How conservative are the conservatives?

Great Debates
1

This was a post in another thread, but it deserves to be its own thread:

Erroneous. In red are the things that actually reflect 1960’s USA; in blue the things that do not:

No birth control, no abortion–pre-Griswold, check.

turn medicare into a much more expensive voucher program, turn social security into a much less safe stock market program–nope.

greater tax cuts for the wealthy, increased taxes for the poor and middle class–very much no.

states teaching evolution alongside full barrel creationism–full barrel? I think Lobohan overstated this one.

reduced child labor laws–nope.

a fence keeping out low wage workers and increasing costs for consumers all across the board–nope.

more executions–maybe some.
more incarceration–nope.

more military intervention–yeah, because that’s a part of the 1960’s we want back. :rolleyes:

making our for profit health care system more profitable–nope.

So that’s three or four of thirteen things that actually were part of this country pre-1970, and one of those was pretty bad, actually. And one thing that seems more extremist than the actual platform to me. Leaving eight or nine things that have nothing in the slightest to do with “the good old days,” and except for the medicare reforms would be the diametric opposite direction of “going back to the old days.”

You’re just wrong. I thought, “Oh, it’ll be 50/50,” but nope, totally wrong. So unless all you saw was, “Death penalty and banned condoms! Yay!” you don’t even have a basis for your post.

–

If this is an accurate portrayal of what “conservatives” want, and John Mace is right about why they want it, well, it seems like the “conservatives”… aren’t.

Thoughts? Data?

2

I don’t think it’s an accurate portrayal of what conservatives want at all. Just take the first item: no birth control. What’s the basis for the claim that conservatives as a group want that? Does the 2008 GOP platform say so? Have any serious candidates for the GOP nomination said so?

3

The fact that they constantly fight against it everywhere they can. These are the “abstinence only” people, who also support “slut shaming” and letting women who have sex anyway die to teach the others a lesson (as demonstrated by their opposition to HPV vaccine).

4

More important to either case is how “conservatives” started to change with regard to fiscal policy from the early 80s on (not so much social policy), and the effects of that change since then.

5

Offhand, I’d say the Republican obsession with stripping Planned Parenthood of all government subsidies. They claim it’s for stopping funding of abortions, but abortions are a small fraction of PP’s business. What the GOP would accomplish more than anything else by bringing down PP would be denial of contraception to low-income women. If that isn’t their agenda, it’s the result of it. I believe the puritanical segment of the GOP just doesn’t like the idea of people having sex and “getting away with it”, *especially *minorities.

6

nm

7

Arrg. I had the whole post done but I screwed up the coding. I’ll have to do it again. :mad:

8

Here’s what the asterisk was for:

*Excluding those parts, like outlawing birth control, which are not actually part of that platform

Most of what was posted is either not part of the platform, or was part of the status quo in the 60s. Here’s the actual analysis:

No birth control, no abortion–pre-Griswold, check.
Birth control is not part of the platform, and not the status quo circa 1970 either; abortion is part of the platform, but was pretty much the status quo in the 60s (other than a few states).

turn medicare into a much more expensive voucher program, turn social security into a much less safe stock market program–nope.
Medicare didn’t exist until 1965. Close enough for government work. Privatizing SS is not part of the GOP platform.

greater tax cuts for the wealthy, increased taxes for the poor and middle class–very much no.
Increased taxes for the non-wealthy is not part of the GOP platform. Technically, income taxes were higher on the wealthy in the 60s, but they pay a higher % now.

states teaching evolution alongside full barrel creationism–full barrel? I think Lobohan overstated this one.
I don’t know what “full barrel” creationism is, but it was during the 60s that public schools banished religion from the classroom.

reduced child labor laws–nope.
Not part of the GOP platform.

a fence keeping out low wage workers and increasing costs for consumers all across the board–nope.
They are not “low wage workers”, they are “illegal immigrants”. Whatever you want to call them, they were much less numerous in the 60s.

more executions–maybe some.
The GOP probably wants more, and there were more capital offenses in the 60s.

more incarceration–nope.
I don’t know that “more incarcerations” is part of the GOP platform.
more military intervention–yeah, because that’s a part of the 1960’s we want back. :rolleyes:
More than what we were involved w/ in Vietnam, and all the proxy cold war fights? Not a chance. At any rate, it was part of the status quo in the 60s.

making our for profit health care system more profitable–nope.
That is not part of the GOP platform. That’s a “death panel” type scare tactic.

So, you can do the math if you want. Most of it is either BS (ie, not part of the GOP platform) or was part of the status quo in the 60s. At any rate, it would not ruin the US, and it certainly wouldn’t be the best way to ruin the US.

n.b.: I do not favor that platform, but at least let’s get it right rather posting a bunch of BS.

9

Of course, part of the problem here is defining what “the GOP platform” actually is. I think if you asked all nine candidates (or how ever many viable candidates are left) what the “GOP platform” is, you’d get nine answers, some of them quite radically different.

Some of the candidates have supported parts of the platform which John Mace casually states are “not part of the GOP platform.” If Newt Gingrich becomes the GOP candidate, will “reduced child labor laws” become part of the platform? Even then, who can tell? Presidential candidates have run on ideas on which they haven’t been able to convince their party since, oh, the 18th century.

Lastly, “the GOP platform” is not “what conservatives believe.” Just saying here.

10

The original post was talking about a GOP takeover of Congress and the Presidency. In that case, you really need to look at what the GOP platform is, since no one person can push his agenda. Bush, when he had GOP control of both Houses, tried to partially privatize SS and his own party sunk that attempt. Ditto for immigration reform. Gingrich is not well liked by the Republicans in Congress, and if he tried to relax child labor laws, I don’t see any reason to think a GOP Congress would go along with that. It’s not part of their agenda now, so why would it be in the future?

11

(quoted from the OP, in case that varies from the original)

Those were essentially part of the pre-Great Depression platform also. So there is a possibility they would destroy the economy. But that’s just an illustration. The problem is that the platforms and stated goals of conservatives (and all other political ideologies) rarely have anything to do with the actual steps taken by these people once they attain power. Conservative politicians aren’t very conservative because there is no single definition of conservatism, and they are all a bunch of hypocrites and liars anyway (feel free to replace ‘conservative’ with ‘liberal’, it works the same all around).

12

Increasing the cost of medical care is not the same as going back to the status quo ante. Medical care used to be cheaper!

As I pointed out, most of that “platform” is not “what we had” in contradiction to your claim.

13

They have their 2008 party platform and a bunch of more recent position papers posted on their website. But people around here would rather set up and knock down a straw-man platform consisting solely of the most outrageous Republican excesses combined with what “we all know” they would do if they could get away with it.

14

Ron Paul enthusiastically trumpeted an endorsement from a pastor who openly calls for the death penalty for homosexuality. Michelle Bachmann has two people on her staff who participated in* actually writing the actual law *in Uganda that mandates it.

How conservative are the Republicans? Conservative enough that two candidates who made the cut for their debates, one of whom stands a reasonable chance of winning the Iowa caucus, are literally planning a Holocaust of 10% of the American population, and no one is surprised or disturbed.

15

Maybe because they have no such plans. And the 10% number is probably inaccurate. Kensey’s numbers have long been discredited.

16

Translation: “La la la I can’t hear you la”

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/08/18/298662/bachmann-staffers-ties-to-ugandas-kill-gays-bill/

That took about 5 seconds of Googling, what’s your excuse? This “it can’t happen here” mentality is fantasy-land nonsense. Your other defense is that maybe the 10% figure for the portion of the American population that leading candidates of a major party wish to murder is inflated. Great.

17

Uhm, no. You claimed Ron Paul had a plan to execute gays. He is “literally” planning a Holocaust. Show us your proof that such a plan exists, or admit you are wrong.

18

Though on a technical level… Does “conservative” technically mean lets change everything to how it was 40-50 years ago ? That seems pretty “radical” to me (or maybe “reactionary” ?)

Surely conservative means opposed to change, period.

19

This from the guy who rather than admit he was wrong in a flippant post instead moved the goal posts.

20

In this thread, “conservative” means “let’s make shit up and pretend”.

Regards,
Shodan