Starting from post #336, you demonstrated that you swallowed hook line and sinker what the right wing media told you about “climategate”. Even after you claimed to check the data the fact was that you fell for their spin, in reality “climategate” was the biggest malpractice of the right wing media in recent history.
So now on top of showing there that you are proud of your ignorance now we have to assume that you are expecting us to forget what you posted recently or that we have to assume that your memory is lousy.
Perhaps if you were to describe the central features of what you take conservatism to be. This list, as several have noted, contains a number of people not generally considered conservative.
Martin Luther King, in particular, by the end of his life was starting a transracial Poor People’s Campaign for economic justice, something with definite socialist tendencies. (Some conspiracy theorists think that was why he was assassinated; but that’s another discussion.)
So I leave for a bit and Cheshire Human goes full retard. Sad, really.
The fact of the matter is the average American conservative believes a bunch of things that aren’t true. That particular conservatives are brilliant isn’t an argument that the *movement *isn’t on shaky ground.
Also, C-H seems to be of the opinion that anyone he likes = Conservative.
And as it’s been stated before, you’re essentially playing “no true scotsman” with this guy. If you want the “conservative” party to be percieved as not being a collection of people with a dark age mindset, you have to do more than simply say that the person in question doesn’t count as a true conservative.
And let’s be honest, it’s not as if these types of views are uncommon within the republican/conservative party. Seems to me there were a couple of republicans in a hotly contested primary race trying to one up each other in who was least in favor of evolution (It was a southern state. There was a pit thread. Blah blah blah). Comes from being so deeply involved with the religious types. But of course they aren’t true conservatives either I suppose. Only the ones that agree with you currently get to count…unless you change your mind on something and they fail to keep up. Then they’re right out.
I should also say that I liked the emphasis you used in your post so much that I thought I’d copy it in the hopes of becoming a true conservative just like you.
Not ETA but since you ETA something I thought I should pretend to as well. I forgot to end this by calling you a dumbass, but as I’m not feeling very hostile I don’t think I’m going to call you a dumbass. So there’s that. How ya like me now?
Since your average “American Conservative” seems to be such No True Scotsmen ground right now, I think it would be more intellectually beneficial to limit the above to “American Republican.” As neither group can agree on a definition, even amongst themselves, giving the group attributes is an example of pointlessly and fruitlessly pissing the other side off.
Liberals, who are more compactly grouped in the Democratic party, will attribute the worst of the opposite side’s views into this umbrella group of their direct, ideological opposite. Republicans (and otherwise right-leaning people) who self-identify as conservatives will reject the liberal/Democratic critiscism as invalid because it doesn’t click with their perception of conservatism. People can accept critiscism, but nobody likes being misrepresented.
I expect it must a bit of a problem in the States. There’s your 8 or 16 basic political directions, but only two parties. So half the critiscisms you can think of can be flung at the opposing side, but none of it will fit all of them and all of it won’t fit anyone.
Its really very simple. People who history shows had the right ideas (like those above) are conservative, while people who history shows have the wrong ideas (GW bush, Hitler, Stalin, Nixon, McVeigh) are all Liberals. From this Cheshire Human’s thesis that we should elect only conservatives is clearly true. The problem is determining who is a conservative before the fact. In 10 years it may be clear the Obama was conservative.
From my perspective, both sides indulge in this occasionally–see the discussions upthread about how I’m not a conservative despite supporting gun rights and patriotism and reduced spending, because I also happen to support abortion rights and gay marriage.
Just fuel for the point I think we all SHOULD be agreeing on, which is that in today’s world the labels “conservative” and “liberal” have lost all goddamn meaning.
That’s my point, kinda: I fit some of the “stereotypes” of each side, I’ve voted for Obama, Gore, Bush, and Dole, I don’t think either label has much meaning holistically especially now as the Republicans are talking a half-assed game and voting worse while the Democrats are actually adhering to some of the better parts of “conservative” rhetoric.
Since we’re debating what conservatism means, I’ll weigh in with what I think.
There are 2 basic qualities: “Conservative” can mean “tightly regulated or restricted” or it can mean “in keeping with well-established or traditional ways of thinking”.
To dole out a resource–be it ice cream or welfare dollars–conservatively is an example of the 1st sense. Your giving smaller, tightly controlled amounts so you don’t run out, and also to train the recipients to make do with less. A conservative child-rearing philosophy is one that emphasizes discipline and rules.
Conservative attire is applies to both senses. You’re restricted to waring a dark suit and tie (and short haircut). And a respectable gentleman is traditionally expected to dress like that. The necktie in particular exists for no other reason than tradition.
Most obvious of all is conservative sexual morality. The circumstances whereby sexual activity is acceptable are tightly restricted. And premarital sex, etc. is considered immoral not for any logical reasons but becasue it’s a traditional belief. Reinforced in particular by religion.
So yes, religion is not only a higly traditional set of views, but the source of a great deal of highly restricitve mores. And given the tremendous popularity and influence that religion has always had in society, it should be considered the main pillar of conservatism.
