'Prolly should’ve proofread that.
Kimstu, why thank you. Well said there.
Basically, stoidela seems to be looking far more cynically at conservatives than at liberals. I could easily do the converse and claim that I don’t trust liberals because they are always trying to get more money and power while giving lip service to the public good. In both your case and mine, the argument rests on unsupported assumptions of the motives behind the other side. Just because you cannot understand why someone would support conservative viewpoints doesn’t mean that they aren’t actually as well-meaning and honest in their attempts as you are.
6th generation military, here (reformed). I am not aware of these profound reasons. In fact, much of the modern trend seems based primarily on budgetary considerations and perceived respect for the importance of the military’s role. While these are certainly valid reasons for a political leaning, I see nothing profound about them.
Among officers, in fact, there is a long tradition of remaining apolitical in elections for federal government. This is based upon the presumption that it was not proper for a subordinate to vote for either his commanding officer or the people who set his budget. Both of my grandfathers, my father, and one of two uncles followed this practice for as long as they were on active duty. The same attitude was evident in Colin Powell’s refusal to declare a party allegience while he was still serving.
Now, I am not denying that today’s military tends to vote republican. I just see no profound tie between that fact and the willingness of a citizen to pledge his life to the protection of the nation.
Scylla said:
Then perhaps you should reconsider what you “consider” yourself. 
As I said before, on this issue alone, most people would categorize you as “moderate” (at least on social issues).
From the way you described yourself, I would say you are (if you must be categorized) a conservative on economic issues and a moderate on social issues. Since “freedom” is, IMO, more of a “social” issue, I do not see you as falling into the “conservative” group there. I tend to think that a random poll of people on the street would agree with me.
Considering I haven’t made any unfair or inaccurate generalizations, I’m unsure as to why you have brought it up. I have been discussing “conservatives” as the term is generally used. Should I argue that “liberals” is improperly used because the original term meant somebody who is now referred to as a libertarian? No. We have to go with the term as it is used by people today. And when people today say that somebody is a “conservative,” they are generally talking about the views I already mentioned.
DavidB:
PJ O’Rourk on Consevatism:
http://usconservatives.about.com/newsissues/usconservatives/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.web-presence.com%2Fmac%2Fpjhowto.html
Conservative FAQ:
On Abortion and Pro-life:
**
Conservatives stand for what Consevatives say they stand for, not what some hot-headed liberal says they do
How you perceive Consevatives is irrelevant, and bears only to your level of knowledge or lacking thereof.
Ask most conservatives what they think, and you will find that they also tend to share the views you define as moderate. What you call Conservative is actually Right-Wing.
OK, Scylla, you keep calling yourself whatever you want, ignoring what the rest of the country thinks. And then you can wonder why people don’t understand what you’re saying when you say it. :rolleyes:
The FAQ you linked to specifically says: “The conservatism discussed is traditionalist American conservatism” – which is not what we’re talking about. Indeed, later in the FAQ, it notes: “Any conservative who gets elected or otherwise hits the mass market (e.g., Rush Limbaugh) is likely to be a mainstream conservative.”
(And be careful about complaining that you’re being painted with an extremist brush when you then refer people to a page on About.com that has, at the top, a topic about how Clinton should have been removed from office and then none of this election stuff would have happened.)
P.S. Your direct links didn’t work. Clicking on them gets you to the main About.com conservative page, but then you have to go hunting to find what you were talking about. I was not able to find the P.J. O’Rourke link.
OKay, I feel compelled to jump in here and argue against some of the things coming from the “conservative” side, although let me also say that I generally agree with the wise viewpoint of kimstu. And, I would also tend to differentiate between what conservatives believe and how appeals are sometimes made in this country for the conservative/Republican cause. I.e., I think there are conservatives who are compassionate, etc., but who really honestly believe that government intervention does more harm than good, etc., etc.
However, I also believe that a lot of appeals coming from the conservatives are made toward the more selfish side of human nature…“the government taking away your hard-earned money” etc, etc. Admittedly, the liberal side may also sometimes appeal to this more selfish side too. I know that some of you think this characterization of the Bush tax cut as benefitting mainly the wealthiest is such an appeal. For personal reasons, I tend not to see this so much because I know that I myself am wealthy enough that it is in my narrow financial best interest to be for Bush…His tax cut will save me about $1500 whereas I am ineligible for all of Gore’s cuts except for the long term care one, which I doubt I will be taking advantage of anytime soon. But, maybe overall, that appeal is also directed at the more selfish side of human nature. Still, selfishness is, to me, a somewhat less annoying quality in the poor and middle class than in the rich.
Now on to the more partisan points…
And corporations are not concentrated power? You may argue that corporations are free associations of people, but so is government. And neither is completely “natural”…I.e., nature does not pre-ordain corporate law with its concept of limited liability, etc.
Sorry to disappoint you there…see what I wrote above concerning Bush/Gore tax cuts.
Scylla [and waterj2], I applaud your crusade to take the mantle of “conservatism” back from the Far Right in this country. But, until you succeed, I think one can say that many (if not most) of the most politically powerful “conservatives” in this country today are the ones you associate with “bigotry”. So, they ain’t hiding very well. Trent Lott, Tom Delay, Jesse Helms, Pat Robertson and the rest of that crowd have pretty much co-opted what you like to think of as conservatism. [By the way, I will say that in the Vice Pres. debate, it was very refreshing to see someone as conservative as Dick Cheney talk of homosexuality as a civil rights issue…On the other hand, it was somewhat disappointing to then be told that this is likely because his daughter is a lesbian. I would hope we could find more examples of major conservative political figures who shared his viewpoint even without the enlightenment of personal experience.]
Okay, Scylla, I work for one of those corporations that you describe and there ain’t no way in hell that I am going to let this statement go unanswered!!! For one thing, this downsizing also creates very low morale. For a second, the other corporate initiatives that come down every few years to “refocus, and become more efficient” are a freaking joke. Corporations have their fads…Several years ago (before my time), the research labs where I worked was organized by function. Then they said, “This is bad because the research labs aren’t connected enough to the business…We need to reorganize by lines of business.” Then, a year or so ago, they said, “You know…we have lots of duplication of functions in several of the different lines of business. What we need to do is re-organize more by function and eliminate this duplication.” Get the picture?
Then there are the various other initiatives. The latest in my company is “management by fact”…We even took a course that was supposed to have us simulate how it all worked. It was fun, but what learned about “management by fact” is that it was basically the idea that you have a problem and then rather than straightforwardly identifying and solving it, you invent a bunch of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo that is supposed to do that but more realistically just allows you to hide behind the mumbo-jumbo and avoid actually dealing with the problem.
Corporations, at least large ones, are large bureaucracies, just like government. And, by the way, there are also various “re-inventing government initiatives”…although I am not so naive as to think that these are any more successful than the corporate ones.
I don’t see this as a debate so much as a “Says ME/Say YOU” rant. Yes, sites are cited, but as the people are viewing them from two seemingly opposed viewpoints (and thus reaching separate conclusions), I see no rational basis for debate, just more back-and-forth rhetoric (kind of the larger issue in microcosm).
It should have been moved quickly and quietly to IMHO from post one, where Stoidela’s opening statements that “Conservatives/Republicans are selfish, while Liberals/Democrats are not” is nothing more than name calling and baiting.
David B.: I’m not the kind of person to tell others how to do a job that I myself am unwilling to do, but I think that you are remiss as a moderator for not having moved this already.
ExTank
“Mostly Harmless :p”
Just a small quibble here…The argument I have heard from Republicans about Kyoto is that it gives the third world countries a free ride and that is why it is unfair…that it hampers the already-industrialized countries without imposing limits (or as strict limits?) on the developing ones.
So, which is it? Does it give them a free ride or penalize them too much? Or, is either just an excuse to do nothing while Rome burns?
IIRC, developing nations complained that the rules were too strict. I don’t really remember how the republican party reacted to the treaty (although it is completely possible that they complained that it did not penalize developing nations enough). Or I may be confused entirely; I was sleepy. I mean during the entire Kyoto treaty, not while posting.
The point I was trying to make was that, if one tries to simplify huge issues e.g., the world wide economic impact of steps to combat global warming, into a single statement that demonizes one group, one is probably wrong. So many other posters have said this so much better than I have that I should probably stop here. Since that’s never stopped me before, let me say this:
If your premise is that half the electorate is evil and/or stupid, you are going to have an uphill battle winning friends and influenceing people.
Okay, I won’t give you an argument with this.
Well, David, then you have people like Barry Goldwater, who, by the end of his life, supported gay rights, the rights of religious minorities, and was pro-choice. He was the one who said, when Jerry Falwell said that “All good Christians shouldn’t support Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme court”, because she wasn’t pro-life enough, that “All good Christians should kick Jerry Falwell’s ass”
I think one of the problems is that “conservative” has a bunch of different definitions, depending on who you ask. So does “liberal”. There were a lot of New Dealers who disagreed with a lot of 60’s liberallism. Was George Wallace a liberal when he ran for president? A lot of people didn’t think so, but he was a Southern populist, who started his career by supporting Roosevelt.
DavidB:
To get to the O’Rourke piece (which is really worth reading,) from the this link
http://usconservatives.about.com/newsissues/usconservatives/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A %2F%2Fwww.web-presence.com%2Fmac%2Fpjhowto.html
Click on Basics on the left (It’s right under AL Gore,) Then select “How to Explain Conservatism to Your Friends.” It’s an excellent piece out of his book Age and Guile Beat Youth an a Bad Haircut
How you feel about Conservatism is not how the rest of the country necessarily feels. Two of our Moderators and several worthy posters seem to be pretty Conservative. I was a Young Republican in College and my views were mainstream.
What I have described is mainstream Conservatism, and worthy of Barry himself.
The legacy of Pat Buchanan has left a false sense among the liberals of what Conservatism is about. What I’ve described is 90% of Conservatives out there.
The mistake is yours.
I suggest you be a man and admit your mischaracterization. After a year of kicking my ass you were bound to make mistake sooner or later, and today’s the day. Bend over, I got my boots on. 
[Moderator Hat: ON]
ExTank said:
Well, then you obviously don’t understand the difference between Great Debates and IMHO. This is a political debate, and political debates go here.
If you have any further questions, I’d be happy to answer them in e-mail.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
Scylla said:
And your point is what? The very FAQ that you pointed to supports me, not you. Others have posted to explain the same thing, and you have ignored them. You have, in fact, ignored much of what I’ve explained.
You may continue to think that, but it’s simply untrue. What you are characterizing as “conservative” is not what the majority of people in this country think of when they hear the word; it is not the way most people use the word.
I will not admit to an error I have not made.
It seems you are a bit too overeager to find me in error due to the number of times I have recently pointed out your own. I’m sorry to see that. But you’re just going to have to deal with it in your own way.
A non-broken link for Scylla:
How to Explain Conservatism to Your Squishy Liberal Friends: Individualism ‘R’ Us
Posted without comment. Carry on…
You know, I get a little tired of conservatives trying to claim a monopoly on the concept of “freedom.”
This moderate liberal is for freedom too, but my concept of freedom includes:[ul][li]Freedom to choose my religion, or to choose no religion at all, without government interference.[]Freedom for consenting adults to make their own decisions about their sex lives. []Freedom of speech. Including unpopular speech. []Freedom from oppression by powerful corporate interests.[]Freedom from tainted foods and poisonous drugs. (Thank you FDA!)[]Freedom from virulent disease. (Thank you CDC!)[]Freedom from pollutants and poisons being introduced into the air I must breathe and the water I must drink. (Thank you EPA!)[]Freedom to enjoy the nation’s natural beauty without despoilment of public lands by oil and timber companies.[]Freedom from con games and shady business practices designed to fleece the unsophisticated.[/ul][/li]
Like I said before, the government is not the only entity capable of impinging on our freedoms. We must be equally cautious lest our freedoms be taken from us by powerful corporations.
Well, I really wish more “conservatives” held to what P.J. said. Unfortunately, in the real world, they don’t. He has done a good job of describing the more libertarian conservatives, but they are not the ones in control in most of the country. And they are not the ones most people think of when somebody says “conservative.”
Yes, yes, yes!
Scylla, I think that you think that the word “secular” means that opposite of what it does.