The 19th century European term "bourgeois" and the modern US term "conservative" (and its euphemistic adjectives "religious" and "family") are both attempts to denote the same thing: herdÃâàbehavior, where the imperative is "do not offend Those Who We Must Not Offend". It's not even groupthink, because there's not even a pretense of think in it.TorgoX is seriously lacking in our word of the day: perspective.
Re:Are they not all the same in the end?
pudge on 2006-03-20T08:21:16
Well to say that Liberals are herd mentalities and conservatives do not is not exactly true.
I never said such a thing. What I implied was the opposite: that it is as true of one group as the other. It's true for some people in each group, and not for many others.
How would conservatives respond to a SCOTUS nomination of a Liberal even though it was shown he was a good judge? I can give you a few conservatives that would argue you can't be a good judge if you are liberal.
Sure, but on the other hand, we also have history to guide us. A filibuster was attempted against some liberal nominees under Clinton, but even though the Republicans had a majority, there were not nearly enough Republicans to have a successful filibuster; however, with the Democrats in the minority, they filibustered many conservative nominees.
Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, at least as liberal as Alito is conservative, was confirmed -- again, by a Republican Senate -- 96-3. This was a couple years after Thomas, a conservative, was confirmed by a vote of only 52-48.
So if you're going to tell me conservatives are no more open to liberal judges than liberals are to conservative judges, I'm going to have to disagree, as history proves otherwise, at least for now. The next time a Democrat is President, the conservatives might -- in light of recent events -- change their previous course, and be as opposed to liberal judges as liberals have been to conservative judges, for the last 15 years.
What of the Church community? That can be called a herd mentality.
Not by someone familiar with it, no, I don't believe so.
What is that battle cry? "Family Values."
Of the "Church community"? Not really, no.
How many conservatives scream about states rights and yet were calling for a constitutional amendment to protect marriage because of the actions of other states?
Are you talking about a Constitutional amendment to protect a state's right to ban gay marriage, or about one to ban gay marriage for every state? The latter is a notion that actually not too many conservatives support. Most conservatives favor only federal protection of state law, not federal encroachment on state law.
I know the one Constitutional amendment offered a couple of years ago likely would have banned gay marriage for every state, but despite the symbolic support for it among Republicans (and many Democrats), it never would have passed like that.
Most conservatives instead support a Constitutional amendment preventing your gay marriage in Massachusetts from being recognized in South Dakota, which is now required by the Fourteenth Amendment. And such a new amendment would, of course, be perfectly consistent with the principle of states' rights.
For starters why would a liberal want to listen to a conservative since many simply dismiss a liberal argument because it's well liberal.
So since "many" do that, therefore you should dismiss all conservatives? Regardless, I certainly don't do that.
How many conservatives like to use the word liberal like a dirty word?
About as many as there are liberals who use "conservative" as a dirty word, probably.
Declaring a liberal has no perspective doesn't really make one want to listen to a conservative perspective now does it?
I didn't say he has no perspective because he is liberal. I said it because he myopically attacked conservatives for things that liberals are also just as guilty of. My attack on him was not ideological at all, but more methodological.
Comments made by conservative fronts show the same lack of perspective as well.
Yes, of course. I never implied otherwise.
You mentioned that he doesn't understand Red Staters? Well I know many Red Staters(mainly relatives) that don't understand Blue Staters.
Of course. I never implied otherwise.
You missed the whole point of my post. I did not say conservatives are better than liberals. I said liberals are no better than conservatives.
Then there is my new favorite comment. Liberalism is in decline because of abortion. Too many liberal babies are aborted you know.
Someone told me that was on NPR the other day. It's actually sorta true. Demography is a bitch. But it has less to do with abortion than simply liberals being less likely to have as many kids as conservatives.
Why can't a conservative simply not read a book rather then seek it's removal from the libraries?Why can't a conservative simply not look at pornography rather then seek it's censorship? Why can't a conservative simply change the radio/tv channel rather then seek censorship or killing it by harassing a shows advertisers?
First of all, you misrepresent what I actually wrote. I was not talking about "liberals." I was talking about people who happen to be as myopic as TorgoX is, which has nothing to do with ideology.
Second, liberals also seek removal of books from libraries, and censorship of TV/radio they dislike, and certainly engage in a significant amount of harassment of those show's advertisers.
As to porn: that's different, when kids are involved. I do support censorship of porn from kids. A parent can give porn to kids, but no other adult should. I think you'll find that a huge majority of Americans agree with that notion, including a majority of liberals.
Different approaches but the same thing in the end. My ideology is better then yours.
I never said or implied in that post that my ideology was better than his. What I did imply is that I am far more open-minded than him, with a much greater sense of perspective. But that is irrespective of ideology.
Finally; I disagree with you over some things. Don't have a heart attack and please don't delete me!:P
I couldn't care less whether someone agrees with me. My heart won't palpitate over it, let alone arrest. Indeed, it annoys me far more when people do agree with me over everything (which, thankfully, is exceedingly rare).
And I've never deleted anyone, or any post.
Re:Are they not all the same in the end?
Marza on 2006-03-20T09:27:01
"Sure, but on the other hand, we also have history to guide us. A filibuster was attempted against some liberal nominees under Clinton, but even though the Republicans had a majority, there were not nearly enough Republicans to have a successful filibuster; however, with the Democrats in the minority, they filibustered many conservative nominees."
Actually the history is somewhat balanced. Well there might be one group that did it more successfully. But I am not sure to the exact numbers. The concept of the filabuster on nominees started during LBJ. The Republican of the time(forgot his name) said "We filabustered the nomination" Since then both groups have used it man times.
"Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, at least as liberal as Alito is conservative, was confirmed -- again, by a Republican Senate -- 96-3. This was a couple years after Thomas, a conservative, was confirmed by a vote of only 52-48."
Thomas is a bad example as many consider him a horrible Judge. Not because he is a conservative; just that he is bad. Don't forget the circus that went around him too. Both sides made it a joke. One I always remembered when Orin Hatch accused Hill of quoting the Omen.
"Are you talking about a Constitutional amendment to protect a state's right to ban gay marriage, or about one to ban gay marriage for every state? "
Sorry that would be the Defense of Marriage Act.
"Most conservatives favor only federal protection of state law, not federal encroachment on state law."
Time will tell and there is a bill being discussed on the Senate called The Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act. Fourty-one states wrote a laundry list of things the Insurrence Industry would have to honor inorder to do business in the state. This bill if it passes will strip that away.
'For starters why would a liberal want to listen to a conservative since many simply dismiss a liberal argument because it's well liberal.'
"So since "many" do that, therefore you should dismiss all conservatives? Regardless, I certainly don't do that."
Wasn't suggesting you did. Just answering your why question.
'How many conservatives like to use the word liberal like a dirty word?'
"About as many as there are liberals who use "conservative" as a dirty word, probably."
It's hard to say but I don't hear "Those cons" comments. Well there are the neocon comments but that is a different group.....
"I didn't say he has no perspective because he is liberal. I said it because he myopically attacked conservatives for things that liberals are also just as guilty of. My attack on him was not ideological at all, but more methodological."
My bad. Comment retracted.
"Then there is my new favorite comment. Liberalism is in decline because of abortion. Too many liberal babies are aborted you know.
Someone told me that was on NPR the other day. It's actually sorta true. Demography is a bitch. But it has less to do with abortion than simply liberals being less likely to have as many kids as conservatives."
Well you have to admit you are not born liberal or conservative. The fact you have a conservative household doesn't always mean conservative children. My grandparents were very conservative and yet the three daughters turned out liberal. A friend is very liberal and his son is an ardent Conservative republican.
The conservative goverment of today wasn't because there are many conservatives. It's because the liberal democrats didn't offer a good message. Didn't offer answers. Bush would never have been elected if the demos could offer somebody that could talk and give ideas for problems.
"Second, liberals also seek removal of books from libraries, and censorship of TV/radio they dislike, and certainly engage in a significant amount of harassment of those show's advertisers."
Ok I do have to ask for examples of censorship of libraries and tv/radio by liberals.
As to the other stuff. Ok maybe I was reading more in then what was there. Consider the comments withdrawn.
"I couldn't care less whether someone agrees with me. My heart won't palpitate over it, let alone arrest. Indeed, it annoys me far more when people do agree with me over everything (which, thankfully, is exceedingly rare).
And I've never deleted anyone, or any post."
Ok that was an attempt of humor.;) Re:Are they not all the same in the end?
pudge on 2006-03-20T09:57:46
Actually the history is somewhat balanced.
Actually, no, it isn't.
The concept of the filabuster on nominees started during LBJ. The Republican of the time(forgot his name) said "We filabustered the nomination" Since then both groups have used it man times.
Actually, no, they haven't. It happened once with Abe Fortas under LBJ. But he was not filibustered on ideological grounds, but because there were serious concerns about corruption, and dishonesty in his testimony.
The Republicans as a group did not filibuster any other judicial nominee, ever. As I said, there were attempted filibusters of some Clinton nominees, but the Republicans as a group did not get behind those attempts. It wasn't even a majority, but was only 12-14 Senators voting for the filibuster (i.e., against cloture), as opposed to the 40-something Senators when the Democrats were doing it. Considering it was less than half the Republicans, it makes no real sense to even say the Republicans filibustered, since they did not: only some did, as opposed to when the Democrats did it, and all, or almost all, participated.
Indeed, Judge Paez was only confirmed because the majority of Republcians refused to filibuster: he was confirmed with less than 60 votes, so if everyone who voted against him voted against cloture, he never would have been confirmed.
So no, it clearly is not balanced. Sorry.
Thomas is a bad example as many consider him a horrible Judge.
Many consider him a bad judge, but pretty much only the people who disagree with him. This is a perfect example of the closed-mindedness I am talking about.
(Now, many, for several years, thought Thomas a lightweight because he didn't author many opinions, but that has changed significantly in recent years.)
But even without Thomas, we also have Bork, whose only real crime, other than being a conservative, is that he fired Archibald Cox during the Saturday Night Massacre in 1973. The "Borking" of Bork was a two-for-one deal: keep a conservative off the bench, while at the same time getting payback over Watergate, making Bork into a scapegoat for the Nixon crimes and the Reagan victories.
Time will tell
Time has told. That proposed amendment is dead.
and there is a bill being discussed on the Senate called The Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act. Fourty-one states wrote a laundry list of things the Insurrence Industry would have to honor inorder to do business in the state. This bill if it passes will strip that away.
What's that got to do with the price of tea in China? This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Wasn't suggesting you did. Just answering your why question.
You implied it, by saying someone would not listen to any conservatives, just because of how some act.
Well you have to admit you are not born liberal or conservative. The fact you have a conservative household doesn't always mean conservative children.
Of course. Else our nation, which was founded primarily by likeminded people, would have remained ideologically stagnant.
The conservative goverment of today wasn't because there are many conservatives. It's because the liberal democrats didn't offer a good message. Didn't offer answers.
The conservatives took control of the White House and both houses of Congress because they did offer answers and solutions that worked. However, the conservative government that took control in the 80s and 90s is almost gone. Bush is only barely conservative, and most of the leadership in the Congress is not conservative.
Bush would never have been elected if the demos could offer somebody that could talk and give ideas for problems.
Bush is not a conservative, though. If he were, he'd have won re-election easily.
Ok I do have to ask for examples of censorship of libraries and tv/radio by liberals.
You've never heard the many calls for people like O'Reilly and Rush to be taken off the air? And liberals, under the concept of "hate speech," have successfully banned many books throughout Europe and Canada, and the EU is pushing to ban "hate speech" online.
Re:Are they not all the same in the end?
Marza on 2006-03-20T17:50:27
Hmmm are you one of those Demos are the antichrist types?;) Sorry I just flashed about my relatives. The only thing that is setting you apart is that you are sounding smarter. ;)
"Actually the history is somewhat balanced.
Actually, no, it isn't."
As mentioned I don't have numbers so it would be foolish to argue on.
"and there is a bill being discussed on the Senate called The Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act. Fourty-one states wrote a laundry list of things the Insurrence Industry would have to honor inorder to do business in the state. This bill if it passes will strip that away.
What's that got to do with the price of tea in China? This has nothing to do with the topic at hand."
You commented that conservatives fight for states rights and I am just saying we shall see.
"Wasn't suggesting you did. Just answering your why question.
You implied it, by saying someone would not listen to any conservatives, just because of how some act."
Eww nice turn around on words. Again I have said I have heard conservatives simply dismiss liberal comments because you know they are liberals. I am sure there are some liberal fanatics that will do the same. Just haven't come across any....
The conservative goverment of today wasn't because there are many conservatives. It's because the liberal democrats didn't offer a good message. Didn't offer answers.
"Ok I do have to ask for examples of censorship of libraries and tv/radio by liberals.
You've never heard the many calls for people like O'Reilly and Rush to be taken off the air? And liberals, under the concept of "hate speech," have successfully banned many books throughout Europe and Canada, and the EU is pushing to ban "hate speech" online."
Well calling for and actively working on it are different. I have not heard of a compaign to remove them. Even in my "fruit and nut" state and not even in the Arch LIberal paradise known as the University of Berkeley. There are people that have said he should but even the majority of liberals would not support it due to the Constitution.
Now what about banning books? I can't speak for Europe. Don't follow the day to days. I thought we were talking about the US.....Re:Are they not all the same in the end?
pudge on 2006-03-20T19:44:43
As mentioned I don't have numbers so it would be foolish to argue on.
Yet you asserted it as true, even though it wasn't. I caution you not to merely reguritate liberal talking points to me without really being able to back it up, because I won't let you get away with it.:-)
You commented that conservatives fight for states rights and I am just saying we shall see.
Yes, we shall, but I think you think that I think that Republican == conservative. That's simply not the case. Until Reagan came along, the Republican party was pretty liberal. And now that the Republicans have been in power for awhile, it's a lot less true now than it was in 1994.
Example: Bob Dole, who carries a copy of the Tenth Amendment in his pocket, had the notion of abolishing the Department of Education on his agenda when he ran for President. That's all good conservative stuff.
George W. Bush, on the other hand, massively expanded the size of the Department of Education, greatly increasing federal control over education, and violating the Tenth Amendment. That's about as anti-conservative as you can get.
If Bush is a conservative, he's not a good one. Judging conservatives by what Bush does is unreasonable, since most conservatives disagree with Bush on such things.
Again I have said I have heard conservatives simply dismiss liberal comments because you know they are liberals.
Right, you said that.
I am sure there are some liberal fanatics that will do the same. Just haven't come across any....
Then you need to get out more. *shrug* I meet just as many on both sides who do this, but I am perhaps unique in that I have a lot of friends who are very conservative, and a lot of friends who are very liberal.
Well calling for and actively working on it are different. I have not heard of a compaign to remove them.
Yes, I agree, you have not heard of them. There were active efforts to have Rush removed in the early-to-mid 90s. If we don't see those efforts today it's probably because they have already given up.
There are people that have said he should but even the majority of liberals would not support it due to the Constitution.
So? The majority of conservatives also would never support such a thing, for the same reason. You really are entirely myopic about this if you think for one moment that anything close to a majority of conservatives favors censoring anyone over their ideas.
Now what about banning books? I can't speak for Europe. Don't follow the day to days. I thought we were talking about the US.....
We're talking about liberals. It happens in Canada too, and I believe it would be happening more often here if not for the conservatives. We already know that a large number of liberals in the U.S. are for censorship. There are many liberal-backed "hate speech" laws on the books today that prove this to be true.
Re:Are they not all the same in the end?
Marza on 2006-03-20T21:02:39
"Yet you asserted it as true, even though it wasn't. I caution you not to merely reguritate liberal talking points to me without really being able to back it up, because I won't let you get away with it.:-)"
Ahh but then again you could show numbers and sources to prove you are right.;)
"That's simply not the case. Until Reagan came along, the Republican party was pretty liberal."
Well I would say it probably started with Truman and the Dixicrat migration to the Republican party.
"I am sure there are some liberal fanatics that will do the same. Just haven't come across any....
Then you need to get out more. *shrug* I meet just as many on both sides who do this, but I am perhaps unique in that I have a lot of friends who are very conservative, and a lot of friends who are very liberal."
Oh I get out more then you think. This site is the first attempt of a blog.;) California and the bay area tends to be more centrist and liberal. There are conservatives of course. Just don't run into any hardcore types. Or they could be just being polite. ;)
"Yes, I agree, you have not heard of them. There were active efforts to have Rush removed in the early-to-mid 90s. If we don't see those efforts today it's probably because they have already given up."
Or it could be they realize he is a gasbag and it's not worth the effort.;)
"So? The majority of conservatives also would never support such a thing, for the same reason. You really are entirely myopic about this if you think for one moment that anything close to a majority of conservatives favors censoring anyone over their ideas."
Eww nice turning of the subject again.
Fact remains you don't really have any liberal groups getting books pulled out of the libraries(speaking for the US) but you do get conservative Religious groups that campaign for morality and seek removal all the time.
Well I do have to say I just remembered one person. Tipper Gore and her record labeling crap. So I have to grant you one.;)
"We're talking about liberals. It happens in Canada too, and I believe it would be happening more often here if not for the conservatives. We already know that a large number of liberals in the U.S. are for censorship."
But are the liberals in Canada and Europe the same as they are in the US?
"There are many liberal-backed "hate speech" laws on the books today that prove this to be true."
Well you might have an argument for TV and the Radio but there hasn't(that I have found) been any cases of public libraries being censored for "hate" reasons.
The hate laws here are more geared against racism and violence situations.Re:Are they not all the same in the end?
Marza on 2006-03-20T21:21:13
Sorry about that. Wasn't paying attention and hit submit. You can ignore that mess.
Dumb question. Is their an edit function?Re:Are they not all the same in the end?
pudge on 2006-03-20T21:50:10
Ahh but then again you could show numbers and sources to prove you are right.;)
I did give you numbers. Sources are common. Most of it I know from memory, and you can easily Google them given the information I provided.
The number of judges with attempted filibustered is about the same for both parties. But the Republicans as a group only actually filibustered one: Fortas, who is the only judge in question who actually would not have been confirmed anyway. The others were a small number of the Republicans who acted on their own, and all of the Democratic judges (again, except for Fortas) were confirmed anyway.
Hence, the accurate statement that the Republicans never prevented confirmation of a Democratic judicial nominee with a filibuster. All the attempts failed miserably, except for Fortas, who would not have been confirmed anyway.
On the other hand, the Democrats voted as a party on all the filibusters, except for the Alito filibuster. Unlike the "Republican" filibusters, there was a majority of Democrats voting to filibuster Alito, but it was far short of the number they needed to defeat cloture.
You can try to chalk this up to "success" vs. "failure," but that ignores the fact that it was only a minority of Republicans who participated in the Clinton-era filibusters, as opposed to nearly universal support by the Democrats for the Bush-era filibusters.
Well I would say it probably started with Truman and the Dixicrat migration to the Republican party.
You'd be wrong. You're thinking only of social conservatism, which is really a different thing, and it's never even been a majority of the party until the last 15 years anyway, following on the coattails of conservatism. Eisenhower and Nixon were both pretty liberal on both scales. Reagan embodied both. Bush 41 embodied little of either. Bush 43 embodies some social conservatism, and little conservatism in general.
It was not until Reagan that conservatism, either kind, took solid root in the national Republican party. And it wasn't until 1994 when the conservatives really took control of the Republicans in Congress and the party at large. And since then, most of the 1994 class is gone, and real conservatives are a clear minority in Congress. They do, however, still dominate among the party activists, so the Presidential candidates still must tack to the right to be nominated.
Oh I get out more then you think.
Whatever. If you have never come across a liberal who will deny a conservative idea just because it came from a conservative, then whether you get out or not, you are not seeing something that is pervasively there.
California and the bay area tends to be more centrist and liberal. There are conservatives of course. Just don't run into any hardcore types. Or they could be just being polite.
I lived in California for 10 years, in the Alameda, L.A., and Orange Counties. I am well aware of many things about California, including that in the Bay Area, it is more common than in most places to see liberals who are so closed-minded that they will dimiss an idea just because it came from a conservative. It happens all the time in California, especially the Bay Area. More than most places. That you say you've never encountered it is simply not credible.
Eww nice turning of the subject again.
You directly implied that the majority of Republicans are in favor of censorship. That is a lie. I said so, and you accuse me of "turning the subject"? I did not "turn" the subject, I replied to what YOU said, and corrected you when you said something flatly incorrect.
Fact remains you don't really have any liberal groups getting books pulled out of the libraries
That is not a fact. I did not give specifics, but I gave you plenty of information to find them for yourself. In Canada, a book was not only pulled off the shelf, a man was convicted, and then deported, for merely publishing a book denying the Holocaust. Check out Ernst Zündel. Similar incidents have happened across Europe: in Germany, the UK, and so on.
This is not just about the U.S., so I feel no need to abide by your arbitrary limitation. If not for the strength of the First Amendment, these same books would surely be banned by the liberals in the U.S., if they could, as evidenced by their many attempts to ban hate speech.
but you do get conservative Religious groups that campaign for morality and seek removal all the time.
It happens more often with the fringe right, but so what? They are never successful, so who cares?
Well I do have to say I just remembered one person. Tipper Gore and her record labeling crap. So I have to grant you one.;)
FWIW, she was not a liberal at the time, so it'd be unreasonable for me to bring her up as evidence in my favor. But if you want to talk about more than books, please: Hillary Clinton, icon of the left, is in favor of censoring video games.
And as mentioned before, *actual* speech (rather than books) is more often censored by liberals than conservatives, through hate speech laws. There are numerous examples of students expelled for exercising their right to free speech, and there are many people who have received extra time in jail for their speech, over and above their actual crime.
For example, in most states, if I burn your house, I will be in jail for a long time. But if I do that AND shout a racial epithet while I do it, I will get extra time in jail. That is about as big a violation of the right to free speech as I can imagine.
But are the liberals in Canada and Europe the same as they are in the US?
In wishing they could censor views they despise? Yes.
The hate laws here are more geared against racism and violence situations.
Ah, so now it comes out. It's OK to censor someone if they are being racist.
Do you not see how hypocritical that is?
And no, violence is a separate issue. There's always been laws against incitement to violence with speech. But criminalizing hate speech is new, and a clear violation of the First Amendment.
Re:Are they not all the same in the end?
Marza on 2006-03-20T22:12:35
"Ah, so now it comes out. It's OK to censor someone if they are being racist.
Do you not see how hypocritical that is?"
Yes and that is reading into more then what I was saying. Did I say I believed that? It was nothing more then a statement.
So are you a libertarian?
Re:Are they not all the same in the end?
pudge on 2006-03-20T22:26:13
that is reading into more then what I was saying.
No. You actually said it. Whether you meant it is another thing.
Did I say I believed that?
You directly implied that you believe that a law censoring racist speech is somehow different from a law censoring other speech: when confronted with the fact of hate speech laws in the U.S., you dimissed those as different, because they are about "racism."
So, you did not say it is OK, but you did say it is not as bad, yes.
Re:Are they not all the same in the end?
Marza on 2006-03-20T22:30:13
Ok Difference in styles I guess. All I said is why they did it. I will just have to remember to tag on my stances to such comments in the future for you.;)
So a libertarian or not? I am really curious.Re:Are they not all the same in the end?
pudge on 2006-03-20T23:14:50
All I said is why they did it.
Yes, but you dismissed it as substantively different.
So a libertarian or not? I am really curious.
I don't care about labels, but I will answer you, if you answer me: is liberals censorsing racist speech as bad as conservatives censoring porn?
Re:Are they not all the same in the end?
Marza on 2006-03-20T23:21:23
It's not an effort to label you. Your debate style seems familiar.
You can't have Freedom of Speech and Expression without the ability to say stupid and or hateful things.
You can't stop racism by controlling language.
So yes it as bad if not worst then censoring porn.
Mind you porn should have controls as to keep young children from freely accessing it....Re:Are they not all the same in the end?
pudge on 2006-03-21T00:03:40
It's not an effort to label you.
Well, of course it is. That is precisely what it is. You have a label, and are trying to see if it fits me.
You can't have Freedom of Speech and Expression without the ability to say stupid and or hateful things.
You can't stop racism by controlling language.
So yes it as bad if not worst then censoring porn.
Very good, and very Meiklejohnian of you.
Mind you porn should have controls as to keep young children from freely accessing it....
That's not very "liberal" of you (well, classic liberal, but not modern liberal). But I agree.
And I am not a Libertarian (as in, not a member of the political party), but I could probably be called a libertarian, just as the godfather of American conservativism, William F. Buckley, is often called a libertarian. The sort of libertarian that existed before there were Libertarians.
Re:Are they not all the same in the end?
Marza on 2006-04-01T16:43:01
Ahhh back from vacation! Not much for arguing today.;)
I do have to confess I had to look up. Meiklejohnian.;-)
I understand your description of your political attitudes. It does get "confusing" as the Liberts have taken on some of the ideas for themselves. If you listen to them talk; they created them.
Anyhows. You know your stuff Pudge! Much more then I do.
My "knowledge" only follows the history aspects (or tries to) as my interest stems from my grandfather x 7. He was Angus McDonald of Virgina. He was a friend and neighbor of George Washington. My current reading effort is about Madison.....
Have a great day!Re:Are they not all the same in the end?
gdm on 2006-03-20T09:02:01
If you haven't read this, you should. Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition http://www.wam.umd.edu/user/hannahk/bulletin.pdf.
Very intersting reading.Re:Are they not all the same in the end?
Marza on 2006-03-20T18:56:55
Thanks! I will print that out and give it a read.Re:Are they not all the same in the end?
sigzero on 2006-03-20T12:38:47
How would conservatives respond to a SCOTUS nomination of a Liberal even though it was shown he was a good judge? I can give you a few conservatives that would argue you can't be a good judge if you are liberal.That is an easy one and is from recent history. Just look at when Justice Ginsberg was appointed. The Repubilcans overwhelmingly voted for her even though she had serious issues. Turn that around with Robert and Alito. The Democrats were having spasms.
Re:Are they not all the same in the end?
Marza on 2006-03-20T18:56:00
Ginsburg I really can't comment on as I have not followed her.
However, I did hear a radio show that talked to ex-court assistents and the one comment I remember is that she is not really a threat and can be "brow-beaten" The fellow said that Scalia has "motivated" her a couple times.
Part of the screaming is the fact that there could be 4 replacements with this President and the Ideology could fall hard to the right.
I don't worry about it myself as with American politics; when you swing really hard one direction ; it tends to swing the other way just as hard.
Re:Are they not all the same in the end?
pudge on 2006-03-20T19:53:17
Ginsburg I really can't comment on as I have not followed her.
She was a very well-known liberal judge. She was top brass in the ACLU and an outspoken advocate of abortion rights. Everyone knew exactly what they were getting when they voted for her, and the conservatives, including the pro-life ones, voted for her anyway. Again, the vote was 96-3, and the Senate was cotrolled by Republicans.
However, I did hear a radio show that talked to ex-court assistents and the one comment I remember is that she is not really a threat and can be "brow-beaten" The fellow said that Scalia has "motivated" her a couple times.
That's nonsense. I actually read many of the court opinions, and Ginsburg rarely ever agrees with Scalia on anything controversial, and usually when they do, it's Scalia who is on the more "liberal" side (such as in the medical marijuana decision, when Scalia voted against the other conservatives).
Part of the screaming is the fact that there could be 4 replacements with this President and the Ideology could fall hard to the right.
Yes, it is. And so what? That's one of the reasons why Bush was re-elected, because the people wanted Bush to, in his own campaign language, nominate justices like Scalia and Thomas. Bush got more votes than any Presidential candidate in the history of the United States, in large part based on his pledge to do just that.
So this is nothing more than whining and sour grapes, arguing against the expressed will of the people. Obviously, I do not expect the liberals to be happy about it, but I do expect them to respect the law and the will of the people, and they do not.
I don't worry about it myself as with American politics; when you swing really hard one direction ; it tends to swing the other way just as hard.
Unfortunately, we won't find out. As noted, we do not have a real conservative government right now. If we did, we would not have significantly expanding social programs and ever-growing spending. Even if the Republicans are trounced, this cannot be seen as renouncing conservatism, because we do not actually have conservatism.
Oh sure, there's some elements of it. Tax cuts are conservative, for example. Then there's some social conservatism, like resistence to cloning in its various forms, tightening up abortion restrictions, and resisting gay marriage. But even the Iraq War was a classically liberal enterprise: we decided that what was best for our future, in the long run, would be to make the lives of Iraqis, and the rest of the people of the Middle East, better. Whether that has happened or will happen is beside the point: the goal was a liberal one.
Re:Are they not all the same in the end?
Marza on 2006-03-20T21:15:10
*snip nah changed my mind*
Just a question. Liberterian?
Re:conservatives and libertarians
pudge on 2006-03-27T05:46:57
So would the small government of your conservatism keep itself out of gay marriage, recreational drug use, prostitution, and such? Or just keep itself out of gun control?
Insofar as they are unrelated to the government and do not harm other people, yes. Obviously, gay marriage -- as an issue -- is closely related to the government, since what is desired is a sanctioning of a particular type of a union by the government. It's extraordinarily specious to frame gay marriage as a private, personal issue, since there is nothing less private than getting public respect and recognition of your union, which is what is being requested.
I don't find any real validity to the request. There are plenty of ways to get legal rights without recognition as a marriage. Further, there's nothing in our legal tradition (until recently, of course) that implies that government has any sort of obligation to recognize a union just because the people involved happen to be in love (and indeed, it seems to me that the Establishment Clause says that government has no business recognizing love in the first place).
Marriage is recognized by government not because the people involved are in love, but because marriage is good for society in various ways. So too can gay marriage be good for society, of course, but so too can many other types of unions; what's so special about gay unions?
Not a lot. So when people try to convince me gay marriages "deserve" recognition, I am entirely unpersuaded. However, that's not the end of the story. Read more about my view if you care.
As to recreational drug use, prositution, and gambling (which you did not mention but has similar issues involved), I am very concerned with the impact those activities have on the rest of society. The great libertarian principle is that your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Prositution and gambling -- even when legal -- bring with them more criminal activity. Unregulated use of drugs increases crime as well, as people steal to pay for their habits. Then there's the impact on the health care system.
I am not at all opposed to legalizing those vices, under certain conditions: we should at least look into how we can address the problems those vices will bring with them. Maybe even if we cannot solve the problems, the benefits of ending the War on Drugs would outweight the new problems caused by legalizing them.
Re:conservatives and libertarians
mw487 on 2006-03-27T16:16:49
When
Pudge said: "Historical perspective: the modern U.S. term "conservative" is primarily a reference to libertarian ideals of small government"
I guess I should have said:
Are you crazy? How can you say that the modern U.S. term "conservative" is primarily a reference to libertarian ideals of small government? Do you think legalizing recreational drug use, prostitution, and gay marriage are "conservative" goals of US conservatives?
It seems to me that you equated conservatism in large part with libertarianism. But it seems to me the main rule of conservatism is "to conserve"- to stick with the old, to change slowly. The main rule of libertarianism is "liberty"- don't bug me (as you say, until my fist meets your nose, or my bullet enters your chest).
Now, you personally seem to agree with many libertarian conclusions, but your agreeing with them does not necessarily make them conservative. If you call yourself a conservative, and you find yourself in agreement with libertarian conclusions, that does by itself not make libertarian close to conservative. Maybe it means that you are not really conservative.
So, using the wikipedia definitions, I am curious as to whether you are more conservative or libertarian? Or are you simply anti-liberal? That will show us any personal bias you bring to the discussion.
Whether or not you care to label yourself, perhaps you can elaborate on your assertion that
"the modern U.S. term "conservative" is primarily a reference to libertarian ideals of small government", of which I can not see the logic.
Thanks!
Re:conservatives and libertarians
pudge on 2006-03-27T17:16:48
Are you crazy?
No.
How can you say that the modern U.S. term "conservative" is primarily a reference to libertarian ideals of small government?
Because it is.
Do you think legalizing recreational drug use, prostitution, and gay marriage are "conservative" goals of US conservatives?
Broadly and vaguely, yes.
Question: what is almost universally regarded as the premier journal of conservative thought of American conservatism? The easy and obviously true answer is National Review, which has come out in favor of drug legalization for years, and whose editors (some of them, anyway) have many times come out in favor of legalizing prostitution and some form of rights for homosexual couples (even if not marriage, such as I described as my own view).
It seems to me that you equated conservatism in large part with libertarianism.
That's because it is. William F. Buckley, the main proponent and symbol of modern conservatism, founder of National Review, proponent of legalizing marijuana, was called a libertarian back before there was any Libertarian Party. And he still, correctly, uses the terms interchangably to describe himself (as he did when he wrote one of his many books, 10 or so years ago, "Reflections of a Libertarian Journalist").
I suppose you could argue against WFB being a conservative, or against his being a libertarian, but that would be rather silly, in either case.
But it seems to me the main rule of conservatism is "to conserve"- to stick with the old, to change slowly.
It seems to you incorrectly. Conservatives do want change, when it comes, to happen slowly, so it can be properly absorbed without considerable upheaval. Of course, that is reflective of the Constitution itself, which intended to make it difficult to change the law.
But they do not want to necessarily stick to the old. Today's conservatives were yesterday's abolitionists, for example.
The main rule of libertarianism is "liberty"- don't bug me (as you say, until my fist meets your nose, or my bullet enters your chest).
Yes, as is also the primary purpose of conservatives. Read NR sometime. Individual liberty is the primary guiding principle behind most of what is written there.
[ As an interesting -- to me, anyway -- side note, former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork recently wrote in NR that restrictions are necessary to preserve liberty, and used as his example some of the more offensive features of modern culture; as culture becomes more offensive, more people are driven away from it, back into their homes, and therefore have less freedom.
Just yesterday I was in a grocery store and I saw a fine example: someone had gone to the magazine rack, and turned around those magazines that featured nearly-naked greased-up women on the covers. Certainly it can be said that a family that reasonably does not want their children to see such things loses a big chunk of its liberty if it cannot go to a grocery store for fear of exposing the children to soft core porn. I don't agree with Bork that therefore such things should be legislated against, and most prominent conservatives also do not agree with him -- we would prefer this be left up to the free market -- but even within the context of restricting liberty, the clear and true goal is to promote liberty. ]
Now, you personally seem to agree with many libertarian conclusions, but your agreeing with them does not necessarily make them conservative.
Correct. However, the premiere conservative voice of the country for the last 50 years agreeing with them DOES make them conservative.
If you call yourself a conservative, and you find yourself in agreement with libertarian conclusions, that does by itself not make libertarian close to conservative. Maybe it means that you are not really conservative.
True, but you are mistaken in believing these are not conservative ideals.
What's more true is that most politicians who label themselves conservatives -- Bush, for example -- are not. Or they are, but only in part.
For example, President Bush has very conservative/libertarian economic policy, but very liberal social policy. Few longtime conservatives call Bush a conservative. Fred Barnes, himself mostly conservative, just wrote a book that attempted to prove to conservatives that Bush really really is a gosh darn honest-to-God conservative. It didn't work.
Go out and ask longtime conservatives -- by long time, I mean 30+ years -- and ask them if they believe the President and U.S. Congress today properly represent conservative values. Few, if any, will agree that they do.
Also, as an added bonus, there is not necessarily one possible conservative view on a given issue. Take abortion. What's the libertarian position on abortion? It depends entirely on a belief that is separate from your political and economic beliefs: namely, whether the life in the womb has human rights, and whether they are to be respected just as any other human's. If so, then abortion-on-demand is wrong; if not, then banning abortion is wrong.
It's similar with some of these issues. What is the proper conservative position on gay marriage? It depends on how you define the purpose of marriage, how you see the government's interests in it. What about drug use? It is the balance of the societal ills caused by drug use, versus the societal ills caused by criminalizing it. What is the proper conservative view on soft core porn out in the open in a grocery store? And so on.
Re:conservatives and libertarians
mw487 on 2006-03-29T15:07:52
Ah, the logic.
Buckley is conservative, Buckley espouses libertarian views, therefore conservative is libertarian.
s/Buckley/Pudge/g
s/Pudge/jDavidb/g
At least jDavidb in citing his own post recognizes that libertarian is a better label than conservative for views such as his and supporting gays in the military.
In citing Wikipedia's entries on conservatism and libertarianism, I hoped to get away from a strictly personal set of assertions. I note that Wikipedia presently describes "National Review" as a conservative/libertarian magazine, and I note once again that finding a self-labelled conservative espousing a libertarian view does not mean that the libertarian view is conservative.
Notice that up to now I have stayed away from "liberalism", generally considered the opposite of conservative. But try this: make a Venn diagram of (civil or economic) "conservatism", "libertarianism", and "liberalism", and then let's talk about whether "the modern U.S. term "conservative" is primarily a reference to libertarian ideals of small government". Because if libertarian overlaps with conservative when libertarian overlaps with liberal, then conservative is liberal. Agreed? Ah, the logic.
I am also confused over:
Today's conservatives were yesterday's abolitionists
Does yesterday's abolitionists refer to slavery abolitionists around the time of Lincoln? I did not know they were considered conservatives. Maybe it has something to do with Lincoln. Since Lincoln was a "Republican", and Republicans are now "conservatives", then today's Republicans are yesterday's Republicans? Well, yesterday's Republicans were Hamiltonians, in favor of a strong central government, against succession, and Lincoln was annoyed by how the constitution made it difficult to end slavery when that became his goal in order to punish those states that insisted on succession. The status of slavery in the new territories was actually a much bigger issue for Republicans than the abolition of slavery where it already existed. Republicans certainly have come a long way!
I truly am curious to see evidence (citations are nice), that conservatives agree that conservatives are libertarians. That is far different than people self-labelling as (economic or civil?) conservative, and espousing (civil or economic) libertarian views. For example, is the Republican party platform measurably more libertarian than 30 years ago? The Republican Party platform would seem to document widely agreed upon conservative views of the last 30 years.
Basically, I think the problem we are having here is that conservative is not well defined. Like pornography, we will know it when we see it. But since everyone has a different definition, it does not pay to discuss differences.
Lastly, you ask me to:
Go out and ask longtime conservatives -- by long time, I mean 30+ years
and I am curious how long you have been a conservative, and when you realized you were one? I have been generally liberal since I reached majority and started voting, 30+ years ago. In my day, I could drink, be drafted, and vote at 18.
From what I hear, Buckley once opposed drug legalization, but apparently at some time in his past he realized the error of his ways and became a conservative and supported drug legalization.
Ha, ha ha ha. Bye!
Re:conservatives and libertarians
pudge on 2006-03-29T17:07:43
Buckley is conservative, Buckley espouses libertarian views, therefore conservative is libertarian.
I didn't say that, of course. What I said was that the two have been, for many decades, been used interchangably with a certain form of conservativsm. And I offered evidence of it, and I favorably compared the views of each.
Nice straw man, though. Logic, my ass.
In citing Wikipedia's entries on conservatism and libertarianism, I hoped to get away from a strictly personal set of assertions.
Again: logic, my ass. On what grounds do you claim Wikipedia entries are not a strictly personal set of assertions?
But try this: make a Venn diagram of (civil or economic) "conservatism", "libertarianism", and "liberalism", and then let's talk about whether "the modern U.S. term "conservative" is primarily a reference to libertarian ideals of small government".
I need no diagram to know that the overwhelming majority of today's conservatives do, indeed, adhere to the libertarian ideals of small government. Unfortunately, the percentages flip if you're talking about self-professed conservatives in the U.S. Congress.
Does yesterday's abolitionists refer to slavery abolitionists around the time of Lincoln? I did not know they were considered conservatives.
They weren't. That's what I said. They were considered liberal. But today, those same people would be considered conservative. Strong federal government, but only within its Constitutional authority, with the rest of power going to the states; strong protection for the rights of minority groups, but no special rights (the abolitionists also started the women's rights issue); and so on. And they were today's "social conservatives" too, as these same abolitionists were the people who pushed for prohibition. All of these are by their standards very liberal, but by today's standards very conservative, causes.
against succession
Secession.
and Lincoln was annoyed by how the constitution made it difficult to end slavery when that became his goal in order to punish those states that insisted on succession
No, his goal was not to punish states that insisted on secession. He tried to avoid Civil War up until the point where secession had already happened, and he did not exercise his war power to free the slaves until after the War was already engaged, in earnest.
And he was not annoyed by the Constitutional prohibition, either. He respected the Constitution and its provisions, and wanted to abolish slavery legally, by containing it in the South, and changing attitudes, and thus reality, over time.
The status of slavery in the new territories was actually a much bigger issue for Republicans than the abolition of slavery where it already existed.
Right, but Republicans != abolitionists. Lincoln was no abolitionist, but he was the favored President of the abolitionists.
I truly am curious to see evidence (citations are nice), that conservatives agree that conservatives are libertarians.
As this is superfluous to the point, I won't provide it. What matters is not what people consider to be similar, but whether they are in fact similar.
However, anecdotally, I have met hundreds of people -- mostly Republicans, but not all -- who self-identify as both.
For example, is the Republican party platform measurably more libertarian than 30 years ago?
That's uninteresting, for three primary reasons. First, as I noted, the current GOP in the U.S. Congress is not strongly conservative. It was in 1994, but it is not today, and this significantly influences the platform. Second, Republican platforms have a history of being vague anyway. Saying things like "we stand for improved access to health care" without giving specifics, such that even Democrats would agree with much of it. Third, and most importantly, I am talking about conservatives, not Republicans. I don't know why you insist on assuming conservative == Republican.
That said, there are marked differences. The 1972 platform, for example (a good place to start since it too marked the year of a GOP presidential re-election campaign) had a heck of a lot in there about federal government welfare programs for the poor, something thankfully less evident in 2004's platform.
Basically, I think the problem we are having here is that conservative is not well defined. Like pornography, we will know it when we see it. But since everyone has a different definition, it does not pay to discuss differences.
The problem is that most people do NOT know it when they see it. They think Nixon was conservative; he was not. They think Bush is conservative; he is not.
And I did well-define conservatism, though in historical terms, not ideological. But the history informs the search for ideology.
From what I hear, Buckley once opposed drug legalization, but apparently at some time in his past he realized the error of his ways and became a conservative and supported drug legalization.
No, he was a conservative while he opposed drug legalization. He started National Review in the 50s and did not favor drug legalization until the mid-70s. He was simply, as many people do, in the process of developing his thoughts.
He was a conservative and libertarian in 1965 when he ran for mayor of New York City, and opposed drug legalization because -- at least, in the case of the drugs being discussed at the time -- drugs were a gregarious activity, and he likened the use of them to a contagious disease (prompting longtime friend, prominent economist Milton Friedman [a self-professed libertarian and Republican]) to wonder if the police should be summoned if it were established that keeping company with Buckley were a contagious activity.
Like many people, he was attempting to justify holding on to a view that he liked, even though he recognized it contradicted his other views. He recognized, in his words, that we should give deference to the notion that we should not engage in "outlawing any activity potentially harmful only to the person who engages in that activity," so we should not require motorcycle helmets. But he believed -- and not incorrectly -- that drug use also harmed others. And, therefore, he believed the government had an interest in outlawing it.
About 10 years later, he recognized that outlawing drugs simply isn't practical, and that the harm done in outlawing it outweighs the harm done in allowing it.
Re:conservatives and libertarians
jdavidb on 2006-03-28T20:24:13
Do you think legalizing recreational drug use, prostitution, and gay marriage are "conservative" goals of US conservatives?
I am a US conservative, and I believe recreational drug use, prostitution, and gay marriage should all be legalized, as should any other victimless crimes, such as copyright infringement. As a matter of fact, I think marriage should be completely, 100% deregulated and the law should not in any way discriminate against people on the basis of marital status.
Oh, and I'm a fundamentalist, too!
Re:conservatives and libertarians
jdavidb on 2006-03-28T20:26:53
Oh, and by the way, Barry Goldwater, author of Conscience of a Conservative, and considered by some (including my father) to be the father of modern conservatism supported allowing homosexuals into the military, as do I.
