From The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, by conservative British journalists John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge:
Here’s a story about it.
Nonsense. Conservatives consistently ignore both logic and facts. They oppose teaching evolution, despite the evidence for it being overwhelming. They support teaching abstinence in schools, despite the evidence that it doesn’t work. They support the free market as a magic solution for everything no matter how often it fails. They oppose the government as a solution for anything no matter how often it succeeds. They claim America is the “greatest country” in the world despite all the evidence that it’s behind other countries in various ways. They oppose same sex marriage and the right for homosexuals to be in the military on the strength of consequences that never actually happen anywhere they are allowed. And on, and on.
They don’t “think things through more thoroughly”; they DON’T THINK AT ALL. They base their beliefs on faith and denial of reality, and oppose rational thought and facts. If it wasn’t officially a political position and thus semi-sacred it would probably be classified as a personality disorder.
Oooh! Nope…I was thinking of something else (linked to it earlier in this thread) but that one is great!
Thanks!
Sadly, this is conventional wisdom in some quarters. If the right come up with something, it’s acclaimed as a new idea with real potential; but if the left come up with something, it’s just harebrained crazy talk.
School vouchers–adored by “social conservatives,” but not economically conservative in a classic sense.
Free Trade–I wasn’t aware that was new.
Tax cuts to stimulate revenue–the 1970’s is the last few years? Anyway, the Laffer Curve works, but most of the “cut taxes to raise revenue” plans are naked nonsense on the level of claiming to run cars on water.
Social Security privatization–interesting idea, quite right-wing, opposed by the left & center for technically conservative (albeit not Conservative) reasons.
Cap-and-trade, etc.–also known as, trying to get the industrial private sector to approach doing the right thing when you seem unable to build a proper regulatory state. Actually Conservative, though, in the economic-status sense.
Anyway, by being “change” ideas, they’re not conservative by definition. And their attraction to “economic Conservatives” (i.e., those with power & wealth who want more of the same) is very understandable. Too bad Free Trade is only loved hypocritically, & the tax cuts idea simply doesn’t work for the state (works great for the Conservatives, tho’)
Some more “conservative new ideas”:
Breaking treaties
Changing the rules of “sound foreign policy” when the new Dear Leader gets a new idea, & denouncing those who disagree with you but agree with what you said 5 years ago.
The water cure
Bankrupting the government (& therefore the country) to abolish popular programs you personally despise
Drowning the government in your bathtub, popular will be damned.
With conservatives like these, Woodrow Wilson could be a “conservative”!
Meanwhile, the left has the following:
Single-payer health care–tho’ I guess whether that’s new or not depends on whether one has seen Europe.
Equal pay for equal work–oh, wait, that’s from the 1970’s, it’s…almost as old as the Laffer Curve.
Same-Sex Marriage
Carbon tax–which is the same kind of thing as cap-and-trade, yet somehow didn’t get mentioned as a new idea. Confirmation bias, much?
Net neutrality–not that the old goats in Congress know what that means.
Hmmmm…
More seriously, there are persons with any number of different political & social perspectives with might be called “conservative” or insist on calling themselves “conservative.”
I’m a conservationist. Conservative! (but not right-wing!)
I’m poor. Not Conservative!
I believe in balanced budgets. [del]Fiscal Conservative[/del] get lip service from whichever party is in minority!
I believe in redistribution of wealth. Not Conservative!
I believe in rule of law. Conservative? Depends on when you ask!
I support the death penalty. Conservative!
For corporate executives who willfully violate anti-pollution laws. Not Conservative!
_
Generally, though, there are three big (source) categories of “conservatism” in the USA, & then their mad mongrel child:
1. the “fear change” component: Literal conservatism, wary of anything new-fangled. Sometimes gets tangled up in fear of something “foreign.”
2. the economic Conservative: Someone who thinks he’s got a good living ahead of him the way things are going now, so tries to avoid anything that threatens that. Found among the rich, if they don’t feel secure enough to give some wealth up or if they are genuinely disinterested in their fellow man. Also found in the upwardly mobile who are trying to get rich in the present paradigm & don’t want to be bothered or confused by paradigm changes.
3. the Traditionalist/Moralist Axis: Not necessarily either of the above, those who have a traditional belief or religion to go by. Can be diametrically opposed to category two, & make common cause with them largely where categories 1 &/or 4 embrace both.
4. The “Conservative Movement”: It was a shell game, a propaganda exercise designed to find whichever component of your worldview corresponds to at least one of the above three & convince you that therefore you are a “conservative.” But it has become something like a team affiliation now, & people are loyal to the movement as daftly as Trotskyists.
The scary thing about category 4 is that it’s a religion in its own way, & can be cultish. So there’s that cultish refusal to know anything not considered of the group. But mostly, I think the trait you’re talking about is a trait sometimes linked to category 1 due to common proximate cause–a certain stiffness of mind which is not always the cause of conservatism.
This does not jibe with my experience. I was a knee-jerk fiscal conservative in my youth, & grew up to be a considered redistributionist.
Sadly the liberals are the same. They support communism despite it failing to be a sustainable system. They support deficit spending to prop up social programs that have little net result. They slash spending for law enforcement, which drives up crime rates and constantly let criminals out early to continue their activities. They support adults having sex with young children despite all the psychological baggage that it brings. They believe that eating meat is murder and we should all be vegetarians. They want to take from the hard workers and give it to people who can’t even benifit society They claim America is the “worst country” in the world despite all the evidence that it’s ahead other countries in various ways. They think that we shouldn’t have a military, that it just promoted violence and our enemies would love us if we just abolished it. And on, and on.
…Wait, what?
Seconded.
I thought the post was off the rails in the second sentence but that takes the cake.
NAMBLA, totally liberal. Liberals are members just as conservatives don’t believe the government is ever a solution.
That’s the only thing on the list that you question? I don’t see anything there that is truly a popular idea among liberals.
:smack:
Hitler, totally conservative. We really going down this road?
And I am pretty sure political views bear no relation to being a pedophile.
I gave the rest of the list a pass as it seems intended to be an exaggerated retort to Der Trihs, but that’s the only thing that’s honestly and truly indefensible. Nobody, left or right, owns NAMBLA except NAMBLA.
Hence the problem with a binary standard.
As a social democrat, I would like to point out that we social democrats include communists, but liberals generally are capitalist. Of course, then there are libertarian socialists, who just can’t live by your rules.
Oh I’m a libertarian. I just want a system of law and order to enforce my greed.
Based on your post, I’d have thought you were a liberal making an unsuccessful attempt to show how dumb conservatives were by posting a parody of a “conservative” viewpoint that has no bearing on reality.
::: shrug :::
I am not sure why these sorts of threads keep getting posted. Most of the claims are simply slightly more moderate examples of the views posted by Der Trihs and kidchameleon and few posters seem to be interested in examining genuine differences rather than trying to show that the “other side” is “bad” or taking umbrage at the remarks aimed at one’s own “side.”
::: sigh :::
No, they don’t.
You mean like preventing mass starvation ? Of course, you are an admitted libertarian; you likely consider mass death among the poor to be a good thing.
Actually, it’s the conservatives who tend to let criminals out early. Both by overfilling prisons with people so some HAVE to be let go, and by being so terrified of the evil liberal judges that they pass mandatory sentencing laws - which prevent those “liberal judges” from keeping people in longer.
Nonsense. In fact, the groups that tend to have sex with children or defend doing so tend to be conservatives; Catholic priests, Mormon patriarchs and such
- looks up from hamburger *
Hmmm ?
Yes, it’s wrong to take money from the rich, and give to the poor; Mr Rich might have to sell his third gold bathtub, while the poor will squander it on food and shelter !
And behind in others. And I can’t think of anyone who calls America the “worst country in the world”. There’s so much competition.
And who thinks that ?
I find that particular graphic to be very useful for its stark red, white and blue simplicity–not many words to parse and twist there. The real fun begins when the conservative you show it to attempts to explain how all those low numbers were actually CAUSED by the high-number presidents that preceded them… The mental Cirque de Soleil moves required to make that work are truly an art form and I applaud the ones who manage it as I do any amazing feat of determination no matter how ill-considered.
The more intelligent person realizes that there is a time lag, and that you have to factor in who controls Congress and by what margin.
Of course, that level of nuance is beyond the capability of most message board debaters.
Buckley changed to recognize that the drug war was, perhaps, a bad idea.
Tribe owned up to the fact that the 2nd amendment recognized the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Clinton embraced free trade, instead of union backed protectionism - and was supported by many liberals.
I have met many Liberals incapable of admitting that they are wrong, but I also am closely associated with a University - so I get the opportunity to interact with more open liberals. I also meet many an idiot conservative when I am at certain types of trade shows.
How many liberals will openly admit that illegal immigrants cost us millions, and that we can not afford to have no control over our borders?
How many conservatives will openly admit that many businesses depend on the cheap labor to keep prices down?