Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

What is Conservatism?

Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 11:13:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
While in the U.S. conservatism is defined as a specific set of values, the term is more generally applied in other countries to describe xenophobia, adherence to tradition as opposed to progress, and a general air of self-superiority (flag-waving, anyone?). N Korea, Iran, and China have 'conservative' elements which all seem to work towards evil in every respect. Conservatism, then, would seem to be the main force of evil within any nation.

It also seems to me like conservatives thrive on strife. As a nation becomes more successful, it naturally follows that conservatives will lose prominence. For instance, during the 1960s, the U.S. became richer and started producing people like hippies which are carefree and open-minded, and who are more concerned with abstract needs like that which you would find at the highest levels of Maslow's Hierarchy. But if the country begins to ebb financially, these higher hierarchal needs are forgotten again for more basic ones; in essence we can no longer afford to worry about things like social justice, the environment, and really fine-tuning our culture to perfection.

The interesting part about this is that conservatives are probably smart enough to be aware of it, and have read history and know how our century ebbed and flowed. They know that if we are too successful that no one is going to care about fiscal conservatism and going to war; we are going to start carving out more and more social programs, enviro regs, and move away from Christianity (not only do people tend to flock towards Christianity to be 'saved' from distress, but the very principles that Christians hold dear are put in jeopardy when society starts progressing again).

So it appears to me then, that conservatives have a vested interest in seeing our progress halted. My state, WI, has elected a bunch of conservatives this past election. Why? Because we are BROKE and going to fail financially if we don't let them come in and start cutting programs and laying people off (or so we're told). Bush 43's second term was secured by our military strife, because we couldn't afford a warm-hearted liberal in office while people are trying to blow up our country. The very policies which conservatives pass, which create international strife and put poor people further into debt, seem to reinforce their own existences.

Doesn't it seem a little too convenient that we stay broke and at war and conservatives are the ones to call when you're broke or at war?</stong>
kfc
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 11:28:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Conservatism is less government spending and taxation, as well as avoiding foreign entanglements and military conflicts.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 12:05:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/17/2011 11:28:17 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Conservatism is less government spending and taxation, as well as avoiding foreign entanglements and military conflicts.

What Conservatism are you talking about? I think you're referring to Libertarianism.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 12:09:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Baby don't change me
Baby don't change me
No more.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 12:43:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/18/2011 12:05:09 AM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 3/17/2011 11:28:17 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Conservatism is less government spending and taxation, as well as avoiding foreign entanglements and military conflicts.

What Conservatism are you talking about? I think you're referring to Libertarianism.

psh these are neo-cons, pre-9/11 conservatives were the anti-war people.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 1:48:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/18/2011 12:43:39 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/18/2011 12:05:09 AM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 3/17/2011 11:28:17 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Conservatism is less government spending and taxation, as well as avoiding foreign entanglements and military conflicts.

What Conservatism are you talking about? I think you're referring to Libertarianism.

psh these are neo-cons, pre-9/11 conservatives were the anti-war people.

... the ones who brought us desert shield and desert storm? I don't think they made up the war on drugs after 9/11 either
kfc
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 5:13:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Correction, pre-WWII conservatives were anti-war. (WWII wasn't caused by conservatives of course, but it killed or converted the vast majority, and neither the New Right of Nixon nor the modern conservatives of Reagan are starkly antiwar-- the former hates anti-war protestors though, even the ones within it who would rather avoid entanglements.).

Goldwater doesn't count since no one understood him at the time, and he would have lost by a bigger landslide than he did if they realized just how classically liberal he was.

Neoconservatism isn't a popular movement, it's a few disillusioned lieftists with connections.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
cameronalbrecht
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2011 12:04:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/17/2011 11:13:58 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
While in the U.S. conservatism is defined as a specific set of values, the term is more generally applied in other countries to describe xenophobia, adherence to tradition as opposed to progress, and a general air of self-superiority (flag-waving, anyone?). N Korea, Iran, and China have 'conservative' elements which all seem to work towards evil in every respect. Conservatism, then, would seem to be the main force of evil within any nation.

It also seems to me like conservatives thrive on strife. As a nation becomes more successful, it naturally follows that conservatives will lose prominence. For instance, during the 1960s, the U.S. became richer and started producing people like hippies which are carefree and open-minded, and who are more concerned with abstract needs like that which you would find at the highest levels of Maslow's Hierarchy. But if the country begins to ebb financially, these higher hierarchal needs are forgotten again for more basic ones; in essence we can no longer afford to worry about things like social justice, the environment, and really fine-tuning our culture to perfection.

The interesting part about this is that conservatives are probably smart enough to be aware of it, and have read history and know how our century ebbed and flowed. They know that if we are too successful that no one is going to care about fiscal conservatism and going to war; we are going to start carving out more and more social programs, enviro regs, and move away from Christianity (not only do people tend to flock towards Christianity to be 'saved' from distress, but the very principles that Christians hold dear are put in jeopardy when society starts progressing again).

So it appears to me then, that conservatives have a vested interest in seeing our progress halted. My state, WI, has elected a bunch of conservatives this past election. Why? Because we are BROKE and going to fail financially if we don't let them come in and start cutting programs and laying people off (or so we're told). Bush 43's second term was secured by our military strife, because we couldn't afford a warm-hearted liberal in office while people are trying to blow up our country. The very policies which conservatives pass, which create international strife and put poor people further into debt, seem to reinforce their own existences.

Doesn't it seem a little too convenient that we stay broke and at war and conservatives are the ones to call when you're broke or at war?</stong>
The very word conservative denotes an aversion to change. One of the many problems with your outlook is; the idea that all change(what you call progress) is good. Today's conservatives really come in many flavors.
Some are socially conservative yet economically progressive, witness the elderly folks railing against Obamacare and screaming "don't touch my medicare".
Some are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, usually called Libertarian.
Some are war hawks and some are dovish.
Some are just conservative because they don't like some of the changes in people and the world around them, again not all change is for the better.
Posts like yours are worthless. With the broadest stroke possible you label China, N. Korea, and Iran as conservative without proving any similarity to the set of values that you say conservatives in this country are defined by. You provide no logic or evidence, only very vague stereotypes.
I could just as easily say that because progressives share the "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" philosophy with perpetrators of evil such as Stalin and Mao, and since progressives seem to fear the success of any individual and thereby advocate class warfare, therefore progressivism must be the cause of evil in every nation.
I won't make that argument though, because unlike your post, I recognize that the reality is far more complicated than you made it out to be and posts like yours add nothing to the discussion.
rhettro
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2011 11:30:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/17/2011 11:13:58 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
While in the U.S. conservatism is defined as a specific set of values, the term is more generally applied in other countries to describe xenophobia, adherence to tradition as opposed to progress, and a general air of self-superiority (flag-waving, anyone?). N Korea, Iran, and China have 'conservative' elements which all seem to work towards evil in every respect. Conservatism, then, would seem to be the main force of evil within any nation.

It also seems to me like conservatives thrive on strife. As a nation becomes more successful, it naturally follows that conservatives will lose prominence. For instance, during the 1960s, the U.S. became richer and started producing people like hippies which are carefree and open-minded, and who are more concerned with abstract needs like that which you would find at the highest levels of Maslow's Hierarchy. But if the country begins to ebb financially, these higher hierarchal needs are forgotten again for more basic ones; in essence we can no longer afford to worry about things like social justice, the environment, and really fine-tuning our culture to perfection.

The interesting part about this is that conservatives are probably smart enough to be aware of it, and have read history and know how our century ebbed and flowed. They know that if we are too successful that no one is going to care about fiscal conservatism and going to war; we are going to start carving out more and more social programs, enviro regs, and move away from Christianity (not only do people tend to flock towards Christianity to be 'saved' from distress, but the very principles that Christians hold dear are put in jeopardy when society starts progressing again).

So it appears to me then, that conservatives have a vested interest in seeing our progress halted. My state, WI, has elected a bunch of conservatives this past election. Why? Because we are BROKE and going to fail financially if we don't let them come in and start cutting programs and laying people off (or so we're told). Bush 43's second term was secured by our military strife, because we couldn't afford a warm-hearted liberal in office while people are trying to blow up our country. The very policies which conservatives pass, which create international strife and put poor people further into debt, seem to reinforce their own existences.

Doesn't it seem a little too convenient that we stay broke and at war and conservatives are the ones to call when you're broke or at war?</stong>

Ha.

HAHAHA.

I gotta check out your profile. This is gonna be good. What do you even read?
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2011 12:35:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The very word conservative denotes an aversion to change. One of the many problems with your outlook is; the idea that all change(what you call progress) is good. Today's conservatives really come in many flavors.

Of course all change cannot logically be good.

When we have as many problems as we currently do, however, it also cannot be logically good to stay the same. The type of change we are discussing is progress. Conservatives merely drag their feet and halt progress towards social justice and economic reform.

Some are socially conservative yet economically progressive, witness the elderly folks railing against Obamacare and screaming "don't touch my medicare".

This has nothing to do with mixed ideology, it's simply people doing what they do best - exercising greed.

Some are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, usually called Libertarian.

False. Libertarians are not fiscally conservative and socially liberal. This simplification is way off base.

Some are war hawks and some are dovish.

Conservatives generally support the current middle-eastern efforts while liberals would like to see us leave.

Some are just conservative because they don't like some of the changes in people and the world around them, again not all change is for the better.

Again, we are not talking about 'all' change. We are talking about progress. Conservatives generally try to 'conserve' progress and keep things the way they are. They want to isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world through stronger border security and more aggressive military operations (although we can do business with them at arm's reach if it benefits us). They fight liberation of homosexuals and minorities (and fight to keep Christianity strong and viable politically), they fight the liberation of the proletariat, and they fight to keep our economic system unchanged.

Posts like yours are worthless. With the broadest stroke possible you label China, N. Korea, and Iran as conservative without proving any similarity to the set of values that you say conservatives in this country are defined by. You provide no logic or evidence, only very vague stereotypes.

I am not painting them as conservative, I am saying that 'conservative' elements are what keep them the evil countries we consider them.

Conservative elements are at play when China denies its citizens access to the internet. Why? because the internet changes the way people think about the status quo. This is uniquely conservative by definition.

Conservative elements are at play when N Korea strengthens it's borders against unwanted entry/exit. This is similar to how conservatives in our country want increased border security and to "build the damned fence."

Conservative elements are at play when Iran's extremist religion plays into their political scheme and affects their foreign policy. Just like conservatives in this country hold fast to the Bible, conservatives in Iran keep separation of church and state completely nonexistant.

Conservatives are the elements within the government that hold fast to religious doctrine, are unwilling to budge in the interests of peace and social progress, are unwilling to make serious changes to help the poor and disenfranchised (in fact they usually represent the interests of the rich and powerful and try to convince us that we can't prosper unless they do DX), and who zealously wave their flag in other nation's faces just to spite them. Liberals are willing to change, willing to work, willing to progress. Liberals are willing to question the moral standing of their country; are willing to open their minds to the ways other nations conduct business; are willing to separate church and state; are willing to do whatever it takes to help the poor and disenfranchised.

Conservatives in one country hold fast to patriotism and religion while conservatives in another do the same, but oppositely. Is this really that complicated to see where the problem lies here?

I could just as easily say that because progressives share the "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" philosophy with perpetrators of evil such as Stalin and Mao, and since progressives seem to fear the success of any individual and thereby advocate class warfare, therefore progressivism must be the cause of evil in every nation.

Yeah, except that none of what you said, other than your dubious links to Stalin and Mao O_o, have any noticeable impact on morality. If our citizens are so successful that we have to start fearing how well off they are, then I'd say we're in pretty good shape! Suffice to say that state won't be coming anytime soon and there are a very small % of people that fall into this category (and those who do probably aren't the ones who really need the help).

As far as "advocating class warfare," this is downright laughable - if there exist classes, then there necessarily exists rich and poor. If there exists poor, then that means our system is not working efficiently. To blame liberals for empowering the poor to defend themselves is quite a weird twist on ethics, as if liberals really ought to be telling the poor to sit down and shut up. But as a right-winger, you are probably so morally dried up that you don't see any problem with it as long as you're not the one who is suffering. Survival of the fittest, after all.

I won't make that argument though, because unlike your post, I recognize that the reality is far more complicated than you made it out to be and posts like yours add nothing to the discussion.

You meant to say I am oversimplifying it. At least that's what your post started out by saying, but you lost so much logical cohesion by the end that you ended up concluding the very opposite of your opening.
kfc
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2011 12:45:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Conservatism has a lot more to do with going back to the roots of a limited government and a healthy fear for Monarchs, dictators, and state dictated religion. The tea party calls out Republicans on a daily basis for not being conservative.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2011 3:37:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Conservative OUTSIDE AmeriKa describes positions attached to monarchy, traditional and imperial loyalists. It comes from the anti liberal movement back in "enlightenment". Conservatives are pro government and faith but anti tax and state interference.

AmeriKa - like usual - bastardised the term. Conservative in the EU for example is just another word for Libertarian.

At 3/19/2011 12:45:07 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Conservatism has a lot more to do with going back to the roots of a limited government and a healthy fear for Monarchs, dictators, and state dictated religion. The tea party calls out Republicans on a daily basis for not being conservative.
In the USA - but doesn't that describe federalism and the ideology of Alexander Hamiltons cult?
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2011 5:38:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
In the USA - but doesn't that describe federalism and the ideology of Alexander Hamiltons cult?

Alexander Hamilton was an Old World conservativish type guy. He wanted to imitate Continental European governments. He has very little in common with the other Founders or modern conservatives.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2011 4:19:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/20/2011 11:17:00 AM, rhettro wrote:
Here's a thoughtful FAQ on conservatism, for what it's worth in this hateful crowd.

A blank space?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2011 7:10:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/17/2011 11:13:58 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
While in the U.S. conservatism is defined as a specific set of values, the term is more generally applied in other countries to describe xenophobia, adherence to tradition as opposed to progress, and a general air of self-superiority (flag-waving, anyone?). N Korea, Iran, and China have 'conservative' elements which all seem to work towards evil in every respect. Conservatism, then, would seem to be the main force of evil within any nation.

It also seems to me like conservatives thrive on strife. As a nation becomes more successful, it naturally follows that conservatives will lose prominence. For instance, during the 1960s, the U.S. became richer and started producing people like hippies which are carefree and open-minded, and who are more concerned with abstract needs like that which you would find at the highest levels of Maslow's Hierarchy. But if the country begins to ebb financially, these higher hierarchal needs are forgotten again for more basic ones; in essence we can no longer afford to worry about things like social justice, the environment, and really fine-tuning our culture to perfection.

The interesting part about this is that conservatives are probably smart enough to be aware of it, and have read history and know how our century ebbed and flowed. They know that if we are too successful that no one is going to care about fiscal conservatism and going to war; we are going to start carving out more and more social programs, enviro regs, and move away from Christianity (not only do people tend to flock towards Christianity to be 'saved' from distress, but the very principles that Christians hold dear are put in jeopardy when society starts progressing again).

So it appears to me then, that conservatives have a vested interest in seeing our progress halted. My state, WI, has elected a bunch of conservatives this past election. Why? Because we are BROKE and going to fail financially if we don't let them come in and start cutting programs and laying people off (or so we're told). Bush 43's second term was secured by our military strife, because we couldn't afford a warm-hearted liberal in office while people are trying to blow up our country. The very policies which conservatives pass, which create international strife and put poor people further into debt, seem to reinforce their own existences.

Doesn't it seem a little too convenient that we stay broke and at war and conservatives are the ones to call when you're broke or at war?</stong>

You ready? Here is the answer..

Conservatism=Patriotism=Being an American
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 12:13:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 12:02:55 AM, comoncents wrote:
The definition changes.
Today it has a religious neoconservative flavor.

Political parties change, doctrines rarely do.
rhettro
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 6:23:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/20/2011 4:19:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/20/2011 11:17:00 AM, rhettro wrote:
Here's a thoughtful FAQ on conservatism, for what it's worth in this hateful crowd.

A blank space?

http://turnabout.ath.cx...