I want to be a conservative

[MichaelJohnBertrand]

@ITR_champion

Leaving aside the quesiton of whether this is actually true, it has no bearing on you. You can become a real, dictionary-definition conservative any time you want. Whether other people who call themselves conservative actually follow the definition has no effect on you.

I’ve thought of that, of simply calling myself a conservative and to hell with what the loonies calling themselves conservatives do.

But I pick my battles, and I don’t really feel like fighting the world over a basic definition. I don’t want to spend all my time saying "I’m a conservative, but not what you mean by that, see, what I mean by it is… "

However, I’m increasingly unwilling to call myself a liberal any more, either. I was never real happy with it, because honestly, I think these labels are dead in the water and the sooner we shuck them off and forget them, the sooner we can free out minds of being defined by what “team” we are on, and start thinking more independently, rationally, pragmatically, and usefully.

But I’ve still sat on the “liberal” bench because it fit me a little better. This is easier when they are not in power. when out of power, it’s easy to forget how many of them are idiots.

But lately… I’m a big Obama fan. He seems sane. But when I look upon the likes of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, et al, I really have to wonder.

Is it really wimpy, gutless, unfocused, impractical, unrealistic good intentions or ignorant, blind, callous, selfish amorality hiding behind the cloak of "practicality’?

Are these really the only two possible choices?

What am I really looking for? Liberals with guts? Conservatives with hearts? A smarter left wing, a nicer right wing?

Or should I just say “To hell with every one of you” and make up something new?

[elucidator]

Why not just call youself “Mike”? How often are you pressed for some definition? If anyone were to ask, which they don’t, I would describe myself as being on the conservative wing of the extreme left. As if anybody cared.

[MichaelJohnBertrand]

@elucidator

Why not just call youself “Mike”? How often are you pressed for some definition? If anyone were to ask, which they don’t, I would describe myself as being on the conservative wing of the extreme left. As if anybody cared.

Well it’s not like I’m constantly asked by random strangers to state my exact position on the giant number line of politics.

But it comes up. You start talking politics, people want to know where you stand. And honestly, there’s a question of self-definition as well, wanting to know where you fit into the big scheme of things.

I try to avoid labels when I can, preferring to define myself in my own terms, but some just reach out and grab you.

But I have always treated political labels as a measurement, not a proscription. Right now, I’m a moderate liberal. If the happy-hippy morons of the left wing took over, I might find myself as a moderate conservative, without having changed a single position or opinion.

I’ll always be moderate. That’s just my personality. The truth lies in the middle!

[suranyi]

@elucidator

Why not just call youself “Mike”? How often are you pressed for some definition? If anyone were to ask, which they don’t, I would describe myself as being on the conservative wing of the extreme left. As if anybody cared.

That’s kind of the way I feel. I decide on each issue individually, on the merits of that particular case. At the moment, that means that I voted for Obama and I’m mostly happy with him. But I refuse to put an actual political label on myself.

Ed

[F.U.Shakespeare]

@Sam_Stone

John Stossel, another ‘mainstream’ libertarian, made an interesting observation in a recent interview with reason. He pointed out that his positions should be half-liked by the left, and half-liked by the right. He’s in favor of gay marriage, was against the Iraq war, against torture, in favor of drug legalization, etc. So liberals should find something to like in what he’s saying, and conservatives should dislike it. On the other side, he’s against regulation and big government. So his messag has something to offer both sides.

And yet, when he has a speaking engagement with predominantly Democrat or Republican audiences, the Democrats hate him, and the Republicans love him. What’s up with that?

FWIW, all polemic I’ve heard from him was critical of some tenet of liberalism. E.g., I didn’t know that he was in favor of gay marriage: do Republican audiences love him when he talks about that in front of them?

Either the media has distorted his views, or, maybe, he has: like many talking heads who became known for their opinions in in the era when conservative media outlets were increasing, I would bet he has emphasized his conservative-friendly views over his more liberal ones over the course of his career. If I’m wrong about this, feel free to correct me.

[MichaelJohnBertrand]

@F.U.Shakespeare

FWIW, all polemic I’ve heard from him was critical of some tenet of liberalism. E.g., I didn’t know that he was in favor of gay marriage: do Republican audiences love him when he talks about that in front of them?

Either the media has distorted his views, or, maybe, he has: like many talking heads who became known for their opinions in in the era when conservative media outlets were increasing, I would bet he has emphasized his conservative-friendly views over his more liberal ones over the course of his career. If I’m wrong about this, feel free to correct me.

Stossel reminds me of Geraldo. They both started out as pretty good investigative journalists who got caught up in their own hype and just plain moved out of Reality Land into their Castles in the Sky. Geraldo is much worse, of course. But around time Stossel was trademarking “Gimmie a Break©”, I lost all interest in him.

Never trust a professional complainer.

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@MichaelJohnBertrand

When I lived in Portland, Oregon, I has an experience which more or less defines the problem with libertarianism. On the cable access station there, they had a libertarian chat show. Everyone was libertarians. Libertarians talking to other libertarians about their philosophy. Should be calm and rational right?

No, it was a bunch of tight-wound, wild-eyed, squirrely guys with long hair and wearing lots of camo and carrying huge bulging backpacks having big shouting arguments over tiny differences of opinion re : libertarian doctrine.

[Bill Hicks]

There’s a new party being born: The People Who Hate People Party.

People who hate people, come together!

“No!”

We’re kind of having trouble getting off the boards.

Come to our meeting!

“Are you gonna be there?”

Yeah.

“Then I ain’t fucking coming!”

But you’re our strongest member!

“Fuck you!”

That’s what I’m talking about, you asshole!

“Fuck off!”

Damn, we almost had a meeting going. It’s so hard to get my people together.

[/Bill Hicks]
Yeah… that whole Libertarian thing is just the kind of reasoned, compassionate, Up With People! kind of philosophy that’s gonna make us all see the light, join hands, sing Kumbaya, and save us from ourselves, isn’t it?

[IdahoMauleMan]

@elucidator

What is the end product of progressivism? I don’t know, if such a thing exists, I most likely won’t live to see it. We are concerned with process, not with results. If we can trust the process, we can reasonably trust the results.

Could you explain that one to me? It seems to be diametrically opposed to what everyone I know who calls themselves a ‘progressive’ actually believes or says.

You can make 2 columns if you want: ‘Process’ and ‘Results’. And then throw a few examples of each in each column. That would help me tremendously.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@ITR_champion

Then why don’t you become a conservative? Nothing’s stopping you.

Because changing to a conservative is an oxymoron.

[A_Dodgy_Dude]

@MichaelJohnBertrand

I wish that I could be a conservative.

I would love to find a group of people who are sober, careful, risk-averse, who do not rush into things, who believe in a well-ordered, well-run society.

People who truly, truly believe that tax revenue is a sacred trust, that the nature of the necessary evil of involuntary taxation means that we have to treat every one of those golden dollars as precious and be sure not to spend a penny needlessly.

People that realize that the practical and the compassionate are not only not antagonistic, they are one and the same. We are practical because we are compassionate, and want to enact our compassion in the most effective and efficient way possible. We owe each other nothing less.

People who realize that society is not merely a playground for the pursuit of pleasure, wealth, and material gain, but an interlocking series of obligations, duties, and rewards, and you cannot have the benefits without paying the necessary price and making the sacrifices. The fact that modern society demands so little of us in terms of labour and effort should not cause us to think everything in life should be free of charge as well. The fact that all the wonders of the modern age come to us without our having to do a thing besides pay our taxes should not cause us to think, naively, that only we could get rid of those taxes, why, everything would be perfect. You have duties as well as rights.

People who take governance seriously. People who realize that society needs rules and these rules need to be enforced, for the betterment of all, and this does not end when you enter the world of high finance, corporations, billions of dollars, and the lives and jobs of millions of people, and the products they use. If anything, this realm needs more regulation than the rest of society, not less, as the stakes are so much higher and the rewards for malfeasance so much larger.

People who realize that corruption is an eternal, enduring, and implacable threat, and that because the crooks and con artists never stop trying to figure out a way to just break open the piggy bank and take what they want, we have to be just as inventive in thinking of ways to stop them. And that the most dangerous crooks wear suits and fly around in private jets and do everything in their power to look like pillars of society while they rifle through the treasury and make off with anything that isn’t nailed down hard enough.

People who realize that a free society is always perched precariously between the forces of fascism and anarchy and that neither side can be allowed to run rampant. Moderation, sober second thought, and careful consideration are not merely good ideas, they’re vital.

People who realize that the smart solution is often not the one with the most sex appeal or excitement. It’s often a compromise, and therefore does not make anyone entirely happy.

People who realize that when it comes to government, it’s quality, not quantity that matters. There’s no idea size. There’s just good government, or bad.

Mega-dittoes, Rush!

I listen to you every day.

[RedFury]

@Cluricaun

I’m a socially liberal, fiscally conservative athiest who supports gun rights, legalizing drugs and gay marriage.

Just who the fuck am I supposed to vote for?

Yourself.

[Icarus]

To me the problem is in our entrenched two-party system. No matter what your political leaning or combination thereof, you must make a choice when you vote. When making that calculation it is natural to assume you must vote for one of the 2 major parties. Sure, other parties are represented on the ballot, but if you really want ‘skin in the game’ you know that you’re only going to get somewhere with Democrat or Republican.

The problem with that is that anyone running under either of those banners, no matter where they started on their personal journey (they may have started out thinking exactly like you) by the time they are on a ballot they have “drank the kool-aid” of their party to some degree. In that, they may have abandoned major components of their person viewpoints in order to succeed within the electoral system. If they haven’t abandoned their views, they stick with their also-ran party and they don’t ever get a shot.

So, where does that leave any of us?

[MichaelJohnBertrand]

@Icarus

To me the problem is in our entrenched two-party system. No matter what your political leaning or combination thereof, you must make a choice when you vote. When making that calculation it is natural to assume you must vote for one of the 2 major parties. Sure, other parties are represented on the ballot, but if you really want ‘skin in the game’ you know that you’re only going to get somewhere with Democrat or Republican.

The problem with that is that anyone running under either of those banners, no matter where they started on their personal journey (they may have started out thinking exactly like you) by the time they are on a ballot they have “drank the kool-aid” of their party to some degree. In that, they may have abandoned major components of their person viewpoints in order to succeed within the electoral system. If they haven’t abandoned their views, they stick with their also-ran party and they don’t ever get a shot.

So, where does that leave any of us?

It means that there should be a complete ban on polling for four months leading up to the election.

That way, nobody knows who is “winning” and people have no choice but to vote their consciences, if they have any.

[Monster104]

I’m not ashamed to say I’m a conservative (a rather moderate one without the religious right stuff, but still conservative-oriented). If you want to be a conservative, be a conservative.

I just wish there was a party I could be comfortable identifying with, because it’s damn obvious to me that the Republican party isn’t really interested in important core conservative ideals (as I perceive them to be).