I’d call them liberal policies, but we have OSHA and the EPA because Nixon signed them into law and with the EPA championed it as an idea. I’d call Nixon a conservative. He also negotiated directly with the Soviets, something that modern conservatives on Fox News would balk at as being weak or ineffective. You got the SALT treaty and better relations with the Soviets and the Chinese. Nixon also supported the first affirmative action program, the Philadelphia plan, and the Equal Rights Amendment.
Those were policies which were supported by Democrats and liberals. Nixon didn’t veto and in some cases pushed these policies into existence. They were sane policies which made the country better.
Nixon himself did many things that made the country worse. But there was a time when being a Republican conservative didn’t mean that wholly 100% of your agenda was bad for the country. That was a long time ago.
Yes, I agree with them on the crime sentencing portion not on the social services portion.
To me, spending money on social services is a good investment. A million dollars spent on social services this year will prevent several million dollars worth of crimes from occurring ten years from now.
[QUOTE=davida03801]
Liberals and progresses only want approved speech for those they approve of. Any other kind of speech should be oppressed.
[/QUOTE]
Irony is that the EPA and national parks were started by a Republican but now Republicans want to end them. Of course I’m discounting that the political leanings of Democrats and Republicans have flipped in the last 50 years, but its still funny when you think about it.
The examples I gave were all things that were widely supported by, and seen as, liberals. So you’d be incorrect. Democrats do support things that tend to be useful and prudent such as volcano monitoring and Republicans don’t. Sure there are examples here and there of a recent bad fiscal move supported by Dems or a good one by Reps, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Blue states are known to be wealthier, healthier, and pay more to the Feds than they get in tax revenue. We’re just better managers of money
For the purposes of this thread though, it’s necessary to say even this is a very controversial example of a “good idea”.
The US has the largest incarceration rate of any major country, 2nd highest if you include all countries (after the Seychelles).
Prisoners are held at extreme cost (and the cost is higher if they are executed) and subject to draconian treatment while in jail such as solitary confinement for months or even years.
Unsurprisingly the recidivism rate is extremely poor; 65% in some parts of the country.
There simply is no measure in which such a policy works. But it doesn’t need to work…it’s a system based largely on retribution.
Incorrect, David Bossie had the right to personally make such a movie and advertise it under McCain-Feingold. SEC. 203.c.2 provides an exception “…the term ‘applicable electioneering communication’ does not include… if the communication is paid for exclusively by funds provided directly by individuals who are United States citizens” under which he could have personally directly funded and aired such a movie.
It is true that he would have been forbidden to fund such a movie anonymously through a corporate veil, but I made no claims about that.
Yeah, Teddy Roos’ might have been a Republican, but he was hardly a conservative. Hell, hardly any of them were back then. The bickering was about *how to *progressive, not whether to. Much less roll it back.
That’s an oversimplistic statement. If one looks at Teddy Roosevelt’s speeches and other writings, it’s clear his dominant ideology was American nationalism and that his progressivism was while not exactly opportunistic something he evolved into over the years. He certainly had very little sympathy for socialism and instead was in many ways a reformist conservative of the Disraeli and Bismarck variety.
Nor did the Republicans and Democrats “switch” 50 years ago-the Democrats have been the economically more left-leaning party since 1932, if not 1896.
Of course, I should have added this earlier, but the Republican position on abortion is I believe the correct one and one more genuinely consistent with communitarian principles based on a society that works together to help everyone rather the pro-abortion legalization stance which in general is more consistent with a philosophy of atomistic individualism.
I understand what you’re saying and I think it’s a good point, but I don’t think I can completely agree. There must be some objective “good” out there.
[Set aside the anti-science stance of some people.]
It was a liberal who first decided to slide out of the primordial ooze and live on land. It was another liberal who decided to walk upright. Another liberal thought that there had to be some better way to move stuff than dragging it around, so he/she invented the wheel. Now, some liberal may have decided that it would be a great idea to build a fire in his cave and close off the door so that the other animals wouldn’t come in and get him. He was wrong and died of CO poisoning. Sometimes, liberals screw up. But another liberal came along and thought that putting a hole above the fire might be a good idea.
Conservatives would rather curse the cold and the darkness.
I don’t think this is accurate, There were large groups that opposed progressivism. They had positions that are approximately those of modern libertarians; they essentially argued that an employer could set whatever kind of workplace conditions he wanted to and the only right an employee should have was the right to not work there if he didn’t agree with the conditions. So basically any working conditions that weren’t literally slavery. You could hire nine year olds and make them work a hundred hours a week.
That’s why I said serious crimes. I don’t regard things like victimless crimes as serious. If it was up to me, you’d get life in prison for a really bad crime like murder or rape. Physical assault or significant theft would also get you a significant prison sentence - there’s a clear victim who was harmed by these crimes. But I wouldn’t waste taxpayer money sending people to prison for stuff like drug crimes, pornography, or gambling.
Well I disagree, but I won’t go into it since this is supposed to be a thread on good conservative policies.
You started by saying you agreed with the conservative line on crime sentencing. But now it seems even you only agree with part of it. You don’t agree with stiff sentences for drug crimes, for example.
So I think it’s a poor choice of an example of a good policy.
The first ones were – the later ones who decided that being amphibians was just fine and they didn’t want to turn into anything else were conservative.
I think that makes sense, except I see a difference between what I would call “progressive” policies and “Liberalism” (although there is significant overlap).
Liberals (at least the more extreme ones) are also obsessed with a utopian Eden that doesn’t exist. This often manifests itself as communism, extreme political correctness, anti-corporatism, disdain and lack of respect for traditions and institutions, even a sort of reverse racism. While the world must move on, some degree of conservatism provides a useful check against destroying old establishments just for it’s own sake.
