how the bolded means it will be conservative.

Besides, it wasn't always conservative. Up until maybe the Second World War (give or take ten years), the United States was probably the most liberal of the industrialized countries.

Simple question: the United States of America is just as technologically advanced, wealthy, and democratic as the rest of the industrialized world. And yet, the U.S. is almost inevitably more socially and economically conservative than other nations. Not by a lot, but it's noticeable. Why? History? Geography? Science? Divine Will?
Because people tend to ignore US history and not note that the US has swung between being liberal and conservative many times during its history, usually in reaction to each other. We're just going through a conservative period right now, but it looks like we'll be changing soon.

Because people tend to ignore US history and not note that the US has swung between being liberal and conservative many times during its history, usually in reaction to each other. We're just going through a conservative period right now, but it looks like we'll be changing soon.
He speaks the truth!

Because people tend to ignore US history and not note that the US has swung between being liberal and conservative many times during its history, usually in reaction to each other. We're just going through a conservative period right now, but it looks like we'll be changing soon.

But to someone in say, France, the Democrats are still conservative

because its a nation of agriculture and tycoons which happens to be what conservatives usually are

Because people tend to ignore US history and not note that the US has swung between being liberal and conservative many times during its history, usually in reaction to each other. We're just going through a conservative period right now, but it looks like we'll be changing soon.

America was liberal :confused:

No Morality, put the Revolution for Dummies book away.

It's not yet time.


Patience grasshopper, armed revolution isn't quite the upcoming change.

And yes, America has had "liberal" times. It just depends on the time period. We, in comparison with other nations have swung across the spectrum a number of times.

No Morality, put the Revolution for Dummies book away.

It's not yet time.


Patience grasshopper, armed revolution isn't quite the upcoming change.
Did you read my post? Or just assume what I was going to say?

I just took a guess, I was just pokin a little fun.

NS always has had a way of destroying a bit of mis-placed humor. :(

*snip*
America was liberal :confused:

Ever heard of the New Deal?

But to someone in say, France, the Democrats are still conservative
Right now, yes. Did you mis-read the history part? At points in time, France was more conservative than the US.

America was liberal :confused:
Says the man from the country that gave us Victorians. :p

Yes, it was very liberal from time to time, and conservative in other times. Just like, *gasp* the UK!

I'm a religious-spirituality based person, I don't identify my being as represented by any man-made governing concept. I think generally especially among the younger generations conservatism is very soft if not completely vacant. As the U.S. continues to barely survive as a nation as this globalism sweeps on through, through the last half century I hardly see America as conservative ... more so working towards liberalism and a new world order encompassing much more towards anarchy.


I'm only 22 and most do dismiss me as a kook... ah well... had to express my view

OP: Because we're too nice to ban idiots and religious nuts* from voting.


* Come on! Even YOU people claim that you're worshipping a murderous psychopath who wiped out >99.99% of the world! Percentagewise, people like Hitler and Stalin come nowhere near that!

Right now, yes. Did you mis-read the history part? At points in time, France was more conservative than the US.

Yeah, sorry I thought you meant that the U.S would stop being conservative in January. My fault.

We are a conservative people and I am proud of that. There are some positions that are called conservative that really are not conservative such as being pro-Life. It is important to recognize this.
Actually, conservatism means something rather different from what you think. I realise many of these words change meaning from country to country, but if you ask me what conservatism is, I tend to point to Edmund Burke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke), since he's the closest to what one might call "rational conservatism" without it being an oxymoron.

Now, you can do the research to see that guy's stance with regards to the American revolution, and compare it to that on the French revolution. Suffice to say that conservatism and the original American values had some overlap, but certainly weren't the same thing.

Anyways, most particular stances on particular issues can't be neatly placed in the "conservative" or "liberal" categories, because the two aren't necessarily opposed to each other. If conservatism is the opposition to big social experiments, and those are usually government mandated, then it stands to reason that liberals (in the traditional sense of the word rather than the modern American one) could also be opposed to those same experiments, not because they're new and come from the outside, but because they come about as the result of government enforcement. That depends on the details of how the experiment is designed and enforced, but overall this dichotomy isn't necessarily a very good way of looking at it.

Very high occurence of chrisitanity is a major contributer. Not to mention the fact that not to long ago(for about 20 years after WW II) we were way ahead of just about everyone else. When you are well off, do you want things to change? No.

Simple question: the United States of America is just as technologically advanced, wealthy, and democratic as the rest of the industrialized world. And yet, the U.S. is almost inevitably more socially and economically conservative than other nations. Not by a lot, but it's noticeable. Why? History? Geography? Science? Divine Will?

Will of the People.

People in general hate change. Even if told that change is "for the better".

How long was England, France and Spain under the rule of their Monarchy?

give America time. we're only 200 yrs old after all.

Conservatism is essentially the recognition that liberty and equality are both essential American values but when there is a reasonable debate where the two come into conflict, liberty concerns trump equality concerns.

No, it isn't. I'm not necessarily averse to the conclusion that "liberty trumps equality"... but nobody calls me a conservative. (For the moment I'll leave aside the fact that what people call "conservative" simply doesn't have all that much to do with maximizing liberty. Quite the contrary--from the start the conservative movement has called for restraint of liberty, for various reasons.)

Ever heard of the New Deal?

You mean the period during which a small band-aid was placed on the gaping economic wounds that resulted from decades of economic conservatism when we briefly swung from far-right to center-right?

It's a bit like saying I was briefly (for a 1/100th of a second) pyrophobic when I burned my hand in on the stove and that was in reaction to my previous fondness for cooked food. Then my fondness swung back in favor of fire in a cyclical nature.

You mean the period during which a small band-aid was placed on the gaping economic wounds that resulted from decades of economic conservatism when we briefly swung from far-right to center-right?

It's a bit like saying I was briefly (for a 1/100th of a second) pyrophobic when I burned my hand in on the stove and that was in reaction to my previous fondness for cooked food. Then my fondness swung back in favor of fire in a cyclical nature.

Try 48 years, from the time Roosevelt was elected and began the New Deal almost immediately to when Reagan killed the Great Society.

I guess I knew history was cyclical. But even in its liberal period, the U.S. did not adopt the same policies such as universal health care that other countries did. Was it just happenstance, or something more entrenched in American society?

But even in its liberal period, the U.S. did not adopt the same policies such as universal health care that other countries did. Was it just happenstance, or something more entrenched in American society?
If you're talking economics, I think your cause is the wars. WWII in particular completely destroyed the economic foundations of the lives of probably the majority of the population. All these people having to start from scratch, while coming out of a period of nationalism and collectivism in overcoming adversity, lends itself particularly well to welfare state policies.

Then there are the communists, which in post-war Europe played a much greater role than in the US. The communist movement as a political force never really got off the ground in the US, but in continental Europe it most definitely did. Following the Soviet victory and the threat of takeover of Western Europe as well, a way to appease left-minded people was to smooth some of the sharp edges off the system and create something that wasn't Soviet controlled but still addressed the concerns of the centre-left. People like Clement Attlee come to mind.

America is conservative, to my understanding, because we are in a world which scares us and we dont understand everything that is going on. We feel our very way of life is under attack and so we need to defend it.

1. It's bigger, means popular opinion changes slower, and also with the state format of elections (esp for presidents) it means that certain areas can hold the rest back.

2. There is substantial political emphasis on the founding fathers, and what they wanted. Looking backward. Also the constitution, the higher requirements for major law making make sweeping changes harder. A high connection with The American Dream as part of the national identity. Socialism is seen as un-american.

3. Fewer poor times. At least in relative terms. And poverty shifts things left.

4. Greater need to be rich in order to be able to realistically stand a chance of being elected. Rich tend to be more right wing.

5. Cold War, political reaction away from major enemy.

That's enough to be going on with.

The US isn't Truly Conservatives. I have no problem with real Conservatives: they're brutally honest, want small government, don't go around dropping bombs on everyone they don't like...

What I do have a problem with is US "Conservatives". Just like the US Jesus vs. the Real Jesus, I think Ghandi said it best: "I like your Christ, but I don't like your Christians".

Since when is paying more then the rest of the World combined for the military conservative? Since when is dropping bombs on other people's heads and then calling them barbarians for not believing that we're the good guys conservative? Since when is Homeland Security Conservative? Real Conservatives, wake the fuck up, you are being used, completely, totally and utterly.

I mean lemme get this straight: if you follow Jesus, then you should be for Universal Healthcare. He didn't charge people for healing; He just did it. He was for free education, and yet the US schools fail, in comparison to virtually any European country. (No Kosovo's not a country, look up the definition of what a country is first, then argue.)

http://bp3.blogger.com/_P9exgtY2LN4/RzDoCdYgQ9I/AAAAAAAAAHM/ZH4ZtVrN_b4/s1600-h/Jesus+vs.+Jeezus.jpg

Kosovo is a country, no matter what the Serbians or Russians may say. Just because they don't like what happened does not make that any less so. It's been recognized as a sovereign state, hence its a country.

Probably a mix of insularity and large size, meaning we aren't forced to question our ideals as much combined with the fact that we've never really been ravaged by a major war. Many of the large socialistic changes in Europe happened after WW1-WW2, which the US was largely unscathed from.

Kosovo is a country, no matter what the Serbians or Russians may say. Just because they don't like what happened does not make that any less so. It's been recognized as a sovereign state, hence its a country.

Well ok, let's check out the definition of the "independent Kosovo"

1. Has space or territory which has internationally recognized boundaries (boundary disputes are OK).
2. Has people who live there on an ongoing basis.
3. Has economic activity and an organized economy. A country regulates foreign and domestic trade and issues money.
4. Has the power of social engineering, such as education.
5. Has a transportation system for moving goods and people.
6. Has a government which provides public services and police power.
7. Has sovereignty. No other State should have power over the country's territory.
8. Has external recognition. A country has been "voted into the club" by other countries.

Oh, oh. Let's look at 7 and 8. Does the Kosovo Government has power over the three regions north of Mitrovica? Nope, in fact these three regions have not recognized Pristina. So Serbia has power of at the very least a part of Kosovo's territorry.

And number 8: it is NOT recognized by MOST nations. It is NOT recognized by the UN. It is NOT recognized by the EU. Just because NATO says something, doesn't make it true.

But the definition of a Dependency - that Kosovo fits perfectly. It was, and will always be a poor dependency, whether Serbia or NATO will foot the bill remains to be seen.

No, it isn't. I'm not necessarily averse to the conclusion that "liberty trumps equality"... but nobody calls me a conservative. (For the moment I'll leave aside the fact that what people call "conservative" simply doesn't have all that much to do with maximizing liberty. Quite the contrary--from the start the conservative movement has called for restraint of liberty, for various reasons.)

But you're forgetting that modern conservatism calls for an enormous amount of contradiction in its philosophical underpinnings. Primarily because it doesn't have any.

Conservatives say that they favor States' rights. But then they send federal troopers to raid state sanctioned medical marijuana distributors. They pass a law to force medical lawsuits from the state courts directly into the federal courts. They try to argue against New York setting its own minimum wage, not on the grounds that it's interference with the free-market, but on the grounds that they think it's a job for the federal government.

They don't give a shit about states' rights, except when it's a convenient way to support legalized segregation, or state-sponsored religion.

They love the free market, and personal responsibility and "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" when it's a way to justify letting the sick and the poor die from malnutrition and treatable diseases. But when a giant financial firm is about to go under because of the stupid financial policies that they bribed politicians into allowing them to follow, then they're all in favor of government handouts.

So, yes. Only stupid and evil people believe in American conservatism. To believe in it as the Bush cadre present it you have to be both stupid and evil. But to believe in the milder forms of conservatism as represented by Bush senior, or the mainstream media, you might just be stupid or evil.

Simple rule or thumb. If you meet a conservative who wears cowboy boots, loafers, or sandals, he's a moron. If he wears any shoes that demonstrate the ability to tie a pair of laces, then he's evil.

Simple question: the United States of America is just as technologically advanced, wealthy, and democratic as the rest of the industrialized world. And yet, the U.S. is almost inevitably more socially and economically conservative than other nations. Not by a lot, but it's noticeable. Why? History? Geography? Science? Divine Will?

I think it's a mixture of geographic (and consequent mental) isolation, poor education amongst the peasents, a lack of practical seperation of church and state, and a culture that discourages reflection.

Not the entire source of the problem, but some major factors.

Simple question: the United States of America is just as technologically advanced, wealthy, and democratic as the rest of the industrialized world. And yet, the U.S. is almost inevitably more socially and economically conservative than other nations. Not by a lot, but it's noticeable. Why? History? Geography? Science? Divine Will?

Racism. Whenever any sort of progress seems like it's got a shot at actually happening, conservatives argue that your white dollars are going to help minorities.

Post-secondary education used to be available for only a token fee. Then the law said that it had to be available to black-people too, prompting Governor George Wallace to stand in the college doorway with a shotgun to scare blacks away. Then support for publicly financed college dried up.

Now Mexican is the new black and opposition to government financed healthcare is being gathered by telling people that "the libruls want to use your American tax dollars to sew back on the fingers of Mexicans injured on strawberry farms."

So basically, Americans are willing to take a hit to see someone else take a bigger hit. That's why so many people think we won Iraq. Forget the fact that we've gotten exactly nothing for our four hundred billion dollars, we have a functioning government and Iraq doesn't. We win.

But you're forgetting that modern conservatism calls for an enormous amount of contradiction in its philosophical underpinnings. Primarily because it doesn't have any.

Conservatives say that they favor States' rights. But then they send federal troopers to raid state sanctioned medical marijuana distributors. They pass a law to force medical lawsuits from the state courts directly into the federal courts. They try to argue against New York setting its own minimum wage, not on the grounds that it's interference with the free-market, but on the grounds that they think it's a job for the federal government.

They don't give a shit about states' rights, except when it's a convenient way to support legalized segregation, or state-sponsored religion.

They love the free market, and personal responsibility and "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" when it's a way to justify letting the sick and the poor die from malnutrition and treatable diseases. But when a giant financial firm is about to go under because of the stupid financial policies that they bribed politicians into allowing them to follow, then they're all in favor of government handouts.

So, yes. Only stupid and evil people believe in American conservatism. To believe in it as the Bush cadre present it you have to be both stupid and evil. But to believe in the milder forms of conservatism as represented by Bush senior, or the mainstream media, you might just be stupid or evil.

Simple rule or thumb. If you meet a conservative who wears cowboy boots, loafers, or sandals, he's a moron. If he wears any shoes that demonstrate the ability to tie a pair of laces, then he's evil.

Oh what a load of CRAP.

So all conservatives are evil? BS to the max.

If you had said neo-conservative you might be partly correct. Though even then your labeling an entire group.

Why is America conservative?

Rugged Individualism. The belief in pulling yourself up by your bootstraps (as I think someone already mentioned).

These probably play into it anyway.

I think it's a mixture of geographic (and consequent mental) isolation, poor education amongst the peasents, a lack of practical seperation of church and state, and a culture that discourages reflection.

Not the entire source of the problem, but some major factors.

No. France had a flourishing liberal mindset among uneducated factory workers. They had a moral understanding that when people are being treated badly (not least when those people are themselves) that they should be treated better, and those who are doing the treating can, and should, be forced if they aren't going to do it voluntarily.

Here we have both confusion regarding the notion of equality so that everyone thinks that they're middle class, and 20% of the population thinks that they are in the economic top 5%, or soon will be. (also 80% of the population is said to believe that they are "above average" drivers.) And a spiritually vacant Christianity which tells people that it is good and holy to be a dick.

One of the Pastors who has recently nominated John McCain preaches that if you are unemployed you deserve to starve. One might argue how what he does constitutes employment, but this is antithetical to the teachings of Christ. Yet he is a Christian pundit.

Oh what a load of CRAP.

So all conservatives are evil? BS to the max.

If you had said neo-conservative you might be partly correct. Though even then your labeling an entire group.

Why is America conservative?

Rugged Individualism. The belief in pulling yourself up by your bootstraps (as I think someone already mentioned).

These probably play into it anyway.

I mentioned it in the post you quoted. And I explained why it's a load of crap. If you think that conservatism has anything to do with rugged individualism you are deluding yourself. The only conservatives who live a rugged individualist life end up going broke and filing for bankruptcy. I know because I'm the guy their lawyers call to straighten their records out before going before the bankruptcy court.

As the Bear-Sterns example I sited indicates, Republican "rugged individualism," is just a code word for letting the poor and sick starve and die. Just like states rights is a code for institutionalized racism, and tolerance is a code for forcing other people to tolerate their intolerance.

And I didn't say that all conservatives are evil. I said that some are stupid, some are evil, and some are stupid and evil. Since you use phrases like "BS to the max," I have my suspicions, but let me ask, what kind of shoes were you wearing today?

If you believe that you're a conservative because you're a rugged individualist, you're an idiot. If you believe that you're a conservative because you don't think that people who are in trouble should be helped, you're evil. If you believe that people who are in trouble are insufficiently rugged and individualistic and should be prompted to greater individualism through the suffering caused by the failure of collectivism (which should be made to fail if necessary), then you're an evil idiot.

Conservatism, the Silent Generation of McCarthyism. Sheep.
Liberalsim, the hippies who rejected the government line on Vietnam. Individualists.

Conservatism, the Dixiecrats who opposed desegregation. Sheep.
Liberalism, the Freedom Riders who, without the support of the Federal Government directly opposed the racist governments of the South. Individualists.

Conservatism, the FOX news viewers who believe that the media, which complains about the liberal media, is telling the truth when it tells them that the media has a liberal bias. Sheep
Liberalism, has stopped watching Network news because it doesn't tell them anything. Individualists.

But you're forgetting that modern conservatism calls for an enormous amount of contradiction in its philosophical underpinnings. Primarily because it doesn't have any.

In the past, I've tried to characterize conservatism, in general terms, as an ideology hostile to certain kinds of equality... both the kind embodied in left-liberalism as economic equality, and the kind embodied in libertarianism as equal treatment (non-interference) with a variety of "lifestyles" and behaviors. They tend to do so on a basis that tries to connect traditional hierarchy with moral hierarchy: people who are rich deserve their wealth because they work hard, people in traditional families deserve special protection because they don't indulge in the licentious immorality of non-traditional lifestyles. (Not my opinion!)

The advantage is that this nicely sets it up in opposition to the Left, which at its core is concerned with the moderation and (further out) abolition of the inequalities of class society, and tends to flat out reject the defense of traditional hierarchies on moral grounds.

While conservatism definitely encompasses a variety of perspectives ("hostility", after all, is a purely negative description), I think someone can agree with most conservative policy stances without necessarily being in contradiction.

Conservatives say that they favor States' rights.

Most people say they favor states' rights when it's convenient for them, and go against it when it isn't. Hell, "states' rights" was a principle Democratic argument against putting a ban on same-sex marriage in the Constitution, but try applying the same reasoning to Roe v. Wade and see how well they take it.

Few ideologies are on principle in favor of political decentralization. Which is a shame, because it's actually a rather good idea.

They love the free market,

Not the way libertarians do. Not on principle. Certain aspects of market capitalism (encouragement of traditional ideas of hard work and personal responsibility) suit them well, but certain others (the selling of pornography) do not. Is this a "contradiction"? No more than social liberals saying that the government should be involved in welfare, but not in sodomy prohibitions, is.

Roughly speaking, I'd say that conservative ideology is (or should be) much less inclined to defend free markets on grounds of individual freedom or entitlement (as opposed to desert) than libertarians... it just doesn't fit as well with their social agenda. Culturally, of course, this isn't actually what occurs... perhaps in part because conservatives saw massive political advantage in contrasting the "individual freedom" of capitalism with the totalitarian monstrosity of the Soviet Union.

But when a giant financial firm is about to go under because of the stupid financial policies that they bribed politicians into allowing them to follow, then they're all in favor of government handouts.

Well, some of them, anyway (certainly not all.) But this would only be a contradiction if they were actually free-market extremists, which they aren't. Conservatives, unlike libertarians, are quite likely to respect some idea of the public, common good. Welfare, they argue, detracts from it... but preventing something that might cause massive economic damage might be a different matter.

Rugged Individualism. The belief in pulling yourself up by your bootstraps (as I think someone already mentioned).

Thus conservative opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion? Notions of personal responsibility are certainly part of the picture, but only a part.

Thus conservative opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion? Notions of personal responsibility are certainly part of the picture, but only a part.

Individualism is part of the picture of American conservatism the same way that Christianity is part of the picture of gang violence. It's window dressing to ease their distress when they slip and contemplate the vileness of their character and lives, but ultimately forms no substantial part of their belief system.

Thus conservative opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion? Notions of personal responsibility are certainly part of the picture, but only a part.

Those come from religion.

Individualism is part of the picture of American conservatism the same way that Christianity is part of the picture of gang violence. It's window dressing to ease their distress when they slip and contemplate the vileness of their character and lives, but ultimately forms no substantial part of their belief system.

Would stop with this ...well, crap? I mean, come the on. All conservatives are vile, blah blah blah, they hate themselves blah blah...



You are wrong.

People honestly believe that they should do things for themselves instead of relying on the government to do it for them. It is that simple.

It isn't hard to grasp.

Conservatism, the Silent Generation of McCarthyism. Sheep.
Liberalsim, the hippies who rejected the government line on Vietnam. Individualists.

Conservatism, the Dixiecrats who opposed desegregation. Sheep.
Liberalism, the Freedom Riders who, without the support of the Federal Government directly opposed the racist governments of the South. Individualists.

Conservatism, the FOX news viewers who believe that the media, which complains about the liberal media, is telling the truth when it tells them that the media has a liberal bias. Sheep
Liberalism, has stopped watching Network news because it doesn't tell them anything. Individualists.


Do you see all the nonsense rhetoric you spouted off?

Watch what I can do:

Liberal Hippies who all saw how fun it was to get high instead of doing something productive with their lives: Sheep

Conservatives who were out doing something instead of sitting around getting high: Individualists

Liberals who believe the State should hold every bodies hands and wipe their noses: Sheep

Conservatives who believe people can take action for themselves and do something: Individualists

Those who chose not to watch network news period or at least watch every network and make up their own minds: individualists

Those who all brand Fox news as Evil for being bluntly conservative: Sheep

I can go on and on and on. Sheep vs. Individualists in Liberals and Conservatives is bull. At one point Democrats supported Slavery, then it changed. Things change

Do you see all the nonsense rhetoric you spouted off?

Watch what I can do:

Liberal Hippies who all saw how fun it was to get high instead of doing something productive with their lives: Sheep

Conservatives who were out doing something instead of sitting around getting high: Individualists

Liberals who believe the State should hold every bodies hands and wipe their noses: Sheep

Conservatives who believe people can take action for themselves and do something: Individualists

Those who chose not to watch network news period or at least watch every network and make up their own minds: individualists

Those who all brand Fox news as Evil for being bluntly conservative: Sheep

I can go on and on and on. Sheep vs. Individualists in Liberals and Conservatives is bull. At one point Democrats supported Slavery, then it changed. Things change

Haha, nicely done!

Why is America so conservative? Because we were founded by people that were so uptight the English kicked them out.

As the Bear-Sterns example I sited indicates, Republican "rugged individualism," is just a code word for letting the poor and sick starve and die.
I can explain the Bear Stearns affair to you, if you want. It's a long and somewhat complex story, and I'd rather not waste the time if people don't want to know.

In short, it wasn't a bail-out and it wasn't a decision taken because of any sort of ideology.

I think the terms are a little US centric.

classical liberalism by definition is free markets with minimal interference by the goverment. Out of the two parties the republicans are closer to this modal. The libertarians are the closest of the American parties to this idea.

conservatives. Tend to be those wishing to protect religious or cultural values.
the republicans partially fit this mold. However this has not always been the case. conservatives used to be largely aligned with the Democratic party. Look for instance at the preacher involved in the scopes monkey trial.

The US distaste for national health care is in Us tradition liberalism more so then the conservative. When The religious for what ever reason migrate back to the democratic party they will likely support national health care.

because its a nation of agriculture and tycoons which happens to be what conservatives usually are



America was liberal :confused:Heck, the Republicans used to the more liberal of the two parties, ever here of Teddy Roosevelt?:p

Actually, conservatism means something rather different from what you think. I realise many of these words change meaning from country to country, but if you ask me what conservatism is, I tend to point to Edmund Burke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke), since he's the closest to what one might call "rational conservatism" without it being an oxymoron.

Now, you can do the research to see that guy's stance with regards to the American revolution, and compare it to that on the French revolution. Suffice to say that conservatism and the original American values had some overlap, but certainly weren't the same thing.

Anyways, most particular stances on particular issues can't be neatly placed in the "conservative" or "liberal" categories, because the two aren't necessarily opposed to each other. If conservatism is the opposition to big social experiments, and those are usually government mandated, then it stands to reason that liberals (in the traditional sense of the word rather than the modern American one) could also be opposed to those same experiments, not because they're new and come from the outside, but because they come about as the result of government enforcement. That depends on the details of how the experiment is designed and enforced, but overall this dichotomy isn't necessarily a very good way of looking at it.

Although it is true that many matters are outside of the conservative and liberal debate, the things that are actually debated tend to be. Nobody argues against the idea that all should be equal before the law. However we do find argument on matters concerning economic redistributive policies for greater economic equality. That is why I qualified liberty and equality conflicts with subjects that have reasonable debates (i.e. "doubtful questions" as used in Marbury v. Madison).

Heck, the Republicans used to the more liberal of the two parties, ever here of Teddy Roosevelt?:p

And depending on your definition of Liberal they still are.

Economic liberal most certainly.

conservative just seems to be the label for what ever party/ group has the religious types in it. My understanding is many of religious types in Europe tend to lean toward social betterment programs aka health care and the like.

The economic and military fumbling of the American left during the nineteen-sixties and seventies.

The economic and military fumbling of the American left during the nineteen-sixties and seventies.

Nixon was the left?

The economic and military fumbling of the American left during the nineteen-sixties and seventies.

HUH!?!?!? please elaborate.

but anyways on to the matter of why Americans are more religious IE conservative.

that is because of demographics, we tend to live more spread out then our European cousins I think half the population per square mile. This leads to smaller social groups and less having to compromise to help those of other beliefs feel comfortable. This tends to lead to a feeling that the majority religious/cultural view should not have to compromise on the national level.

Nixon was the left?

Many of the social policies initiated by Nixon, let alone the ones of Johnson that Nixon perpetuated, were hardly conservative. Wikipedia provides a nice summary:

"Nixon's domestic policies often appear centrist, or even liberal, to later observers. As President, Nixon imposed wage and price controls, indexed Social Security for inflation, and created Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The number of pages added to the Federal Register each year doubled under Nixon. He eradicated the last remnants of the gold standard, created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), promoted the Legacy of parks program and implemented the Philadelphia Plan, the first significant federal affirmative action program, and dramatically improved salaries for US federal employees worldwide."

Golly, he sounds conservative. More than anything, he sounds more like Lyndon Johnson than anyone else.

Many of the social policies initiated by Nixon, let alone the ones of Johnson that Nixon perpetuated, were hardly conservative. Wikipedia provides a nice summary:

"Nixon's domestic policies often appear centrist, or even liberal, to later observers. As President, Nixon imposed wage and price controls, indexed Social Security for inflation, and created Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The number of pages added to the Federal Register each year doubled under Nixon. He eradicated the last remnants of the gold standard, created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), promoted the Legacy of parks program and implemented the Philadelphia Plan, the first significant federal affirmative action program, and dramatically improved salaries for US federal employees worldwide."

Golly, he sounds conservative. More than anything, he sounds more like Lyndon Johnson than anyone else.



Funny, I thought we were talking about economic and military policies, not social ones.

Funny, I thought we were talking about economic and military policies, not social ones.



You clearly didn't read my post, and understood what I meant by the term "social policies". If we'd like to discuss economic policies, we could look specifically at Nixon's inflationary policies, which were in line with what John Maynard Keynes called for, and his obliteration of the gold standard.

Nixon fits within the broad, New Deal consensus, much like Johnson before.

As for military policy: Vietnam.

Many of the social policies initiated by Nixon, let alone the ones of Johnson that Nixon perpetuated, were hardly conservative. Wikipedia provides a nice summary:

"Nixon's domestic policies often appear centrist, or even liberal, to later observers. As President, Nixon imposed wage and price controls, indexed Social Security for inflation, and created Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The number of pages added to the Federal Register each year doubled under Nixon. He eradicated the last remnants of the gold standard, created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), promoted the Legacy of parks program and implemented the Philadelphia Plan, the first significant federal affirmative action program, and dramatically improved salaries for US federal employees worldwide."

Golly, he sounds conservative. More than anything, he sounds more like Lyndon Johnson than anyone else.


Erm. About that EPA thingy. Umm, Congress wanted to establish the EPA that was under Congressional Authority. Well you know what Nixon thought about Congressional Authority, right? Watergate...none of their business. So in order to avoid the EPA be under Congressional Authority, he created the agency. Same goes for OSHA. I don't know enough about Social Security or SSI to comment on it, but in terms of EPA and OSHA, Nixon created it to beat Congress, so it would be under the Presidency, not under Congress as was its original intent. He didn't do it for ideological purposes; he just saw it as a struggle for power, much like he saw everything else.

Erm. About that EPA thingy. Umm, Congress wanted to establish the EPA that was under Congressional Authority. Well you know what Nixon thought about Congressional Authority, right? Watergate...none of their business. So in order to avoid the EPA be under Congressional Authority, he created the agency. Same goes for OSHA. I don't know enough about Social Security or SSI to comment on it, but in terms of EPA and OSHA, Nixon created it to beat Congress, so it would be under the Presidency, not under Congress as was its original intent. He didn't do it for ideological purposes; he just saw it as a struggle for power, much like he saw everything else.

I'm just saying that he was part of the greater New Deal, liberal consensus that had arisen under Roosevelt. Whatever his reasons for doing what he did, he did not fight these changes.

If we'd like to discuss economic policies, we could look specifically at Nixon's inflationary policies, which were in line with what John Maynard Keynes called for, and his obliteration of the gold standard.

The Keynesian consensus encountered trouble elsewhere too in the 1970s, not just in the US.

Erm. About that EPA thingy. Umm, Congress wanted to establish the EPA that was under Congressional Authority. Well you know what Nixon thought about Congressional Authority, right? Watergate...none of their business. So in order to avoid the EPA be under Congressional Authority, he created the agency. Same goes for OSHA. I don't know enough about Social Security or SSI to comment on it, but in terms of EPA and OSHA, Nixon created it to beat Congress, so it would be under the Presidency, not under Congress as was its original intent. He didn't do it for ideological purposes; he just saw it as a struggle for power, much like he saw everything else.

check his notes with his advisers. Nixon wanted the EPA under presidential control because he felt big business(and their law makers) would filibuster or otherwise prevent unwanted environmental regulations, if the agency was under congress.

I'm just saying that he was part of the greater New Deal, liberal consensus that had arisen under Roosevelt. Whatever his reasons for doing what he did, he did not fight these changes.

That's because he could not fight these changes. You forget that the Hippie Generation was voting back then and that veto could have cost Nixon the election. Well not in hindsight, but he was paranoid about it. If Congress proposed the Master Pollution Agency and the people wanted it, Nixon would've created that too. My point was that he wasn't doing it out of ideology, like FDR, like JFK were.

check his notes with his advisers. Nixon wanted the EPA under presidential control because he felt big business(and their law makers) would filibuster or otherwise prevent unwanted environmental regulations, if the agency was under congress.

It's not that easy to filibuster a Congressional Agency. The people working on it aren't Congressmen, they are appointees.

That's because he could not fight these changes. You forget that the Hippie Generation was voting back then and that veto could have cost Nixon the election. Well not in hindsight, but he was paranoid about it. If Congress proposed the Master Pollution Agency and the people wanted it, Nixon would've created that too. My point was that he wasn't doing it out of ideology, like FDR, like JFK were.

the Hippie generation was almost always out voted by the silent majority.

I'm going to jump in here. (FYI: I'm an American who is a center-right Republican, but I'll do my best to keep personal bias out of this).

Anyway, I look at America's relative conservatism when compared to the rest of the western world as being composed of three major areas, social, economic, and militarism. Note that I am using "conservative" in the terms that most people today think of it, not in the most literal sense of the word. I'll give my insight on each of these.

Social Conservatism: For me, this one is fairly easy. Christianity, particularly fundamentalist evangelical Christianity, has not only been extremely resilient to the secularism that has so drastically changed Europe in the last 50 years, but actually grown even stronger in the midwest and southern United States. Today, almost 80% of Americans call themselves Christian, with only around 10-15% identifying as agnostic or atheist. Christianity's obvious social conservative leanings have strongly influenced voters, and by extension, those they elect. For example, if, on the United States Supreme Court, one liberal judge was replaced by a conservative one, we would likely see the overturning of legalized abortion in the US, an unthinkable proposition in Europe.

Economic conservatism: I believe there are multiple reasons for this one. One is thatthe lobbying force in our country is extremely strong, and lobbyists are, by and large, employed by corporations, thus causing the capitalistic society that we see today. The second reason, I believe has already been touched on and it is that the idea of socialism is perceived as being flat out anti-American. America is the "land of opportunity" as the slogan/cliche goes, not the "land where the government spoonfeeds you everything you need regardless of whether you try or not." Finally, the rich are extremely powerful in this country, and are, therefore quite opposed to any socialist reforms that would damage their current standing.

Military conservatism: America is undeniably one of the most hawkish nations in the world. We spend ~50% of the WORLD's total expeditures on military. Why? A couple of reasons. One, the United States considers itself the protectors of the free world, as well as a sort of world police. If we are to fulfill those self-imposed burdens, we have to invest in our military like that. Second is, well, Americans like to fight. The War in Afghanistan was a justified war to all but the far left-wing, regardless of country. The War in Iraq, however, was not. But it didn't matter. We were still pissed about 9/11, and Saddam had been a pain for so long, we wanted to beat the living crap out of him, and we did. Few people remember that when we invaded Iraq, the popularity of it was around 85%. Of course, we didn't know then what we do now, but we've always had that quality.

Anyway, that was my two cents. Hopefully it was an insightful addition to this discussion.

Simple question: the United States of America is just as technologically advanced, wealthy, and democratic as the rest of the industrialized world. And yet, the U.S. is almost inevitably more socially and economically conservative than other nations. Not by a lot, but it's noticeable. Why? History? Geography? Science? Divine Will?

Simple, they were founded and colonized by the followers of religions Europe wouldn't tolerate.

Anyway, that was my two cents. Hopefully it was an insightful addition to this discussion.
I like you. A first post without swearing and gun smilies.

For the record, I agree with you on the social and military issue. However, Washington lobbies don't explain why the communists never got off the ground as a mass movement in the US, while they did in the first half of the 20th century in Europe, keeping in mind that without communists it is much less likely that there'll be democratic socialists, and thus the looks of the centre-left side of politics will be very different.

I like you. A first post without swearing and gun smilies.

For the record, I agree with you on the social and military issue. However, Washington lobbies don't explain why the communists never got off the ground as a mass movement in the US, while they did in the first half of the 20th century in Europe, keeping in mind that without communists it is much less likely that there'll be democratic socialists, and thus the looks of the centre-left side of politics will be very different.

Hmm.

Perhaps because in the 1800s America always had an outlet for people: the West. People could always get up and move to the frontier to start over, and make a new life. Perhaps the frontier attitudes (prevalent since the first English colonies, really) such as self-reliance, had simply become entrenched in the American mindset. That view and communism don't together well...

I'd still say that the mindset of the 'rugged individualist' is still prevalent, of people wanting to be self reliant.

I think that is a good thing, personally.

It's not that easy to filibuster a Congressional Agency. The people working on it aren't Congressmen, they are appointees.

yes it is filibuster their funding. The agency pretty much does what they want, or agrees to do not do something. I doubt we would have catalytic converter if the EPA was under congress's control.

Jesus did once condemn every fig tree on Earth because figs weren't in season when he rode past one and was hungry. So sometimes, nice guy, other times... "eccentric", shall we say.

I like you. A first post without swearing and gun smilies.

For the record, I agree with you on the social and military issue. However, Washington lobbies don't explain why the communists never got off the ground as a mass movement in the US, while they did in the first half of the 20th century in Europe, keeping in mind that without communists it is much less likely that there'll be democratic socialists, and thus the looks of the centre-left side of politics will be very different.
Simply put, we've never had the bad times that would make communism seem like a viable choice as opposed to what we have/had. All the nations that went communist had been ravaged by war and/or had their economies collapse in such a way that left the rich very rich and the poor with nothing.

The Depression was probably the best shot (and if memory serves, that was around when the second and last gasp of the communist party in the US was), but WWII restarted America's economic engine. Europe and other places left WWII in shambles with years of rebuilding and shortages ahead, not so for America, we boomed.

It's very hard to accept the idea of everyone sharing the sugar when you're standing hip deep in the stuff and more is pouring from heaven. ;)

check his notes with his advisers. Nixon wanted the EPA under presidential control because he felt big business(and their law makers) would filibuster or otherwise prevent unwanted environmental regulations, if the agency was under congress.Check out what he told people. Nixon by no means wanted the EPA to do any good.

its one of those self fulfilling circular things the simple minded are convinced by the corporate mafia the're getting something out of, even though its constantly in their face that the're not.

its also called enculturation.

along with being an implied subtext in every popular play for pay entertainment

its self fulfilling and self perpetuating, and it isn't anything sentient that's in charge, but the little green pieces of paper those who think they are worship.

=^^=
.../\...

The belief in pulling yourself up by your bootstraps


Is a nice belief, but is, of course, physically impossible.

Ever heard of the New Deal?
Wasn't as 'liberal' as you might think. In economic terms, it was interventionist, but the programmes were still generally wedded to the prevaling 'conservative' outlook on gender, race and sexuality. Congress was hardly racing to get women and blacks (to an extent) into the CCC and the WPA. The GI bill did, and still does, legally exclude benefits to anybody discharged on grounds of being gay. Of course, some small progress was made for some minorities - Roosevelt did take some interest into Black poverty - but nothing was really done about it.

Overall, though, it's an impossible question. Any definition of 'conservative' (and I think Soheran offers quite a good one) will come up with regional and chronological exceptions. Most European countries do not have same sex marriage or civil unions, but some American states do, for example. Great Britain (technically) does not have abortion on demand, it's illegal accross all of Ireland and technically illegal in Germany, but constitutionally protected in the States. In terms of economics, I don't see how the USA is much less interventionist than the everwage European Union member state. Very few people seem to support lower public spending, even if they disagree on what to spend it on. The US 'free market' in healthcare is likely regulated as the British NHS or Canadian single payer systems.

Personally, I think much of today's conservatism is an illusion, despite the rhetoric. Or perhaps not. Plenty of people still seem to support the current racial/gender/sexual heirarchies and are quite strongly opposed to change. Ultimately this kind of debate will lead to a debate on semantics. I'll dwell on it more later on.

if one were to use the word conservative in its litteral sense, the political perspective calling itself conservatism would be its 'anti-christ'.

i count myself liberal if anything, while recognizing there may be problems with that too, at least as to how the word is being commonly used.

=^^=
.../\...

Simple question: the United States of America is just as technologically advanced, wealthy, and democratic as the rest of the industrialized world. And yet, the U.S. is almost inevitably more socially and economically conservative than other nations. Not by a lot, but it's noticeable. Why? History? Geography? Science? Divine Will?

Does being just as technologically advanced, wealthy, and democratic as the rest of the industrialized world necessitate being just as socially and economically liberal as other nations?

I think a lot of it has to do with perceived sovereignty (Americans like to think they are doing their own thing), and while the rest of the industrialized world may be going down the toilet in liberal waters, so too is the USA following (albeit a bit slower). If the USA is going down the toilet too, then they at least want their own toilet (figuratively speaking).

Ultimately, I don't think the USA is so different, though it probably looks that way from the other side of the fence...

Congress was hardly racing to get women and blacks (to an extent) into the CCC and the WPA.

Or Social Security, which at the time ended up effectively excluding most black workers.

US social welfare programs of the period were quite significantly marred by racism, and the consequences remain with us today.

Simple question: the United States of America is just as technologically advanced, wealthy, and democratic as the rest of the industrialized world. And yet, the U.S. is almost inevitably more socially and economically conservative than other nations. Not by a lot, but it's noticeable. Why? History? Geography? Science? Divine Will?

Is it because of your history of commie bashing, and socialism is too close to communism for you?

I don't think the US is inherently more conservative. It is more religious, certainly, and this adds to disagreement in some moral issues. But in many areas the Constitution provides more freedom than in many European countries.

Or Social Security, which at the time ended up effectively excluding most black workers.

US social welfare programs of the period were quite significantly marred by racism, and the consequences remain with us today.
I'm not as familiar with Social Security (for some reason my welfare lectures and seminars never covered it) as I am with other parts of early American welfare, but it's not surprising. Welfare was generally straight WASP males only.

Not as much as the "Scandinavian liberal paradises", though. Though apparently 1/3 of Scandinavians are depressed. Must be the weather.

Not as much as the "Scandinavian liberal paradises", though. Though apparently 1/3 of Scandinavians are depressed. Must be the weather.

You mean that place where they jail you for making comics Muslims might find offensive? Sorry all they need to is the virgins and it sounds closer to a Muslim paradise to me.

You mean that place where they jail you for making comics Muslims might find offensive? Sorry all they need to is the virgins and it sounds closer to a Muslim paradise to me.
Is this Scandinavia or the imaginary place in your head?

Is this Scandinavia or the imaginary place in your head?

OH

Never mind. my drunk ass read Netherlands as Norway last night.


Scandinavia is still good for now.

Simple question: the United States of America is just as technologically advanced, wealthy, and democratic as the rest of the industrialized world. And yet, the U.S. is almost inevitably more socially and economically conservative than other nations. Not by a lot, but it's noticeable. Why? History? Geography? Science? Divine Will?

Intelligence, hard work, and reason are the reasons we are on top. Perhaps it would be better for the rest of the industrialized world to emulate us rather than consuming valuable work time bitching about us.

Simple question: the United States of America is just as technologically advanced, wealthy, and democratic as the rest of the industrialized world. And yet, the U.S. is almost inevitably more socially and economically conservative than other nations. Not by a lot, but it's noticeable. Why? History? Geography? Science? Divine Will?

Because of the things that I bolded in your OP.

When you are de facto the richest and most powerful country, you feel little pressure for change. Expecially the ruling class will feel no pressure for change.

The US isn't Truly Conservatives. I have no problem with real Conservatives: they're brutally honest, want small government, don't go around dropping bombs on everyone they don't like...

What I do have a problem with is US "Conservatives". Just like the US Jesus vs. the Real Jesus, I think Ghandi said it best: "I like your Christ, but I don't like your Christians".

Since when is paying more then the rest of the World combined for the military conservative? Since when is dropping bombs on other people's heads and then calling them barbarians for not believing that we're the good guys conservative? Since when is Homeland Security Conservative? Real Conservatives, wake the fuck up, you are being used, completely, totally and utterly.

I mean lemme get this straight: if you follow Jesus, then you should be for Universal Healthcare. He didn't charge people for healing; He just did it. He was for free education, and yet the US schools fail, in comparison to virtually any European country. (No Kosovo's not a country, look up the definition of what a country is first, then argue.)

http://bp3.blogger.com/_P9exgtY2LN4/RzDoCdYgQ9I/AAAAAAAAAHM/ZH4ZtVrN_b4/s1600-h/Jesus+vs.+Jeezus.jpg

You'e confusing real conservatives and republicans with neo-cons and the bush crowd. As a registered republican, let me tell you that it's a terrible mistake to make.

As for your "Jesus = Universal Healthcare!!!11" that's just dumb. I, for one, don't want the slow, lazy, bureacratic government anywhere near my heathcare. Stop being a cheap-ass and just pay for it. Bills are a part of life.

Ultimately, I don't think the USA is so different, though it probably looks that way from the other side of the fence...


Most of it, not to be mean, is simple ignorance. Europeans look at Bush, or Texas, or some other stereotype and base their entire perception of America off of it. Or they watch Fox News or CNN and think they understand the country.

This is almost universal as far as nations go. Most Americans do it to Europe too. But still, most Anti-America sentiment on these boards is vastly off-base. Even an open-minded vacation to the United States would change some opinions I'm sure. Likewise for Americans going to Europe more.

You mean that place where they jail you for making comics Muslims might find offensive? Sorry all they need to is the virgins and it sounds closer to a Muslim paradise to me.

I get it, you're full of indoctrinated irratonal hate. I'm just not going to read what you say, since you've demonstrated that it's not worthy of my attention.

In the past, I've tried to characterize conservatism, in general terms, as an ideology hostile to certain kinds of equality... both the kind embodied in left-liberalism as economic equality, and the kind embodied in libertarianism as equal treatment (non-interference) with a variety of "lifestyles" and behaviors. They tend to do so on a basis that tries to connect traditional hierarchy with moral hierarchy: people who are rich deserve their wealth because they work hard, people in traditional families deserve special protection because they don't indulge in the licentious immorality of non-traditional lifestyles. (Not my opinion!)

The advantage is that this nicely sets it up in opposition to the Left, which at its core is concerned with the moderation and (further out) abolition of the inequalities of class society, and tends to flat out reject the defense of traditional hierarchies on moral grounds.

While conservatism definitely encompasses a variety of perspectives ("hostility", after all, is a purely negative description), I think someone can agree with most conservative policy stances without necessarily being in contradiction.



Most people say they favor states' rights when it's convenient for them, and go against it when it isn't. Hell, "states' rights" was a principle Democratic argument against putting a ban on same-sex marriage in the Constitution, but try applying the same reasoning to Roe v. Wade and see how well they take it.

Few ideologies are on principle in favor of political decentralization. Which is a shame, because it's actually a rather good idea.



Not the way libertarians do. Not on principle. Certain aspects of market capitalism (encouragement of traditional ideas of hard work and personal responsibility) suit them well, but certain others (the selling of pornography) do not. Is this a "contradiction"? No more than social liberals saying that the government should be involved in welfare, but not in sodomy prohibitions, is.

Roughly speaking, I'd say that conservative ideology is (or should be) much less inclined to defend free markets on grounds of individual freedom or entitlement (as opposed to desert) than libertarians... it just doesn't fit as well with their social agenda. Culturally, of course, this isn't actually what occurs... perhaps in part because conservatives saw massive political advantage in contrasting the "individual freedom" of capitalism with the totalitarian monstrosity of the Soviet Union.



Well, some of them, anyway (certainly not all.) But this would only be a contradiction if they were actually free-market extremists, which they aren't. Conservatives, unlike libertarians, are quite likely to respect some idea of the public, common good. Welfare, they argue, detracts from it... but preventing something that might cause massive economic damage might be a different matter.

You are making a pretty classic mistake by associating moral majority republicans with conservatives. They are not the same things at all.

I also take issue with your opinion of states rights and queers getting married. You are a wierdo for even thinking about men marrying men. Come on now that is sick. Anyway, the problem is the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution. If some pervy state allowed this the otehrs would have to recognize it. How does this protect the right of a state that does not want to allow such filth within their borders, nutter?

A conservative does not want abortion to be an issue of state's rights because it is really the right of the individual. It is presently understood to be a privacy right of the individual. I am notso sure that I agree that it is a privacy right but I kind of understand the idea and moreover I am just happy that we have that right as Americans, heck as human beings. The conservative views the central government as the check against state's exercising powers that violate the individual's rights.

Do not confuse us with moral majority scumbags within the Republican Party. They are Liberals who want big government to come in and interfere with our rights to abort unwanted babies. They are sickos. They are also a minority within our party that gives us a coalition that is big enough to win elections. We make compromises with them and it sucks but that is the price you pay for being in a 2 party system.

Conservatism is generally an affirmation of my values from the Revolution to the present day. I believe that it is also the policy of common sense and pragmatism. That is not to say that all of the polices of the Libertarian or Republican party are conservative policies. Conservatism is essentially the recognition that liberty and equality are both essential American values but when there is a reasonable debate where the two come into conflict, liberty concerns trump equality concerns.

I am a conservative person and I am proud of that. There are some positions that are called conservative that really are not conservative such as being pro-Life. It is important to recognize this.

Fixed. Speak for yourself, please.

Very high occurence of chrisitanity is a major contributor. Not to mention the fact that not to long ago(for about 20 years after WW II) we were way ahead of just about everyone else. When you are well off, do you want things to change? No.

Good point. However, Christianity isn't the major contributor. Biblical literalism is. Those who refuse to dig into the Bible any deeper than "God hates fags" to find that Leviticus also made bacon a bad idea, too. "Abomination" meant, in the time the Bible was written, "not of our culture" or "not of our rituals". It NEVER meant "sin against God" until about 100 years or so ago with the revivalism and literalism of the early 20th century. For more information on Biblical literalism and the use of the Bible as a weapon, see www.forthebibletellsmeso.org (http://www.forthebibletellsmeso.org/indexb.htm). Dig deeper.

Simple, they were founded and colonized by the followers of religions Europe wouldn't tolerate.

I think conservatism struggles against the cognitive dissonance present in the combination of religious and social rectitude versus captialism and the power of freedom and the free market. Why else could we have anti-drug commercials followed by ads for Budweiser? How else could we have generated both Focus on the Family and Hooters?

Hmm.

Perhaps because in the 1800s America always had an outlet for people: the West. People could always get up and move to the frontier to start over, and make a new life. Perhaps the frontier attitudes (prevalent since the first English colonies, really) such as self-reliance, had simply become entrenched in the American mindset. That view and communism don't together well...

I'd still say that the mindset of the 'rugged individualist' is still prevalent, of people wanting to be self reliant.

I think that is a good thing, personally.

:eek:

No offense, T-gaard, but that was a surprisingly excellent idea and well expressed. Since there are no more frontiers, there's no place for people to go to fully express that kind of attitude. Left to merely progressing in social matters, as much of Europe has done, the frontier mentality resists with all its might. I'm impressed, sir! *applauds*

Intelligence, hard work, and reason are the reasons we are on top. Perhaps it would be better for the rest of the industrialized world to emulate us rather than consuming valuable work time bitching about us.

On top? Really? In what way?

You'e confusing real conservatives and republicans with neo-cons and the bush crowd. As a registered republican, let me tell you that it's a terrible mistake to make.

As for your "Jesus = Universal Healthcare!!!11" that's just dumb. I, for one, don't want the slow, lazy, bureacratic government anywhere near my heathcare. Stop being a cheap-ass and just pay for it. Bills are a part of life.

So health care is a commodity, and not a right. Got it. People who can't afford the outlandish price of health coverage or the actual (grossly inflated) cost of medical procedures and medication should be left to suffer. Got it. So Jesus overturned the moneylenders' table in the temple for...what?

Some things need to exist outside the scope of the profit motive. Not many, mind you, but some things. I believe getting a broken limb set without having to bankrupt yourself should be one of those things. I believe that forcing a family to choose between rent and medical attention is nigh on criminal. I also believe that personal responsibility regarding personal health (exercise, diet, etc.) is critical and should be encouraged through health care policy (as opposed to penalizing those who can take that responsibility but refuse).

I get it, you're full of indoctrinated irratonal hate. I'm just not going to read what you say, since you've demonstrated that it's not worthy of my attention.

Uh...he corrected his post not moments after the one you quoted. But hey.

Nice criticism of my earlier post, Intangelon. However, my values are also American values. You cannot study American history without recognizing them. There are also bad American values too, like isolationism at times. These values express themselves differently.

Will of the People.

People in general hate change. Even if told that change is "for the better".

How long was England, France and Spain under the rule of their Monarchy?

give America time. we're only 200 yrs old after all.

The current Republic's in France, Germany, China, and Russia (along with almost every other nation in the world) aren't nearly that old.

The US has been one of the most stable, and longevitous governments in the history of the world.

I know, we tend to judge such things by culture, rather than actual government, and we say 'well America is only 200 years old, while China is 4000 years old!' but that is a ridiculous fallacy, to do so is to deprive the American Indians of their culture completely. When saying 'the US is only 200 years old' you are talking solely about a specific government, and it is one of the longest running governments at the moment, Britain was a monarchy not even 100 years ago, France might be a different government tomorrow because they don't understand that the gov. isn't there to be overthrown, Germany was a Fascist Imperialist state not even 60 years ago, and wasn't even the same country as modern Germany since about 20 years ago. China and Japan have both been their respective gov.s since WWII, and no longer.

I challenge you, then to tell my how on Earth 200 years is so short a time. compared to, say, the Roman Empire, which laster ~400 years, or the Byzantine Empire, or Pharoah Rule in Egypt, no, 200 years is not so long a time, but on the whole, 200 years is a very long time for one single govenment to continue.

Britain was a monarchy not even 100 years ago.

Wait, whaaaaaat?

Wait, whaaaaaat?

You're right, I mispoke slightly, but only slightly. They haven't been a non-monarchy for very long, you recall they were a monarchy when the US earned independance.

You're right, I mispoke slightly, but only slightly. They haven't been a non-monarchy for very long, you recall they were a monarchy when the US earned independance.

Shit man, they're still a monarchy. Get out of the US some more, geez.

Simple question: the United States of America is just as technologically advanced, wealthy, and democratic as the rest of the industrialized world. And yet, the U.S. is almost inevitably more socially and economically conservative than other nations. Not by a lot, but it's noticeable. Why? History? Geography? Science? Divine Will?

I chock it up to faith groups having way too much political power.

It was founded largely by the deeply religious. So there we go.

America wasn't anywhere near as conservative as it is today back in the 60's, when Progressivism was still alive. JFK's reforms, and LBJ's Great Society were embraced by a fairly large amount of the population. The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, (signed into law by LBJ, but passed by a Republican Congress...keep that in mind), which gave rights to women and minorities. It was during the presidency of Reagan that conservatism was truly killed, and we've yet to have a truly liberal president since, (the closest thing being Clinton who was more moderate than true liberal).

It was founded largely by the deeply religious. So there we go.

Not as true as you may think, as proven by history. However, a remnant of the USA's early Puritanical theocracy is still alive in today's Blue Laws in many states, like Connecticut. Don't forget that many of the founders were NOT Christian.

Nice criticism of my earlier post, Intangelon. However, my values are also American values. You cannot study American history without recognizing them. There are also bad American values too, like isolationism at times. These values express themselves differently.

Of course you can study US history without recognizing US values. It's called being objective about history. Looking at what happened without sentiment or apology is what history is supposed to be. Adding opinions, sentiment or "value" judgements makes it history mixed with something else -- triumphalism, ethnocentrism, revisionism, and probably a few other isms with which I'm unfamiliar.

I don't take issue with your values. I take issue with your assertion that your values are exclusively American or that American values are exclusively yours. Hordes of values can make the claim on being American, not just yours, and yours are more than likely to conflict with some in that horde.

Adding opinions, sentiment or "value" judgements makes it history mixed with something else -- triumphalism, ethnocentrism, revisionism, and probably a few other isms with which I'm unfamiliar.

As someone in college pursuing a PhD in history, I have to say that you are entirely correct.

First you need to define "conservatism".

The conservative flavor as espoused by the "social conservatives" of Moral Majority etc. etc. and latched onto the Republican Party is actually a very recent phenomenon, something that developed just as Reagan got into office. social conservatism isn't very much "conservative" in the sense that social conservatism often mandates government control to keep society from "decaying" along with attempts to erode the barrier between church and state.

The social conservative movement wasn't much of a factor because of the self-imposed exile of the religious Protestants until around the coming of Roe v. Wade somehow forced them into the political arena. Because they were so new to the game and came out so suddenly i suppose many politicians were unsure what to do with them until Reagan took them into the GOP. I guess Lyndon Johnson pissing off the South two decades ago helped that along, but i digress. Because of this, the American government tends to be more "conservative" because the social conservative jumped back into the game. We don't see this kind of resurgence in Europe nor the Far East.



Now, in the scope of greater American History, conservatism is defined as "classical liberalism", better known now i suppose as a relatively libertarian view. Actually, Republicans tended to be libertarian-ish before the 1980's (see: Barry Goldwater).

Classical liberals tend to be strict Constitutionalists, stressing freedoms guarded by BOTH Democrats and Republicans (notice that i cannot apply the label liberal/conservative here). As a culture, we started off our government trying to be as free and decentralized as possible. That pattern continued today. Especially economically speaking. I would think it would be just as socially free, if not freer, if not for the social conservatives.

As for why we are more "conservative" (classically liberal) than the Euros, Remember, we have multiple degrees of separation from the European continent. Our culture is built on British ideals of rights our own property an actions, going all the way back to the Magna Carta )I dont know wtf happened to Britain after that) and we ran with it. The individualist mindset fostered by pioneering west and being sealed off from the rest of the world by two great oceans for the better part of two centuries allowed the classical liberal mindset to flourish. Hell, the first women allowed to vote (in America and Europe) and the first federal judge was in the Wyoming territory in around the 1870s.



tl;dr - We are "conservative" more than rest of world because the social conservative came out of nowhere 30 years ago. we are "classically liberal" because we practically invented the term, let alone continue the tradition.


I hope that helped.

Of course you can study US history without recognizing US values. It's called being objective about history. Looking at what happened without sentiment or apology is what history is supposed to be. Adding opinions, sentiment or "value" judgements makes it history mixed with something else -- triumphalism, ethnocentrism, revisionism, and probably a few other isms with which I'm unfamiliar.

I don't take issue with your values. I take issue with your assertion that your values are exclusively American or that American values are exclusively yours. Hordes of values can make the claim on being American, not just yours, and yours are more than likely to conflict with some in that horde.

Ok, if you can find some values that are discussed in the federalist papers. See those values advanced in the Constitution, serve as political forces in support or opposition to reform movements and wars, praised or vilified in criticisms and essays across time and all of this going on in America, how are these not American values? Oh yes, some of them are competing and sometimes in conflict or in and out of vogue but they are American values. Nobody ever said they are values that only exist in America.

Not as true as you may think, as proven by history. However, a remnant of the USA's early Puritanical theocracy is still alive in today's Blue Laws in many states, like Connecticut. Don't forget that many of the founders were NOT Christian.

Although many were not Christian all were monotheists. You had a bunch of Christians and deists and little else. Although we should have freedom of religion for all we are a pretty darn monotheistic country.

Ok, if you can find some values that are discussed in the federalist papers. See those values advanced in the Constitution, serve as political forces in support or opposition to reform movements and wars, praised or vilified in criticisms and essays across time and all of this going on in America, how are these not American values? Oh yes, some of them are competing and sometimes in conflict or in and out of vogue but they are American values. Nobody ever said they are values that only exist in America.

Values that aren't discussed in any of those archaic sources include many of the "family values" so often crowed about by fundamentalist conservatives in the US. There's no homophobia in the Federalist Papers, and no Constitutional provision for the definition of marriage. Just to name a couple.

You are making a pretty classic mistake by associating moral majority republicans with conservatives.

"No True Scotsman" much?

"Here's my definition of 'conservative'... and if self-described 'conservatives' who are generally considered to be conservative by others don't fit it, well, everyone else is just wrong."

I also take issue with your opinion of states rights and queers getting married. You are a wierdo for even thinking about men marrying men.

Haha... if that alone makes me a "wierdo", my weirdness extends far further than you care to imagine.

I mean, thinking about same-sex marriage is pretty clean, when it comes down to it. ;)

Come on now that is sick.

No, what's "sick" is your homophobia.

Anyway, the problem is the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution.

No, it isn't. If the problem were the full faith and credit clause, they could put DOMA in the Constitution: say "States are not required to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere" or something to that effect. Considering the strong majorities by which DOMA passed, they might even have managed it.

Instead, the Federal Marriage Amendment aimed to prohibit same-sex marriage everywhere. Very different.

If some pervy state allowed this the otehrs would have to recognize it. How does this protect the right of a state that does not want to allow such filth within their borders, nutter?

Oh, does equal rights for everyone touch a nerve, bigot?

The conservative views the central government as the check against state's exercising powers that violate the individual's rights.

As I said, people of most ideologies are generally willing to favor central government power when it suits them, and oppose it when it doesn't. Stances on that subject are rarely matters of principle.

Do not confuse us with moral majority scumbags within the Republican Party.

You say this after ranting about the sick gay perverts?

They are Liberals who want big government to come in and interfere with our rights to abort unwanted babies.

I don't think you know what the terms "liberal" and "conservative" mean. I think you define them in the ways you find politically convenient.

Liberals of any variety are simply not across-the-board statists such as you suggest.

So health care is a commodity, and not a right. Got it. People who can't afford the outlandish price of health coverage or the actual (grossly inflated) cost of medical procedures and medication should be left to suffer. Got it. So Jesus overturned the moneylenders' table in the temple for...what?

*Points to the "Bill of Rights"*

Yes, health care is a commodity. I'd go as far as to say it's a necessity, but certainly not a right.

People who can't afford health coverage should get a job. Or get a second job. I'm tired of society pandering to the lowest common denominator. If we make it so easy for people to pitifully exist what reason is there to try and succeed?

Oh, and Jesus overturned the moneylender's table in the temple only because it was in the temple. It was supposed to be sacred, they made it un-sacred, and Jesus, who happened to be sacred himself, being the son of god and all, got pissed. That being said, what that has to do with anything it beyond me, especially since it's...well...not true...

we are conservative because we are a superpower. Consistently over history, once a nation becomes very powerful it will become much more conservative. As a result it falls behind the rest of the world and a more liberal, educated, industrial society will take the fallen power's place. For example, China used to be a supepower, but the conservative government halted shipbuilding and closed the iron furnaces. now china is a developing country.

People who can't afford health coverage should get a job. Or get a second job. I'm tired of society pandering to the lowest common denominator. If we make it so easy for people to pitifully exist what reason is there to try and succeed?


So as to live a life that is better than a pitiful existence?

Conservative??? You think America is conservative?????

Conservative and liberal are relative terms, relative to each other. You must first specify what you define "conservative" against to say that America is conservative.

Simple question: the United States of America is just as technologically advanced, wealthy, and democratic as the rest of the industrialized world. And yet, the U.S. is almost inevitably more socially and economically conservative than other nations. Not by a lot, but it's noticeable. Why? History? Geography? Science? Divine Will?

Americans have and still do hold their Judeo-Christian values in high regard. These values, the big one being that freedom is a God given right (not a state given right) has been the main reason why America is so technologically advanced, wealthy, democratic and yes, conservative.

Also, Americans have not been big on government and the smaller government is, the more people turn to themselves and their religion for support. The more pervasive government becomes however, the more it conflicts with religion.

and as far as economic conservatism (freedom) goes, America still has the healthiest economy out of all those other developed nations and many "Western" nations are looking to free market economics to give a boost to their stagnant economies (France - Sarkozy, Germany - Merkel, Canada - Harper, Britain - likely to go conservative with Cameron, Spain - Popular party gaining strength again).

and it is funny how you are surprised how such an industrialized nation could be conservative in nature. exactly what Obama was thinking when he made his "bitter" comment which pretty much cost him Pennsylvania and ending the nomination process then and there.

America may be Conservative. I am Conservative, yet at the same time I am a non-intervensionalist. I am pro-life and am currently in limbo on the Gay Marriage issue. I think Capitalism is tops and welfare should have limits. I think people should take responsibility for their children, and if they didn't want their children in the first place they shouldn't have had sex. I think public education is a good idea, but private education generally works better. The poor should have the minimum until they can work for the maximum. Send your kid to public school until you can afford to send him somewhere better. Have government funded healthcare until you can afford something better. But whatever you do, don't live on welfare. Why? Because when i'm President you'll have a 6 month limit. Amen, brother.

*Points to the "Bill of Rights"*

Yes, health care is a commodity. I'd go as far as to say it's a necessity, but certainly not a right.

You'll have to explain this bit in more detail. Lots of things considered protected (or rights) are not specifically enumerated in the first ten Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

People who can't afford health coverage should get a job. Or get a second job. I'm tired of society pandering to the lowest common denominator. If we make it so easy for people to pitifully exist what reason is there to try and succeed?

Who would Jesus deny coverage to? I mean, He spent a lot of time hanging around with the "lowest common denominator", from what I've read. Most people who need affordable health care DO have a job, or two. I'm tired of those with enough money to make Solomon blush continuing to hoard. But what you and I are "tired of" isn't important. What's important is that nobody should die from easily treatable, common maladies, injuries or conditions.

Oh, and Jesus overturned the moneylender's table in the temple only because it was in the temple. It was supposed to be sacred, they made it un-sacred, and Jesus, who happened to be sacred himself, being the son of god and all, got pissed. That being said, what that has to do with anything it beyond me, especially since it's...well...not true...

Not true? That's debatable, I suppose, depending on your religious inclination. However, had the moneylender been something less predatory, would Jesus have gotten so pissed? Hard to say with any accuracy. I could propose that the "un-sacredness" was because they were moneylenders and not, say, midwives or healers or librarians.

Dear Lord *facepalm*

To the extent that America can be considered a conservative country, it is so not because it's filled with whack-jobs (liberals, seriously, go outside the college district sometime and just look at all the sane, sober people, some of whom are even Republicans), or because we've still got a few heroes in spite of all the namby-pambys (conservatives, seriously, go to the college district sometime and just look at all the sane, sober people, some of whom are even Democrats).

If anything, I would say America's current attraction to conservatism comes from three distinct sources: Vietnam, a particular interpretation of our historical western migration, and the Civil War. These are historical events that, with the help of some generational inertia, made the conservative movement what it is today.

Vietnam impacts conservatives in two, not entirely logically coherent but rhetorically satisfying, ways. First, it represents a situation that for Americans should have been a theoretical impossibility: the United States, by far the most sophisticated military in the world, fighting against the morally evil Red Communism, (let's ignore the relativism/absolutism and good/bad aspects of communism debates; I think we can all agree that Stalinism left a great deal to be desired both ethically and practically) managed to lose. They lost despite years of effort and tremendous expenditure of weapons and men. I say this is a theoretical impossibility because anyone with the slightest moral compass ought to realize that good isn't supposed to lose to evil, and technology is supposed to beat primitive fighters. For us to lose then requires a monumental level pretzel-logic to understand, and the conservatives have had a ready answer: we didn't really lose, or we wouldn't have, were it not for some Americans who weren't totally committed. This answer doesn't require much thought or analysis of the situation, nor does it require us to question whether we really were in the moral right or whether our tech really gives us the edge we think it does. Second, it helps lay the foundations for the persistent belief that government is by its nature corrupt and incompetent.

Our western migration, at least as far as the stories we tell ourselves would have it, adds a peculiar twist to this sense of governmental incompetence. The stories we tell ourselves about the old West are those that are, by and large, stories about self-capable people doing justice from a position of strength in the absence of a truly effective legal system. Scratch an old western, and you'll find underneath the gloss a persistent concern about the ability of the law to deal with the scale and scope of the people and terrain it finds itself in. Now, this ignores the fact that the real Wild West lasted only 30 years or so, the land was settled and organized steadily and systematically in that time, and that most of the Westerners were in fact Civil War vets who knew their way around firearms and were not likely to be bullied by the marauding gangs of sociopaths that we know so well from the movies. But it allows us to tell ourselves that we can be okay with sweat, hard work, and no government.

Third and finally, the Civil War itself and the racial antagonisms it set up led to a significant block of hotbed conservatism. Simply put, you do not find firebrand liberalism south of Mason-Dixon unless it's in a black church, where once you found it everywhere. The reason you didn't find it any more in, say, 1972 is because of Southern reaction to the Civil Rights movement, and you don't see it today because many Southerners who have reached maturity between 1972 and now have never met a liberal for whom to measure against everything they get told about liberalism. The racial component has dramatically atrophied, but what has been left in the Deep South is a generational conviction that liberals are some foreign, malign, Yankee group that doesn't share Southern values. Forgotten is the fact that people like George Wallace and William Jennings Bryan were once by any standard hardline economic leftists.

Values that aren't discussed in any of those archaic sources include many of the "family values" so often crowed about by fundamentalist conservatives in the US. There's no homophobia in the Federalist Papers, and no Constitutional provision for the definition of marriage. Just to name a couple.

This seems to be coming out of left field. You responded to my post about those conservative values that are reflected in American history and are part of what many would identify with American values. These principles are limited government, mistrust of powerful government involvement in private affairs, free markets, freedom of the seas, federalism, and the emphasis on personal liberty at the expense of competing policy factors. So much of the conservative poltical movement is summed up by the rather American notion that "The law should do the greatest good for the greatest number. The greatest number is one." This is the idea that the most important consideration should be the effect of a policy on the limitation of the freedom of the individual citizen.

Family values are not a politically conservative value. They exist outside of the realm of politics and are the values that keep our families strong. Our legal system has long recognized that family matters are a matter of privacy that is to be shielded from a lot of governmental regulation. The first case for this happened to be about a law that required that schools only teach in English. Some families wanted schools taught in German and the Court recognized that the family has a right to determine how their children may be educated and the government has no right to interfere with that. This I believe is the first non search and seizure case to recognize a Constitutional right of privacy and was a precedent for the conservative decision of Roe v. Wade.

Homophobia is not a value discussed in the federalist papers. Laws restricting the rights of homosexuals are not in keeping with the conservative principles of limiting big government. We saw this in the recent Texas sodomy decision. Privately performed homosexual acts may not be outlawed by any government. This is an extension of the right of privacy outside of the traditional family centered privacy policy that was earlier announced by the Court.

These principles are limited government, mistrust of powerful government involvement in private affairs, free markets, freedom of the seas, federalism, and the emphasis on personal liberty at the expense of competing policy factors.
Though it does make me a sad panda that almost none of these principles are honored by self-described conservatives these days.

Dear Lord *facepalm*

To the extent that America can be considered a conservative country, it is so not because it's filled with whack-jobs (liberals, seriously, go outside the college district sometime and just look at all the sane, sober people, some of whom are even Republicans), or because we've still got a few heroes in spite of all the namby-pambys (conservatives, seriously, go to the college district sometime and just look at all the sane, sober people, some of whom are even Democrats).

If anything, I would say America's current attraction to conservatism comes from three distinct sources: Vietnam, a particular interpretation of our historical western migration, and the Civil War. These are historical events that, with the help of some generational inertia, made the conservative movement what it is today.

Vietnam impacts conservatives in two, not entirely logically coherent but rhetorically satisfying, ways. First, it represents a situation that for Americans should have been a theoretical impossibility: the United States, by far the most sophisticated military in the world, fighting against the morally evil Red Communism, (let's ignore the relativism/absolutism and good/bad aspects of communism debates; I think we can all agree that Stalinism left a great deal to be desired both ethically and practically) managed to lose. They lost despite years of effort and tremendous expenditure of weapons and men. I say this is a theoretical impossibility because anyone with the slightest moral compass ought to realize that good isn't supposed to lose to evil, and technology is supposed to beat primitive fighters. For us to lose then requires a monumental level pretzel-logic to understand, and the conservatives have had a ready answer: we didn't really lose, or we wouldn't have, were it not for some Americans who weren't totally committed. This answer doesn't require much thought or analysis of the situation, nor does it require us to question whether we really were in the moral right or whether our tech really gives us the edge we think it does. Second, it helps lay the foundations for the persistent belief that government is by its nature corrupt and incompetent.

Our western migration, at least as far as the stories we tell ourselves would have it, adds a peculiar twist to this sense of governmental incompetence. The stories we tell ourselves about the old West are those that are, by and large, stories about self-capable people doing justice from a position of strength in the absence of a truly effective legal system. Scratch an old western, and you'll find underneath the gloss a persistent concern about the ability of the law to deal with the scale and scope of the people and terrain it finds itself in. Now, this ignores the fact that the real Wild West lasted only 30 years or so, the land was settled and organized steadily and systematically in that time, and that most of the Westerners were in fact Civil War vets who knew their way around firearms and were not likely to be bullied by the marauding gangs of sociopaths that we know so well from the movies. But it allows us to tell ourselves that we can be okay with sweat, hard work, and no government.

Third and finally, the Civil War itself and the racial antagonisms it set up led to a significant block of hotbed conservatism. Simply put, you do not find firebrand liberalism south of Mason-Dixon unless it's in a black church, where once you found it everywhere. The reason you didn't find it any more in, say, 1972 is because of Southern reaction to the Civil Rights movement, and you don't see it today because many Southerners who have reached maturity between 1972 and now have never met a liberal for whom to measure against everything they get told about liberalism. The racial component has dramatically atrophied, but what has been left in the Deep South is a generational conviction that liberals are some foreign, malign, Yankee group that doesn't share Southern values. Forgotten is the fact that people like George Wallace and William Jennings Bryan were once by any standard hardline economic leftists.

I must say that your comments on the role of the Vietnam War are pretty accurate. I view the Vietnam War as pretty much exactly the way that you describe. I blame the hippies for the loss of the war. I have a profound disgust for anyone who tries to undermine any American war effort.

I also see the Cold War as a great affirmation of capitalism. I only have two major criticisms of capitalism. There needs to be an internalization of environmental and safety costs. There must be trade barriers tha tinternalize the costs of foreign goods that were not produced with substantially similar internalization of at least environmental costs and product safety costs. I think that no country has the right to cause extinction or endangerment of any species. I think that if foreign firms want to sell products in the USA they should be subject to the same product safety protections as American producers.

we are conservative because we are a superpower. Consistently over history, once a nation becomes very powerful it will become much more conservative. As a result it falls behind the rest of the world and a more liberal, educated, industrial society will take the fallen power's place. For example, China used to be a supepower, but the conservative government halted shipbuilding and closed the iron furnaces. now china is a developing country.

Ummmm....regulation of the economy is conservative???? China used to be a superpower??? Fail.

Though it does make me a sad panda that almost none of these principles are honored by self-described conservatives these days.

Yes. Me too. There are many within the Republican Party who are not very conservative at all. This is the problem with two party systems. It reminds me issue we get sometimes on Nation States about oh I think they are the two parties of the Centrist Moderates and the Moderate Centrists and there is little or no difference between them.

The main problem as I see it is the moral majority folks. I admit I agree with them on some points but man they are a wacky bunch of big government liberals! Banning abortion? Really? How can a conservative like that? How can an environmentalist who thinks that the world is overpopulated already like that? These Bible thumpers are crazy. I really wish that all of the moral majority folks would leave the Republican Party and all of the PC VC liberals would leave the Democrat Party. They could each form their own nutjob parties and leave the rest of us alone and just hang out in the margins where they belong and can cause little trouble.

Interesting views.

I blame the hippies for the loss of the war.
I had no idea hippies were that powerful.


I have a profound disgust for anyone who tries to undermine any American war effort.

What do you mean by "undermine"?


I also see the Cold War as a great affirmation of capitalism.

I see the Cold War as the great affirmation that Mikhail Bakunin was right, and if he were here today, he would mosey over to Karl Marx and say "I told you so!"


I only have two major criticisms of capitalism. There needs to be an internalization of environmental and safety costs. There must be trade barriers tha tinternalize the costs of foreign goods that were not produced with substantially similar internalization of at least environmental costs and product safety costs. I think that no country has the right to cause extinction or endangerment of any species. I think that if foreign firms want to sell products in the USA they should be subject to the same product safety protections as American producers.
Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by "internalization of costs," but shouldn't all costs be internalized?

Interesting views.


I had no idea hippies were that powerful.


What do you mean by "undermine"?


I see the Cold War as the great affirmation that Mikhail Bakunin was right, and if he were here today, he would mosey over to Karl Marx and say "I told you so!"


Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by "internalization of costs," but shouldn't all costs be internalized?

Yes. Hippies were that powerful. One of the great things about Democracy is that the people are powerful. However, when the people use their power for stupidity and in the assistance of the enemy, well good results usually do not follow.

I have no idea about who Mikhail Bakunin was.

As far as cost internalization, not all costs are necessarily internalized by the invisible hand. Some costs are excluded and must be addressed (if at all) by the public sector. The public sextor can either regulate business to make the consumer ultimately pay the costs or it can decide to ignore the cost and have some harm occur, or it can assume the cost and thereby expanding the cost of government. In a sense you are right in that someone always pays. The question is who shall pay? Is it the consumer, the taxpayer, or someone else like Mother Nature or Society?

Undermining is anything that in any way detracts from the war effort. In a democracy we have control over when our nation goes to war. If we oppose the idea it is the citizens duty to oppose it in the prewar stage. However, unless you are a conscientoius objector, once war initiates it is every citizen's duty to support the war effort. There are no exceptions.

Yes. Hippies were that powerful. One of the great things about Democracy is that the people are powerful. However, when the people use their power for stupidity and in the assistance of the enemy, well good results usually do not follow.



I have no idea about who Mikhail Bakunin was.

Figures... Bakunin was a social anarchist who broke with the communist movement because he did not buy the "dictatorship of the proletariat" idea at all, nor the idea that the Marxist "worker's state" would "wither away." He basically predicted the totalitarianism which would follow Marxism.

Interesting polemic here. (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Archive/BakuninMarx.html)


As far as cost internalization, not all costs are necessarily internalized by the invisible hand. Some costs are excluded and must be addressed (if at all) by the public sector. The public sextor can either regulate business to make the consumer ultimately pay the costs or it can decide to ignore the cost and have some harm occur, or it can assume the cost and thereby expanding the cost of government. In a sense you are right in that someone always pays. The question is who shall pay? Is it the consumer, the taxpayer, or someone else like Mother Nature or Society?

I agree that not all costs are internalized, that's why we have "externalities," which I take to be a euphemism for destroying the world everybody else lives in. My position is that businesses should have to internalize all the costs, because they don't have a right to destroy the world other people live in (meaning that they don't have a right to poison other people).


Undermining is anything that in any way detracts from the war effort. In a democracy we have control over when our nation goes to war. If we oppose the idea it is the citizens duty to oppose it in the prewar stage. However, unless you are a conscientoius objector, once war initiates it is every citizen's duty to support the war effort. There are no exceptions.
Does nonviolent public protest count as "undermining" according to the definition you just gave?

Also, wouldn't it be true that a conscientious objector undermines the war effort, and therefore you should despise that person also?

Figures... Bakunin was a social anarchist who broke with the communist movement because he did not buy the "dictatorship of the proletariat" idea at all, nor the idea that the Marxist "worker's state" would "wither away." He basically predicted the totalitarianism which would follow Marxism.

Interesting polemic here. (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Archive/BakuninMarx.html)


I agree that not all costs are internalized, that's why we have "externalities," which I take to be a euphemism for destroying the world everybody else lives in. My position is that businesses should have to internalize all the costs, because they don't have a right to destroy the world other people live in (meaning that they don't have a right to poison other people).


Does nonviolent public protest count as "undermining" according to the definition you just gave?

Also, wouldn't it be true that a conscientious objector undermines the war effort, and therefore you should despise that person also?

I think that in the context of global trade no nation may allow costs to be externalized that have an adverse effect on non-humans. No nation may allow costs to be externalized that have an adverse effect on the health and safety of the people of other nations unless there is a treaty between those two (or more) countries providing therefore. Nations are free to allow the externalization of costs that affect only their own people.

Furthermore, if a nation gets all weepy over the plight of another nation's people (or a more cynical person might say that this is used as an excuse for protectionism) a nation cam internalize the cost at least to the point where the firms of the other nation cannot benefit from the externalization of the cost at the expense of domestic firms that produce competing goods at a higher and internalized cost.

I think that nonviolent public protest does undermine a war effort as it may poison morale. It is the duty of the dissident to keep his mouth shut. However, at the conclusion of the war, the dissident must sing so that if there is some merit to his views they can be helpful in evaluating future decisions.

Consciencious Objectors ("COs") are an exceptional category of citizen. If someone's sincere religious views forbid him to kill, he must not be forced to do so. A CO should participate to the fullest extent in a war effort that his religious conscience allows. A CO should be subject to conscription but placed into a public role that is suited to his conscience. This may include non-military public service subject to somewhat military lifestyle conditions such as existed for the smoke jumper COs of WWII.

Nobody should ever despise someone for their sincere religious beliefs. We must be tolerant of diverse views and respectful of other faiths.

The current Republic's in France, Germany, China, and Russia (along with almost every other nation in the world) aren't nearly that old. But the countries are. Conservatism isn't just present in Republics.

The US has been one of the most stable, and longevitous governments in the history of the world. yep, because our governement was designed to be flexable.

I know, we tend to judge such things by culture, rather than actual government, and we say 'well America is only 200 years old, while China is 4000 years old!' but that is a ridiculous fallacy, to do so is to deprive the American Indians of their culture completely. When saying 'the US is only 200 years old' you are talking solely about a specific government, and it is one of the longest running governments at the moment, Britain was a monarchy not even 100 years ago, France might be a different government tomorrow because they don't understand that the gov. isn't there to be overthrown, Germany was a Fascist Imperialist state not even 60 years ago, and wasn't even the same country as modern Germany since about 20 years ago. China and Japan have both been their respective gov.s since WWII, and no longer.except I'm not talking about the 'Government' nor the 'Culture' of the people, but the formation of the 'nation' or ;country' being 200 years old. France, Russia, Germany, China... they've been around much longer and had some changes in their type of Government. Conservatism isn't a new thing.

No nation may allow costs to be externalized that have an adverse effect on the health and safety of the people of other nations unless there is a treaty between those two (or more) countries providing therefore. Nations are free to allow the externalization of costs that affect only their own people.
I agreed with the first bit, but why are externalities permissible if there exists a treaty between two nations or if the externalities only adversely affect the lives of people in your own country?

Are you saying that it is acceptable, for example, to have pollution in the US but not elsewhere?

I have trouble seeing how any costs can be allowed to stay externalities.


I think that nonviolent public protest does undermine a war effort as it may poison morale. It is the duty of the dissident to keep his mouth shut. However, at the conclusion of the war, the dissident must sing so that if there is some merit to his views they can be helpful in evaluating future decisions.

Is it the dissident's duty to shut up about it but then say "I told you so" at the conclusion of the war?


Consciencious Objectors ("COs") are an exceptional category of citizen. If someone's sincere religious views forbid him to kill, he must not be forced to do so. A CO should participate to the fullest extent in a war effort that his religious conscience allows. A CO should be subject to conscription but placed into a public role that is suited to his conscience. This may include non-military public service subject to somewhat military lifestyle conditions such as existed for the smoke jumper COs of WWII.

Nobody should ever despise someone for their sincere religious beliefs. We must be tolerant of diverse views and respectful of other faiths.
What about non-religious COs?

I mentioned it in the post you quoted. And I explained why it's a load of crap. If you think that conservatism has anything to do with rugged individualism you are deluding yourself. The only conservatives who live a rugged individualist life end up going broke and filing for bankruptcy. I know because I'm the guy their lawyers call to straighten their records out before going before the bankruptcy court.

As the Bear-Sterns example I sited indicates, Republican "rugged individualism," is just a code word for letting the poor and sick starve and die. Just like states rights is a code for institutionalized racism, and tolerance is a code for forcing other people to tolerate their intolerance.

And I didn't say that all conservatives are evil. I said that some are stupid, some are evil, and some are stupid and evil. Since you use phrases like "BS to the max," I have my suspicions, but let me ask, what kind of shoes were you wearing today?

If you believe that you're a conservative because you're a rugged individualist, you're an idiot. If you believe that you're a conservative because you don't think that people who are in trouble should be helped, you're evil. If you believe that people who are in trouble are insufficiently rugged and individualistic and should be prompted to greater individualism through the suffering caused by the failure of collectivism (which should be made to fail if necessary), then you're an evil idiot.

Conservatism, the Silent Generation of McCarthyism. Sheep.
Liberalsim, the hippies who rejected the government line on Vietnam. Individualists.

Conservatism, the Dixiecrats who opposed desegregation. Sheep.
Liberalism, the Freedom Riders who, without the support of the Federal Government directly opposed the racist governments of the South. Individualists.

Conservatism, the FOX news viewers who believe that the media, which complains about the liberal media, is telling the truth when it tells them that the media has a liberal bias. Sheep
Liberalism, has stopped watching Network news because it doesn't tell them anything. Individualists.

Hit it on the head with that one.

I would include: Conservative: Fundmentalist religion, sexism,repression and homophobia.-sheep
Liberal: Free religion, Women's rights, openess and gay inclusive.-indvidualist

If America was as conservative as people think it is, we would still have slavery, only about 1% of the population could vote, women would live at home and only cook, clean and have children. and we would be working in factorys for $.01 an hour. America has been "conservative" the last 28 years in which America has slowly going backwards economically & socially. Thats why the Govt can get away with Gitmo, Abu Gharib and the Patriot Act, Military Commisions Act while the people stay at home at watch American Idol like sheep.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."


-- Benjamin Franklin


I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802)
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

http://www.markswatson.com/

http://www.markswatson.com/Depression1.html

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

I agreed with the first bit, but why are externalities permissible if there exists a treaty between two nations or if the externalities only adversely affect the lives of people in your own country?

Are you saying that it is acceptable, for example, to have pollution in the US but not elsewhere?

I have trouble seeing how any costs can be allowed to stay externalities.


Is it the dissident's duty to shut up about it but then say "I told you so" at the conclusion of the war?


What about non-religious COs?

Unmitigated pollution anywhere affects non-humans and such may not be allowed to be externalized.

When we are dealing with humans, the situation is different. For example, people have health costs. These may be paid for by a health insurance provider who is paid by the employer who is paid by consumers. Each nation should be free to change this structure and regulate it as they deem best without a lot of interference from foreign consumers.

But let us think about product safety. Who pays for the harm caused by an unsafe product manufactured in Country A but sold in Country B? Why should this not be able to be adressed by a treaty between Country A and B wherein an accord is reached on the handling of product liability?

People, through the political system should be able to deal with costs as they see fit. This is an affirmation of sovereignty. However, people do not have the right to harm wildlife. People do not have the right to have the externalization of costs harm people from other countries who do not consent to be so harmed through treaty.

Yes and no on the issue of the dissenters of a particular war. The idea of "I told you so" is childish. The duty is to point out the reasons for the dissent as part of the public debate befoe a war begins. Then at the conclusion of the hostilities the duty is to discuss the lessons learned.

As far as non-religious COs, how are they different from any other dissident or even cowards? Perhaps some loophole should be available for them but I am not sure.

I mentioned it in the post you quoted. And I explained why it's a load of crap. If you think that conservatism has anything to do with rugged individualism you are deluding yourself. The only conservatives who live a rugged individualist life end up going broke and filing for bankruptcy. I know because I'm the guy their lawyers call to straighten their records out before going before the bankruptcy court.

As the Bear-Sterns example I sited indicates, Republican "rugged individualism," is just a code word for letting the poor and sick starve and die. Just like states rights is a code for institutionalized racism, and tolerance is a code for forcing other people to tolerate their intolerance.

And I didn't say that all conservatives are evil. I said that some are stupid, some are evil, and some are stupid and evil. Since you use phrases like "BS to the max," I have my suspicions, but let me ask, what kind of shoes were you wearing today?

If you believe that you're a conservative because you're a rugged individualist, you're an idiot. If you believe that you're a conservative because you don't think that people who are in trouble should be helped, you're evil. If you believe that people who are in trouble are insufficiently rugged and individualistic and should be prompted to greater individualism through the suffering caused by the failure of collectivism (which should be made to fail if necessary), then you're an evil idiot.

Conservatism, the Silent Generation of McCarthyism. Sheep.
Liberalsim, the hippies who rejected the government line on Vietnam. Individualists.

Conservatism, the Dixiecrats who opposed desegregation. Sheep.
Liberalism, the Freedom Riders who, without the support of the Federal Government directly opposed the racist governments of the South. Individualists.

Conservatism, the FOX news viewers who believe that the media, which complains about the liberal media, is telling the truth when it tells them that the media has a liberal bias. Sheep
Liberalism, has stopped watching Network news because it doesn't tell them anything. Individualists.

This is a straw man argument. Conservatives are more charitable than libs. Conservatives want all the domestic do-goodery to be performed by charities. Why should the state mess around in something that can be handled by charities except in temporary emergency situations when we need to call out the National Guard? Why should the state spend tax dollars on things that can be paid by charity dollars? Remember, charitable contributions are tax deductible.

What is the maximization of economic liberty of the giver, mandating through taxes or allowing choice through charitable donations? What is the most accountable: competing charities or monopolistic government agencies?

States rights is a code word for federalism which is one of the founding principles of our country. States should be free to have different policies. They are closer to the people that they represent. Why should we have a unitarian state? Why cannot there be 50 laboratories for different ideas?

Yes and no on the issue of the dissenters of a particular war. The idea of "I told you so" is childish. The duty is to point out the reasons for the dissent as part of the public debate befoe a war begins. Then at the conclusion of the hostilities the duty is to discuss the lessons learned.

Suppose that anti-war protesters laid out a case that a war was unjust before the conflict began and then stayed quiet during the war (during which time their arguments were rejected). Suppose that after the war, discussion vindicates the protesters in their assertion that the war was unjust. Would we then be able to conclude that there should have been sustained protest during the war? Or should nation states be allowed to and even supported in waging unjust war?


As far as non-religious COs, how are they different from any other dissident or even cowards? Perhaps some loophole should be available for them but I am not sure.
I just thought we might explore the possibility that there are valid non-religious reasons for opposing war and that it is strange to privilege religious beliefs over other belief systems, especially when CO Christians, Jews and Muslims are in the minority in their various belief systems.

States rights is a code word for federalism which is one of the founding principles of our country. States should be free to have different policies. They are closer to the people that they represent. Why should we have a unitarian state? Why cannot there be 50 laboratories for different ideas?
Because nobody is allowed to be authoritarian, not even individual states. States should simply be disallowed from having certain policies.

Suppose that anti-war protesters laid out a case that a war was unjust before the conflict began and then stayed quiet during the war (during which time their arguments were rejected). Suppose that after the war, discussion vindicates the protesters in their assertion that the war was unjust. Would we then be able to conclude that there should have been sustained protest during the war? Or should nation states be allowed to and even supported in waging unjust war?


I just thought we might explore the possibility that there are valid non-religious reasons for opposing war and that it is strange to privilege religious beliefs over other belief systems, especially when CO Christians, Jews and Muslims are in the minority in their various belief systems.

That minority in their various belief systems is not the right way of looking at it business is not the right way of looking at this. Yes, antibaptists are a minority of christians but a majority of antibaptists are COs. I do not know that it is strange to privilege religious beliefs over other belief systems. I am open to the possibility that another belief system could be a basis for a CO's objection. Why don't you suggest a reason for me to consider? Also, I am open to the idea that we might not need to deal with the issue of COs at all because perhaps conscription is undemocratic to begin with.

An unjust war is a pretty extreme example. An unjust war has no justification at all. An unjust war is not a war where the justification is not high enough for someone to subjectively disagree. It has no justification at all. I am not confident that a democracy would ever be engaged in an unjust war. People might debate whether a war should have been entered into given the cost and benefits but a truly unjust war that has no good reason at all, that is just an extremely wierd thing for a democracy to become involved in. Let's ignore the idea of the unjust war and focus on real life wars that democracies get involved in such as a war over humanitarian and human rights principles or because another nation's leader tries to have another nation's leader assassinated.

Yes. Hippies were that powerful. One of the great things about Democracy is that the people are powerful. However, when the people use their power for stupidity and in the assistance of the enemy, well good results usually do not follow.


Yeah, damn hippies, executing their constitutionally garunteed rights that we were allegedly fighting to protect...

Because nobody is allowed to be authoritarian, not even individual states. States should simply be disallowed from having certain policies.

Agreed. However, that was not my point. My point is that federalism is a good thing. Yes we all know that States cannot overstep their powers and oppress the people or subvert the nation, however some and perhaps most areas of policy are best reserved to the states. Conservatives want small central government but typically want states to be able to do their own thing more or less. The problem though is the full faith and credit clause that forces one state to honor another state's legal actions.

An unjust war has no justification at all.

No, an unjust war is one whose justification is not good enough to actually make it just.

An unjust war is not a war where the justification is not high enough for someone to subjectively disagree.... People might debate whether a war should have been entered into given the cost and benefits but a truly unjust war that has no good reason at all

What is a "good reason"?

Plenty of unjust wars have "reasons", sometimes reasons that from some angles may even look compelling... but the point is that the reasons are not good enough. And here this is not a matter of "costs and benefits" at all, but of justice.

that is just an extremely wierd thing for a democracy to become involved in.

Why? Are democracies always right? Do they always decide matters with perfect moral clarity?

That minority in their various belief systems is not the right way of looking at it business is not the right way of looking at this. Yes, antibaptists are a minority of christians but a majority of antibaptists are COs. I do not know that it is strange to privilege religious beliefs over other belief systems. I am open to the possibility that another belief system could be a basis for a CO's objection. Why don't you suggest a reason for me to consider? Also, I am open to the idea that we might not need to deal with the issue of COs at all because perhaps conscription is undemocratic to begin with.

Well I was just thinking about it in more abstract terms of "supposing" the existence of a non-religious justification for CO status. What criteria do I have to meet for a non-religious belief system that merits a CO status?


An unjust war is a pretty extreme example. An unjust war has no justification at all. An unjust war is not a war where the justification is not high enough for someone to subjectively disagree.

On the contrary, unjust wars have "justification," it is just that they are insufficient or unacceptable. A war can be unjust and many people subjectively disagree.


It has no justification at all. I am not confident that a democracy would ever be engaged in an unjust war.

Then you expect a lot out of democracy; namely that the majority is never malicious.


People might debate whether a war should have been entered into given the cost and benefits but a truly unjust war that has no good reason at all, that is just an extremely wierd thing for a democracy to become involved in. Let's ignore the idea of the unjust war and focus on real life wars that democracies get involved in such as a war over humanitarian and human rights principles or because another nation's leader tries to have another nation's leader assassinated.
So now you want to about only justified war? How I am supposed to debate that?

The problem though is the full faith and credit clause that forces one state to honor another state's legal actions.
We have a federal system, yet the founders very clearly seemed to want this part of the Constitution. So much so in fact that it was in the original before the Bill of Rights.

Glorious Freedonia, by using "gay" as an insult, and by directing homophobic comments at particular posters, you're both flaming and trolling.

Flaming, because you are plainly trying to insult the poster instead of engaging with their argument.

Trolling, because there are gay posters here, and to see people who share their sexual orientation described as "sick" and "filth" is likely to attract an angry response even from players who try to stick to forum rules.

You are allowed to argue against any idea. You are not allowed to abuse any poster.

Note this extract from The One-Stop Rules Shop:
Trolling: Posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). While Trolls often make these posts strictly in an attempt to provoke negative comment, it is still trolling even if you actually hold those beliefs. Intent is difficult to prove over the internet, so mods will work under their best assumptions.

Note that posts of opinions you disagree with does not automatically equate with trolling. Disagreements are expected, as long as they are done in a civil manner. Max Barry has made it clear that he welcomes all opinions in civil debate, even those that are highly unpopular or minority-held. Make your case without the invective, if you want to avoid banishment as a Troll.

You evidently have a case to make and have been trying to argue points raised in debate. That's why I'm not taking any action against you at this stage. But pay close attention to the parts I've bolded. Keep your arguments cool.

Do you see all the nonsense rhetoric you spouted off?

Watch what I can do:

You're doing it wrong.

Liberal Hippies who all saw how fun it was to get high instead of doing something productive with their lives: Sheep

No, goats.

who were out doing something instead of sitting around getting high: Individualists

Examples please? Conservative ideology is all about adhering to group identity. That's why "cultural conservatives," are all about taking away people's rights to be gay, have abortions, speak their minds etc.

Liberals who believe the State should hold every bodies hands and wipe their noses: Sheep

No, sheep dogs. Sheep won't complain when their shepherd stops taking care of them. They'll just mill about not doing anything.

Conservatives who believe people can take action for themselves and do something: Individualists

Again, you're not basing this on anything. The examples I posted were actual cultural movements born out of the respective ideologies. You're talking about what conservatives pretend to be, but never actually do.

Those who chose not to watch network news period or at least watch every network and make up their own minds: individualists

And usually liberals.

Those who all brand Fox news as Evil for being bluntly conservative: Sheep

To demonstrate that you have to show that it is not the case and that those who believe it do so because they are told it is the case.

I can go on and on and on. Sheep vs. Individualists in Liberals and Conservatives is bull. At one point Democrats supported Slavery, then it changed. Things change

Southern Democrats supported slavery, but they were conservative Democrats. When the Democrats passed the civil rights act those "Dixiecrats," like Strom Thurmond (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgH7WgtIU2k) then became Republicans because the conservative Republican party fitted their morals much better than the more (but not quite) liberal Democratic party.

If conservatives really followed the whole individualist line they feed themselves that would be fine, but when it comes down to it they always come down on the side of intolerance towards those who aren't a member of whatever group with which they identify.

Liberals believe in the rights of the individual. That makes them individualists.

Conservatives believe in the supremacy of their group, making them follwers.

You're talking about what conservatives pretend to be, but never actually do.Very, VERY true.

And usually liberals.Ditto.

To demonstrate that you have to show that it is not the case and that those who believe it do so because they are told it is the case.That was painful. :)

Liberals believe in the rights of the individual. That makes them individualists.

Conservatives believe in the supremacy of their group, making them follwers.As is often the case, a most excellent post. *bows*

Liberals believe in the rights of the individual. That makes them individualists.
I think this is definitely true.

Conservatives believe in the supremacy of their group, making them follwers.
This...maybe. I think conservatives IN GENERAL look to tradition for answers to current problems, while liberals look to new ideas. A conservative in 2008 could have the same beliefs has a liberal in 1776, in fact many do, but the liberal in 1776 is a liberal because he used reason to back up his idea while the modern conservative uses tradition to support it. So, while conservatives be more inclined to what society says, I think it is because of tradition's, not the group's, support.

Will of the People.

People in general hate change. Even if told that change is "for the better".

.

Exactly - look how they reacted when we sought to modernize social security.

Conservatism is about personal responsibility - and the States have always been way ahead the rest of the world in that regard from the very beginning when they emigrated from Europe to prevent the king from determining their religion.

Conservatives, and therefore Americans, are way ahead of the curve when it comes to change. Liberals are stuck forever wanting the same care from their government like they received when they lived with their mummy and papa. They dig in their heels when told to take care of themselves...


Meanwhile...

Social Conservatives are a loopy bunch who want to use the government to impose their moral standards. They are not too far from the liberals - who also seek to use the government to impose their wishes under the guise of morality... Both essentially seek to use the government to impose their will rather than leave people to their own devices. ie - rather than let the government control the traffic lights and regulate traffic while we all drive our own cars - they want the government to provide and drive the car for us... Taking us where they wish.

Screw that! Scientific experiments for the lot of 'em!

America is conservative because America is 100% right.
Why do we got to change anything if we are already correct ??

Americans are so naive they believe they are perfect and as such can only see evidence that supports that perfection. True they have swung from Democrat to Republican but be honest those swings a just one conservative variation for another. The rest of the world has spun through the entire spectrum from Facism to Communism. Even the most leftist being in the USA is tired of the word "Socialism"...run to the hills and grab those bloody guns the Pinkos are coming.
First be honest about oneself before pointing the finger...

Yes. Hippies were that powerful. One of the great things about Democracy is that the people are powerful. However, when the people use their power for stupidity and in the assistance of the enemy, well good results usually do not follow.

It was more tied to Nixon's resignation.
Ford knew he could never get support for anything military after Nixon had to resign. the North Vietnamese had learned that Nixon was going to send Us troops anymore he was just going to level North Vietnamese cities with bombers. Nixon is out of officer the North starts probing/advancing south.

I have no idea about who Mikhail Bakunin was.

to collective anarchist like Marx was to communist.

Although many were not Christian all were monotheists. You had a bunch of Christians and deists and little else. Although we should have freedom of religion for all we are a pretty darn monotheistic country.

Very true. But so is most of western civilization. Religions of the Abrahamic Tradition dominate most of the Middle East, Europe, and North America, as we all know.

You are making a pretty classic mistake by associating moral majority republicans with conservatives. They are not the same things at all.

Moral Majority Republicans are conservatives, and they are conservatives precisely because they hate freedom, wanting instead to use the violence of the State to enforce their vision of "family." Maybe you're thinking of libertarians or Old School conservatives. And I mean oooold.


I also take issue with your opinion of states rights and queers getting married. You are a wierdo for even thinking about men marrying men. Come on now that is sick.

What's sick is the exclusion of same-sex couples from benefits that opposite-sex couples enjoy.


A conservative does not want abortion to be an issue of state's rights because it is really the right of the individual.

No, conservatives believe erroneously that a fetus is morally considerable and that abortion is murder. They also want to use the violence of the State to punish women and/or their doctors for abortions. This is also evil. (You might be thinking of libertarians, although even then, some libertarians are "pro-life.")


Do not confuse us with moral majority scumbags within the Republican Party. They are Liberals who want big government to come in and interfere with our rights to abort unwanted babies. They are sickos. They are also a minority within our party that gives us a coalition that is big enough to win elections. We make compromises with them and it sucks but that is the price you pay for being in a 2 party system.
Liberals are unknown for their "pro-life" stances that call for violent state intervention in the decisions of women and their doctors. Conservatives, however, regularly identify with it proudly.

What I fear is that you do not understand how evil your party is, or that you do understand it but tolerate it because "that is the price you pay for being in a 2 party system." This is quite distressing, because your party hates freedom and is prepared to back that hatred up with violent force.

America is conservative because America is 100% right.
Why do we got to change anything if we are already correct ??
Surely, you have got to be kidding me... Please?

How about we just agree that we're all crazy and that'll be that! :D

Yeah, damn hippies, executing their constitutionally guaranteed rights that we were allegedly fighting to protect...

Isn't it damned annoying when they do that? Ingrates.

because its a nation of agriculture and tycoons which happens to be what conservatives usually are



America was liberal :confused:

FDR anyone?

Americans are so naive they believe they are perfect and as such can only see evidence that supports that perfection. True they have swung from Democrat to Republican but be honest those swings a just one conservative variation for another. The rest of the world has spun through the entire spectrum from Facism to Communism. Even the most leftist being in the USA is tired of the word "Socialism"...run to the hills and grab those bloody guns the Pinkos are coming.
First be honest about oneself before pointing the finger...
Perhaps it is more a matter of sitting back and learning from the mistakes of one's elders, this whole "spinning through the ideologically political spectrum"...

Simple question: the United States of America is just as technologically advanced, wealthy, and democratic as the rest of the industrialized world. And yet, the U.S. is almost inevitably more socially and economically conservative than other nations. Not by a lot, but it's noticeable. Why? History? Geography? Science? Divine Will?

Because America is evil.

You knew this, of course.

The oppressively-capitalist, imperialist, racist, militarist heritage of America is defined by one thing, and one thing only: Evil.

The oppression of the Indians, African-Americans, womyn, and others through America's history has caused the very soil of America to be permeated with an aura of evil, causing Americans to vote for anti-social policies (such as the Freedom to Farm Act of the 1990's) and to elect presidents such as Chimpy McBushitler.

Only by leaving America and moving to Canada or Europe can Americans become better.

Once they step upon blessed European soil, they will feel the evil seeping slowly out through their pores, and become awesome people.

Like us.

Sorry not to have a more constructive contribution right now, but if you have access to academic journals, I would heartily recommend Eric Foner's "Why is there no socialism in the United States?", History Workshop Journal, on this topic.

You mean it is NOT actually the inescapable aura of evil?

Moral Majority Republicans are conservatives, and they are conservatives precisely because they hate freedom, wanting instead to use the violence of the State to enforce their vision of "family." Maybe you're thinking of libertarians or Old School conservatives. And I mean oooold.


What's sick is the exclusion of same-sex couples from benefits that opposite-sex couples enjoy.


No, conservatives believe erroneously that a fetus is morally considerable and that abortion is murder. They also want to use the violence of the State to punish women and/or their doctors for abortions. This is also evil. (You might be thinking of libertarians, although even then, some libertarians are "pro-life.")


Liberals are unknown for their "pro-life" stances that call for violent state intervention in the decisions of women and their doctors. Conservatives, however, regularly identify with it proudly.

What I fear is that you do not understand how evil your party is, or that you do understand it but tolerate it because "that is the price you pay for being in a 2 party system." This is quite distressing, because your party hates freedom and is prepared to back that hatred up with violent force.


Surely, you have got to be kidding me... Please?

I think that what greed and death probably meant was that American policies are doing a pretty good job. We have the strongest economy. We do not have plagues or famine. We have a decent highway system. Things are going pretty well.

You have confused Republicans with conservatives. You are correct that libertarians are conservative. The moral majority are liberals but not Democrats. Their pro-life views place them in a minority nationwide for Republicans although unfortunately they are a majority of Republicans in my state. According to a recent poll that I participated in of Republicans, about 70% were pro-choice. This was conducted by the Republican Party as part of their research before the primary elections got up and running.

There are very few Republicans that believe in every plank of the party's platform and the same is true of Democrats. I think it would be an improvement to have a few major parties instead of just two.

Simple question: the United States of America is just as technologically advanced, wealthy, and democratic as the rest of the industrialized world. And yet, the U.S. is almost inevitably more socially and economically conservative than other nations. Not by a lot, but it's noticeable. Why?
It's in its youth, where the idea of "doing what we set out to do" is still fresh. In 400 years time, you'll be as progressive as the rest of us.

The moral majority are liberals but not Democrats.

Do you just make up the definitions of words as you go along? To a word that is genuinely ambiguous, that can have various meanings in different contexts, you have assigned a sense that fits none of them.

According to a recent poll that I participated in of Republicans, about 70% were pro-choice.

I have no idea what poll you're talking about, but here's a few: http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

Hit ctrl-f, type in "Republican", and note the results.

Because Democrats are able to commit a Physical Impossibility...

Find Candidates that make George Bush look like a good choice...

Seriously, Al Gore, John Kerry? This from FDR, Woodrow Wilson, and Bill Clinton's Party?...They could do better than that...

And, well, in the Shitty Two-Party system, those are the only options...Its a Media Conspiracy vs Corporate Conspiracy situation...and, for the last 10 years or so, the Corporate Entities have been beating out Hollywood and the 24 hour News Networks...

America was liberal :confused:

During the 20s and 30s it was probably one of the most liberal countries if you exclude its treatment of blacks (although European countries probably would have treated them the same if they had the same proportion of blacks).

I think that what greed and death probably meant was that American policies are doing a pretty good job. We have the strongest economy.

Did we get to that point without violating people's rights? No. We have a strong economy because of the violent force of the State. We shouldn't have this strong of an economy, and current events tend to reflect that.


We do not have plagues or famine. We have a decent highway system. Things are going pretty well.

It really depends on who you are. If you are a woman, a racialized person, queer, lacking in class privilege or some combination thereof, you might find things wanting...


You have confused Republicans with conservatives.

Please define "conservative." Then show me how it corresponds, at all, to modern political discourse in the US.


You are correct that libertarians are conservative.

I make no such claim. The claim that I make is that you seem to believe that conservatives are libertarians, which is manifestly not the case. Unless, of course, what conservative means to you is not what it means to anyone else, in which case we have a failure to communicate.


The moral majority are liberals but not Democrats.

Again, define "liberal" and tell me how it corresponds at all to modern political discourse in the US. This definition should not be trivial, like including something about "trying to impose one's morality on others." This does not make you a "liberal." If makes you a participant in politics.


Their pro-life views place them in a minority nationwide for Republicans although unfortunately they are a majority of Republicans in my state. According to a recent poll that I participated in of Republicans, about 70% were pro-choice. This was conducted by the Republican Party as part of their research before the primary elections got up and running.

There are very few Republicans that believe in every plank of the party's platform and the same is true of Democrats. I think it would be an improvement to have a few major parties instead of just two.
But that doesn't really matter. In the scheme of things, Republicans need the evil vote to win, which is reflected in the party's social conservatism, or social authoritarianism, if you prefer.

Fixed it.


I blame it on Religion, and how retardedly they cling to it, like fungus clings to rotting food.

Rotting Food. Like America.

Because America is evil.

You knew this, of course.

The oppressively-capitalist, imperialist, racist, militarist heritage of America is defined by one thing, and one thing only: Evil.

The oppression of the Indians, African-Americans, womyn, and others through America's history has caused the very soil of America to be permeated with an aura of evil, causing Americans to vote for anti-social policies (such as the Freedom to Farm Act of the 1990's) and to elect presidents such as Chimpy McBushitler.

Only by leaving America and moving to Canada or Europe can Americans become better.

Once they step upon blessed European soil, they will feel the evil seeping slowly out through their pores, and become awesome people.

Like us.

Lol... chimy mcbushitler...
chimpy Mc Bus Hitler... lol im so stoned

as for my opinion on this, twas the red scare.
Britain had it during the thatcher years :p people went around screaming "Im not a socialist!!!!!111" because some uneducated bastard called the soviet union "Socialist" and the quite frankly either equally uneducated or insanely devious conservative politicians jumped on the fear caused, leading socialists to centralize their policies under the age old Socialist motto.
Better a Centrist than a capitalist pig.
...
that probobly made no sense

During the 20s and 30s it was probably one of the most liberal countries if you exclude its treatment of blacks (although European countries probably would have treated them the same if they had the same proportion of blacks).

I can think of one country in 1930s Europe in particular that had a bad record of how it treated minorities.

I can think of one country in 1930s Europe in particular that had a bad record of how it treated minorities.
Really? What country is that?

Really? What country is that?

More than one, now that I think about it. Spain, Germany, and Italy are the three that jump to mind.

Really? What country is that?

Albania. Duh.

[/sarcasm] Albania actually did a pretty nice job of protecting minorities, even under Nazi occupation all the way up until Hoxha came to power.