Resolved: Conservatives get whatever they want

Great Debates
42

magellan’s list is excellent. As a conservative, I agree with all of them except for the Christianity part and this one:

“Pass a law making it illegal for a congressperson to vote for or against a bill without reading it in its entirety. If they haven’t read it, they don’t get to vote. If they do, and are later found to have lied about it, they lose their seat.”

I don’t have an issue with this in theory, but in practice it would be too easy to abuse. I don’t want witch hunts in congress of who read what.

Along those same lines I’d like simpler bills. There’s no need for legislation to be hundreds of pages long.

Bills should be simple and address one thing. If you want to do a lot of stuff, you should have to pass a lot of bills.

Example: “Comprehensive” immigration reform is a bad idea. Pass legislation (if we even need any) to secure the border. Once it’s secure, you can pass more legislation to deal with the people already here. That’s the only thing American voters will accept anyway, since there is no faith that the government will ever get serious about the border.

Some more conservative ideas:

Constitutionalist SCOTUS. Think all of the justices voting like Scalia all of the time. Don’t like abortion? That’s fine. Free up the states to ban it, thus overturning Roe. But you can’t ban it at the court level because it’s not in the constitution.

Abortion is one example of many things that should be decided by amending the constitution. Enough people are in favor of it, including conservatives like me, that we could pass an amendment and not need Roe.

Cut foreign aid way down to almost nothing. Only use it when it’s needed, such as paying off former nuclear powers to give up their nukes.

Privatize social security. Wean us off the program by a combination of means testing and privatization to make it welfare for old people.

Prevent all public sector employees from unionizing. This leads to disaster, as has been repeatedly proven.

As magellan said, we need to reduce the corporate tax rate. What he left out is that we need to also reduce the number of loopholes so that the tax at the lower rate actually collects as much revenue as it does now.

While we’re at it drastically reduce the amount of red tape that businesses are burdened with today.

43

What’s “outlandish”? How much should you get if, say, your newborn child dies as a result of malpractice?

“Constitutionalist” is a meaningless term. You can ban it at the court level because it is in the Constitution, according to a majority of justices.

44

Surely you are aware that Christianity sprouted from Judaism? No? In fact, there are many of our legal concepts that go back to ancient Jewish law. Also, although Christianity was the norm, the founders were very embracing of minority religions like Judaism and Quakerism.

You find it odd that someone who would adhere to the teaching of Jesus CHRIST would be considered a Christian more than anything else?

Also, since we’re talking about not just the Founders here, where do you think most inhabitants of the thirteen colonies look to for moral guidance? Do you seriously think it was NOT Christianity?

Sure it does.

So, with all Jefferson’s genius and command of the language, you think he could not have found a way to right around it, maybe just leaving off the “In the Year of Our Lord” part?

Actually, that’s not the case. Can you point to a pre-Christian Roman religion (of which their were many) that was based on the beliefs that 1) their is one and only Creator and 2) had as one of its tenets that “…all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”. 3) And that them is the concept of “liberty”?

I’d love to see them if you know of any. But I’d be VERY surprised if you could even come up with one. Ditto for Ancient Greek religions. So, in the absence of that, what possibilities are we left with?

It does not comport with the rest of history, so I assume something else is afoot. Quite logical, if you ask me.

Seriously? There is no Christianity without Judaism. Have you never heard of The Old Testament?

45

You can’t possibly be serious. So everything that is “Christian” is also “Judeo-Christian”? The church down the street is a “Judeo-Christian” church? Pat Robertson’s religion is “Judeo-Christianity”? Come on. That phrase itself is only a few decades old, and an obvious PC-esque nod.

As you said, Jefferson rejects many of Christ’s teachings, as well as many teachings of Christianity itself, including the most important one – that Jesus was the son of God.

Most early Americans were Christians. That doesn’t mean the country was founded on Christianity.

Is that the best you’ve got? With all his genius, if he meant it to be a Christian-themed document, don’t you think he would have put something other than the common format for dates that was linked somehow to Christianity? That’s the way dates were written – “In the Year of Our Lord” is like “A.D.” – it doesn’t mean the user of the phrase is Christian.

No founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence, refer to any “one and only Creator”. Creator, okay. But “one and only”? No. So this is certainly shared with other philosophies, including Greek and Roman.

Christianity does not have these last two tenets either. “All men are created equal” is self-evident, according to the Declaration. It’s not derived from the Bible or any Christian texts.

We’re left with no religion, because Christianity and the Bible certainly don’t say ‘all men are created equal’ and ‘endowed with inalienable rights’, including ‘liberty’, unless you twist the words beyond recognition.

Actually, it does comport with the rest of history. Quite logical indeed.

Again, ridiculous. How is “Judeo-Christian” separate from “Christian”? If they’re the same, then why use two phrases?

46

Treaties supersede anything else, as I trust you know. The 1796 Treaty of Tripoli, sent by President John Adams to Congress, reads in part: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion …”

So get over it.

47

I’m unaware of any “disasters” related to to this. Some pros and cons, to be sure. But disasters “repeatedly proven?”

48

Has anyone ever heard a Jewish person say “Judeo-Christian”? Seems to me it’s generally used by the right wing Christians, perhaps as a token of unwavering support for Israel.

49

They do?

50

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land”

There is no mechanism for ruling a treaty unconstitutional, or limiting its effects.

Basic stuff, really.

51

I’m sure we’d find that “Conservatives” are not all alike, and “what they want” would be a very contentious issue. The “moral majority” types would be fighting the libertarian-leaners, for example.

If the Democratic Party were stripped of all power, we’d soon see a number of deep divisions in the Republican Party.

BTW, are we taking “Conservatives” as equivalent to “Republicans”, or are we only talking about true conservatives? Because (as a part-time conservative) I don’t consider the Republicans to be very conservative, at least not since the beginning of GWB’s administration.

52

Thank you and magellan for your lists. This is exactly what I was looking for.

Now, are there any places where these things have been implemented (obviously, adjusted for local language, etc.)? What are they like?

53

I’m trying to figure out what the main argument against this is. (The popular election of the President.) It must have been discussed during the Framing.

54

I don’t know, but I suspect it’s something like that. It’s common knowledge that Christianity came from Judaism, and so the phrase “Judeo-Christian” (which is only a few decades old, of course) is redundant, and seems only useful as a political nod.

55

I want to pay a tribute to Curtis Le May. He barged in here several years ago, a very brash thirteen year old. He then changed his avatar name to a more wise, powerful and influential lord.

… And posts the best, most reasonable message in the thread!

56

Yeah, it was part of the Great Compromise, just another example of giving the slave states disproportionate power to keep them from doing what they eventually did anyway.

57

It’s also useful in speaking of things held in common by both religions, such as the Old Testament and the God described therein, not to mention other OT contents such as the Ten Commandments, the creation and flood narratives in Genesis, and a whole bunch of other stuff.

58

Here, let me fix that for you:

“Yeah, it was part of the Great Compromise, giving the less populated states a way to not be overrun by the more heavily populated northern ones.”

Don’t mention it. Glad to help.

59

To add, it’s also why why have two houses of congress. The House of Representatives, which directly represent state populations. And the Senate, in which each state has two and only two representatives.

60

Yes. I’ve seen rabbis on TV talk about Judeo-Christian beliefs, as applied to a society.

61

I’ll second those who appreciate your candor, and these do seem like the kinds of things we typically hear from conservatives. I disagree with some more than others and I won’t discuss each one, but let’s just take the first five. As a generally liberal-leaning fiscal conservative/moderate, here are what I think the consequences would be if they were enacted:

- Flat or Fair Tax
This is regressive taxation that apparently assumes that 10% of a billionaire’s income has the same impact as 10% of a poor family’s income. But for the poor family, living hand to mouth, it may mean they can no longer afford adequate food or clothing; for the billionaire, it may mean one less race horse in his stables (not that he would likely even notice). To the conservative this apparently qualifies as “fair”. It would actually be the biggest driver yet of the growing gap between the 1% and most of the rest of society, contributing to growing social destabilization.

- Voucher Schools
This means the government should basically abdicate responsibility for secular and scientifically sound education. The basic idea of vouchers is to allow some factions the “freedom” to educate their kids according to their own standards, which as we’ve already seen in some conservative initiatives, in Texas and elsewhere, includes rewriting science on subjects like evolution and climate change to indoctrinate the politically correct viewpoint that these things don’t exist, and even some creative revisionist history celebrating conservative heroism. The idea of vouchers, in other words, is that ideology is much more important than facts.

- Abolishment of Minimum Wage
Apparently it would be great to go back to 19th century Dickensian England and establish workhouses again. Those were the days!

- Reduce corporate tax rate
There is such a thing as a corporate tax rate that is too high. There is also such a thing as one that is too low. When some major corporations manage to pay no taxes at all, or even get net tax credits, I’d say the effective corporate tax rate might be too low. It might be appropriate to lower the nominal tax rate while eliminating many of the outrageous loopholes, but I’d hardly adopt reduction of the corporate tax rate as a permanent mantra. (I’ve actually heard some conservatives suggest that, since corporate taxes are passed on to the consumer, all corporate taxes are consumer taxes and therefore the only correct corporate tax is zero!)

- Make every state a right to work state
Another wish for the 19th century, which conservatives seem to be obsessed with (except when they’re pining for the 18th century) – this one aimed at abolishing unions. Combined with eliminating the minimum wage, this ought to be terrific for the working poor. What could possibly go wrong?