To start a discussion. note I did not write this myself and I"m only trying to provoke a debate. I cannot claim responsibility for any biscuit cravings you may have as a result of reading the below:P

I am interested to see if

1) the discussion can remain on the points at hand and not drift into discussions about "communism" or socialism since the below neither criticizes nor endorses that.

2) how much flaming this will invoke

3) how long before another mod gets mad and shuts this thread down.

4) the below was clearly written in reference to american politics although I can say that most of that can be extended to various countries in general (minus the US segregation reference. Replace "christian" with "religious" if you will.)


~~~~~~~~
There are no individuals in Conservatism. They believe what they are told to believe, think what they are told to think, say what they are told to say, and vote as they are told to vote. Despite that, American Conservatives are not a monolithic group. They are an alliance of five social groups with separate, often contradictory agendas. The five groups are:

1. The wealthy, who want more wealth and power for themselves and less for everyone else. Their goal is to cripple government and eliminate the middle-class.

2. The economic Conservatives and Libertarians, who have made a bizarre religion out of their "free market" fairy tales. They want to destroy the social safety net and begin the Corporate State, though few of them can foresee the grim society that they would bring into existence.

3. Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians, who want to be the censors of fashion, literature, and morals. They feel marginalized and ridiculed - and they have been marginalized and ridiculed.

4. Racists, who want to re-segregate the South. They don't admit it, but that would be the outcome if they had their way.

5. Lunatics, paranoids, gun-nuts, militia members, and others whose mental problems are expressed in their political attitudes. They are fanatical about their particular political fetish: guns, militias, conspiracy theories, the birthplace of the President, Death Panels, whatever.

When elected to office, Conservative politicians serve only the wealthy. They give lip service to the other groups, but in truth they are indifferent to free market economics, Protestant Fundamentalism, small town values, racial conflict, or gun laws.

Conservative candidates pretend to each group that they represent its principles. They give different speeches to each group. That is why Conservatives will say some outrageous things to an audience at, say, a gun convention. Then, when a recording is leaked, they have to release mealy-mouthed reinterpretations of what they “really” meant.

All five groups are needed to put together a majority of voters. That is why Conservatives who are not themselves racist will refuse to purge their groups of racist members. Conservatism has created a code language of phrases like "states' rights" and "reverse discrimination" so that they can speak and write to each other without saying what they actually mean in plain English.

Similarly, the Conservative movement cannot spurn the social conservatives. They don’t have much money, but they are motivated, they provide a lot of street theater, and they vote with religious devotion.

The lunatic fringe is essential too. They provide a lot of street theater, they are very vocal, and they vote with fanatical devotion.

It is the wealthy who are steering the movement because they provide the money. The other four groups provide votes and street theater.

/flame on

Ok human torch... ^

lol

That whole statement is funny. It is taking points to the extreme. Which is why to counter it most poeple go to the opposite extreme (the communism and such).

There aren't just two extremes there is middle ground. The choice isn't "zero control on weapons" or "Zero weapons allowed".

The argument at its core is that conservatives are very segregated and that politicians play to each segment to get elected but reality are somewhere in the middle and not as extreme makes sense.

That is true. But you can make the same argument for Liberals using the assumed liberal ideas.

Getting elected is playing to different groups of poeple and making them believe you are the best candidate to represent them. It doesn't mean you 100% agree with their beliefs but you present yourself in a way they can relate to you more than your competitors.

I dislike the talking points part of your post Raf. Usually I do equate that to the conservative media's spin on reality and see most talking points as untrue or distortions of the truth. All I see here is facts and you may have said so yourself since you eluded to this middle ground that doesn't exist.

*tempted to just take this off subject just because I can*


IMO, this is a very 'milky' paper. It lacks the 'meat' and details to make it an interesting debate.

I will add however that the groups are too limited. Perhaps add an additional one. It can be the non-group, the people who think they are not in a group at all but in reality feed them all.

*super post*

i fall into two through five.

if only somebody would give me some fluffing money.

oh, wait..

(the confederacaaa!)

I stopped reading after:

"They believe what they are told to believe, think what they are told to think, say what they are told to say, and vote as they are told to vote."

Because clearly whoever wrote this is just trying to evoke an angry response from conservatives rather than say anything useful. If you make that statement about conservatives, you ought to say it about any other group. Conservatives take cues from elite discourse just as much as others.

what's your difference between communism and socialism?

uhmm.. spelling?

for 3 long years I've been trying to figure out which party Obama belonged to, after reading the above I finally figured it out...

he's a conservative ;D

Why can't people just meet in the center?

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others and all

America makes me sad :(

because it's easier to fleece your population if you can keep them divided ;)

Well according to a few sources the success of conservatism in the US is actually the failure of socialism that was expected to rise up due to the lack of class consciousness (Karabel 1979).

The belief in upwards mobility and the mechanics of 'popular sovereignty' has meant that conservatism has thrived (Karabel 1979). Governments that appear to be increasing wealth, are considered to be increasing opportunity to shift to higher classes. The self-justification for wealth being controlled by a smaller percentage of the population is that it gives incentives for individuals and American society to work hard to attempt to achieve this status.

Socialism is rejected by Americans due to the examples of failure set by European/Russian countries. Socialism does not represent increasing wealth and as a result does not fit with American's belief in opportunity to increase social status.

reminds me of my old Communist buddy..

The author is putting libertarians in with conservatives???? Please tell me he got an F for this paper.

Evolution:
Having a social safety net is not necessarily full on socialism, and I think that's a distinction your post fails to make.

Nothing precludes you from increasing your social status in most European countries today. That may not have been true in 1979 (why are you citing someone from 30 years ago for a contemporary discussion? Reagan hadn't even taken office yet :p) and was assuredly not true in any Soviet bloc countries.

I would go one step farther and say that the availability of a social safety net allows one to climb the social ladder more effectively. It's the same reason the insurance industry works -- you distribute the risk over a large group, some of whom will not need to use the insurance, while others will. The less things you have to worry about, the more you can focus on the things that are really important to you. If rising on the social ladder (ie getting a good education and a good job) is the most important thing to you, you can focus on that and know that if something catastrophic happens to you or someone you love, it's not going to be on you to shoulder that burden alone.

The main point that I hope American leaders (and those who vote for them) will someday realize is that it's not all or nothing and acting like it is is detrimental to the long term success of the nation.

Also, another question to conservatives:
Why does no one care about the fact that the federal deficit and debt have grown under every single Republican administration since the Nixon administration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...y_U.S._presidential_terms

How can you claim that Republicans are the party of small government and fiscal responsibility, when the only time they actually seem to care about it is when the other guys are in power?
And why is this not an issue? :p

Pang, you're failing to differentiate between Republicans and conservatives. Debt under Republicans is, of course, a problem. Many conservatives don't think the Republicans are doing enough to deal with it, hence the tea party. The issue has become much more salient now because the debt is increasing under this administration at rates never before seen.

Pang, no one can even agree there is a middle much less get the red tape passed to 'ok' the access to said 'middle'.
The WORLD makes me sad, not just USA.

PS... kudos to Klown for the cool big word SALIENT ;) *like*

It's a bit sad that you actually believe this. Every Republican candidate "has been different" if you listen to their supports. The tea party is just like every other conservative movement... they want to cut the deficit by "cutting pork-barrel spending" or "eliminating government waste" instead of real steps. The Ryan plan (note, Republican, not tea party) is a step in the right direction but unrealistic.

Taxes have to be raised, I'm not sure why that's the end of the world for some conservatives. Marginal tax rates in the US for the richest people are at their lowest level since WW2 anyway, estate tax was made useless by basically the richest families in the US and so on.

Thats false. Much of the tea party wants to slash entitlements. Thats one of the big difference between them and Republicans (except, as you pointed out, the Ryan plan). Theres nothing unrealistic about the Ryan plan IMO, and I support it other than the top tax rate reduction to 25%. Leave it where its at and close the deficit quicker, then we'll talk lower taxes.

The 25% top tax rate just makes the whole class warfare argument bound to be used by the Democrats so much easier. If we want this to get done, that needs to be out.

isn't the TEA party's thing to lower taxes? Doesn't it stand or "Taxed Enough Already"?
How do you plan to lower taxes to get yourselves out of debt?
Default and wait for a bailout?

And why would you not give Obama the same "pass" on deficit spending that Bush and Reagan got when they started jacking the debt? It was pretty bleak back in 2009-2010 -- far bleaker than Sept 12, 2001 and bleaker than parts of the 80's too. Other parts are far bleaker, but that's partially related to unfortunate hair.

The issues that caused the deficit ballooning certainly weren't related to anything Obama directly did. Yet, when he tries to make hard decisions, the republicans threaten to shut down the entire legislative process until the Bush era tax cuts were extended. Money gets spent pretty quick when you give it to people with the highest propensity to save!!! </facepalm>

PS. saying "republicans aren't conservatives" is a cop out. As a conservative, they're your party. The TEA partiers in office are all card carrying republicans too.

How does socialism rise up from a lack of class consciousness???

Socialism is a construct of bureaucracy over a working mass dictating or enforcing the equilibrium of individual worth. In a strict sense it is a governed class system of workers and overseers.

While not entirely impossible to break out of the mold individual success is much harder under a socialist bureaucracy. If a person is serious about gaining personal wealth then they need to begin looking at the imbalance between countries and exploiting this for their own personal gain. Trade as in imports and exports is still the key.

Conservatism is nothing more than an attempt to establish a status quo, or glass ceiling if you will. How it stratifies itself is irrelevant, what matters is the perception and the establishment of guidelines ensuring those who are awarded power can be stripped of it in the event of non-conformance ;) It's just a basic carrot and stick approach to getting people to do what you want them to do.

Socialism on the other hand is a form of civilized agreement between those with power, and their workers to establish a minimalist peace of mind by providing a safety net for the workers. The benefit for those with power is to keep large masses from assembling and organizing in economic downturns. By providing the minimum needs for survival i.e. shelter and food, it insures an acquiescence of the masses, as long as the breadline continues to feed the hungry. The worst case scenario in a socialist state is when the breadlines fail, in which case the wolves come out to play.

Pang:
"isn't the TEA party's thing to lower taxes? Doesn't it stand or "Taxed Enough Already"? How do you plan to lower taxes to get yourselves out of debt?"

Its about smaller government, first and foremost. Less spending, including entitlements, less deficits, and yes, less taxes. However, most tea partiers would be willing to trade taxes for a balanced and smaller government. It doesnt stand for 'Taxed Enough Already', thats just something some people put on their protest signs.

"And why would you not give Obama the same "pass" on deficit spending that Bush and Reagan got when they started jacking the debt? It was pretty bleak back in 2009-2010 -- far bleaker than Sept 12, 2001 and bleaker than parts of the 80's too. Other parts are far bleaker, but that's partially related to unfortunate hair."

I'm not sure what you are suggesting the bleakest time was. There are deficits and there are Obama deficits. Bush was actually well on his way to having the deficit under control - it was at 180 billion in 2007. None the less, deficits are not a good thing no matter who is president. The reason Obama is getting especially criticized for them is because of the unprecedented size of the deficits. 1.6 trillion this year, and he is projecting deficits with no end in sight. Under his budget, the deficit is still over 1 trillion ten years from now.

"PS. saying "republicans aren't conservatives" is a cop out. As a conservative, they're your party. The TEA partiers in office are all card carrying republicans too."

Yes, they are Republicans in the sense that there is no other option. Under our winner take all system, 3rd parties don't stand a chance. A political party is a coalition of interests. Conservatives are just one interest represented by the Republican party. You've got evangelicals, single issue voters, old people, and conservatives amongst other interests represented under the Republican party. Not all the interests represented by the Republican party are necessarily interested in seeing spending
slashed to bring the budget into balance (for example, old people who raise hell if entitlements are threatened). The party has to appeal to all of its coalition to get elected, and that can be a delicate balance.

oh man... so many things to comment on, but I need to go buy wedding gifts first :(

I hope someone else can articulate a good response.
I have one small point re: bush having the budget under control

It was the Bush economic plan that set the country up for the economic meltdown. You can't claim bush was the master of fiscal responsibility after his tenure.
It's like saying that you drove your car really well.... until it drove into the ditch, because the wheel fell off, while not mentioning that you smashed into the guard rail at 60MPH half an hour ago.

Ryan expects the % of GDP paid in taxes to remain steady while not increase in taxation for the rich, and cutting down on the middle class by reducing the size of government. The current trend is towards putting more of the income and wealth in fewer hands. That makes Ryan's plan unrealistic.

You want to cut the deficit, cut government, but also bring back the estate tax. Attack both expenditures and revenue. The current trend is for larger government entities to pass the expenses of government onto smaller ones. The federal government want to cut its budget, so it cuts down on federal money going to the states (in the form of aid, but more importantly, in the form medicare and medicaid reimbursements, in the form of cutting needed services so that the states have to provide them). The states cut down on aid to counties and municipalities (in the form of state aid, but also in the form of services that were offered by the state, but now have to be offered by municipalities). For my state (which traditional gets 60-70 cents back on the dollar from our federal income taxes), the only source of revenue for most municipalities is residential property tax. Our cities have large tracts of land owned by other governmental entities, religious organizations, and other non-profits that do not pay property tax (more half of the property in Newark, a city in my area, is owned by entities that do not pay property tax). Municipalities are forced to lay off their police, firemen, and other employees, and are no longer able to perform the services (including unfunded federal and state mandates, meaning a loss of what ever outside funding was available).

As an anthropology student and history major for the better part of 8 years, i laughed for ten minutes at this one sentence. The usage of the words "monolithic group" inspired a mental image that was not even close to the tone of this essay ;)

can we say druids Aztecs, Mesopotamian, and hundreds of other monolithic societies were not conservatives? ;)

(yes i know that this a use of the word but it still makes me giggle to think of Babylonian conservatives being left out)

reaganomics ruined your country

lol actors *shrugs* what ya gonna do?

love your work martian.

the Democratic party is made up of one group. People who want to take other people's money and spend it as they please.

Bobby, you're an idiot. Firstly, the entire government system is made up of people who want to take other people's money and spend it as they please. Secondly, this particular card-carrying Democrat is a lot more interested in seeing his tax dollars go toward something worth spending them on. Paying a government that does its utmost to pass everything off to the private sector is like taking that same money and putting it in a bonfire. What do I get out of paying people who won't help me?

Not really sure if that's on topic or not, considering that I couldn't make myself read that essay--professional it is not.

3 out 5. Well, 2 out of 5, but I want to be wealthy (own a firearm and believe in many fiscally libertarian bills).

I laughed reading this since I know plenty of so-called bible-thumping gun-toting so-called liberals. One presumes a religiously held belief must be conservative, but it really isn't when you think of say a New Testament Christian pov.

Trumper you do realize most religious beliefs fall into the area of conservatism? (forgot faith and things of that nature I'm talking abortion, homosexuality, etc.) Also, are you claiming that the New Testament is somehow liberal in nature or do you mean it's liberal compared to the Old Testament.

This is a real yawner of a piece, because as Klown said, he isn't looking to actually think, but instead its a troll piece.

Pang, conservatives weren't huge fans of Bush, however in 2007 the deficit was about 170B and falling. Democrats took over the legislature and deficits rose considerably. Bush didn't enact anything that lead to the housing bubble, but continually tried to stop the bubble from occurring and couldn't get the support of the legislative branch(yes including republicans). I think one thing people forget is the number of conservatives that started turning from Republicans in 2008 which(among other reasons, independents and their ilk) resulted in a democrat run congress.

Any liberals here ever hear of the laffer curve? How come when Kennedy, Reagan and Bush lowered taxes, revenues increased to the IRS?

Tea party is about lower spending across the board. Higher taxes just encourage people to leave the country. It is fairly obvious that SS is a ponzi scheme that will leave those in their 40's and below out in the cold with nothing. Medicaid and Medicare continually cost an increasing portion of the federal budget and are unsustainable. Military spending must be lowered and these "bloodless wars" must stop. Either fight to win or don't fight and we wouldn't have these wars dragging on for years on end. Education is a hotbed of corruption with over half of the sector in non-teaching positions. Detroit is a great example of this with 50 million gone missing just last year. Privatize the system by making people only pay once instead of twice for going to a private school.

Politicians never want to tackle the problems because someone is always relying on these programs so they are political suicide, but the day is coming when they cannot be ignored. Whats our debt now? 14 trillion? Probably higher by now, but even at that, paired with the liabilities the government has coming due with entitlements alone...its bankruptcy/hyperinflation staring us in the face just waiting for other countries to leave the dollar as the world currency.

Anyways, the post up top is laughable and no response is needed for everyone can see the stupidity.

To top that all off, there isn't a real candidate that is willing to do what needs to be done in DC either. Huckabee? Please...Romney? Not a chance...Obama was just a continuation of Bush just up a few speed notches.

Trump is the only one and Im not even sure Im a full supporter of his on issues. All I know is that he will do what needs to be done and move on with his life. He isn't a politician and thats a major plus for me. Who knows what will happen though moving forward with the election season, maybe someone will come out of the woodwork.

South Park Conservatives ;)

http://news.yahoo.com/...agree-science-suggests-no

Australian Liberals are similar to American Conservatives. :X

a real liberal democratic party needs to form down here and take the name liberal back from the usurpers!

I'm just gonna go ahead and say "It doesn't really matter who you listen to, politicians are going to fluff you up the ass".

I think lobbying needs to be done away with entirely in America. I'm kind of drunk. And I hate corporations.

From the article: "Meanwhile, self-described conservatives are more likely to have a larger amygdala, an almond-shaped area that is associated with fear and anxiety."

oh my we need to lock them conservatives up, soon, before they hurt themselves :D

There hasn't been a political party holding onto their ideals on either side of the aisle for well over 40 years. We are and have been run by a global corporate oligarchy for quite sometime now. The pretty boys standing in front delivering the speeches are just for show ;) It really does not matter what country you are living in or what your political leanings are. One way or another the majority of the money you make will end up in their pockets. Whether thru taxes, mandated health insurance, or the price of gas, you work to make them richer.

Political rhetoric is just a distraction making people believe that some politician somewhere in the massive bureaucracy is to blame for the woes of the world. If you had just voted the other way we could have avoided this snafu ... lol what a crock of BS ;)

What an average worker has at the end of the week or month after all the expenses are paid determines the health of an economy. If our worker can save money and still have the ability to purchase non-essential items, then the economy is strong. It means that jobs are being created. If our average worker is struggling to make ends meet due to rising gas or food prices then this means the economy is weak and jobs are being lost.

Take the above and it holds true whether it is at an individual or at a community level. The elephant in the room is credit because it is used to provide the perception of additional income where none exists. Credit is an instrument of power over men and nations. When these corporations cannot take something legally, they have the government there to provide a ways and means to grant them their wish. i.e. we must tax you more so these corporations can get their cut of these wonderful government programs we are providing you.

Anywho I'm watching gas prices go up, and calling the next economic downturn to occur in the next 6 months to a year. Meanwhile these corporations stockpile liquid assets to buy out the markets as it crashes. Of course the disaster in Japan and the turmoil in the Middle East will be seen as part of the key driving factors, and not the basic greed of a few board members.

cynical yet true ;)

When I think conservatism I think of the way our government spends it's money.

But IDK much about politics not my thing.

LOL Conservatives want to have all the wealth to themselvess...

Really where do I sign up?

America was founded as a Republic correct? Where each state had the right to govern themself. The whole reason we fought the Revolutionary war over was to stop a foreign ruler from controlling our lives.

IDK about you but I don't think Clinton/Bush/Obama knew anything that was going on around me. I don't think Bush Jr. knew what was goin on at all. And I think Obama is to big of a gambler. Clinton was cool got his fluff sucked...anyway.

Why/How did Democracy take over. And whats the difference between Democracy and Republic?

A republic is a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, retain supreme control over the government.[1][2] The term is generally also understood to describe a government where most decisions are made with reference to established laws, rather than the discretion of a head of state, and therefore monarchy is today generally considered to be incompatible with being a republic

Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law. It can also encompass social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.



wiki is your friend... it has more there too ;)

Just to address one thing CK said...

"Any liberals here ever hear of the laffer curve? How come when Kennedy, Reagan and Bush lowered taxes, revenues increased to the IRS?"
#1) None of those imply that we're currently on the "right side" of the Laffer curve
#2) The increase in revenues in Reagan's case was lower than trend - ie. suggesting that the rate had a negative impact (probably similar in Bush's case)
#3) All three presidents increased the deficit/ GDP so while this is all fine in theory, when are decreased taxes going to be paired with decreased spending in practice? Or are you just going to keep voting in politicians promising cuts that are simply unfeasible and will never get through legislature?

wait... why are we discussing "liberals" on this thread? Isn't that off topic... One can defend aspects of conservatism (and respond to my posted allegations) without referring to liberals/socialism/past left wing leadership.

The point of the essay was a commentary on the existing neo-conservative movement as we see today.

"Anyways, the post up top is laughable and no response is needed for everyone can see the stupidity." +1 troll points

"the Democratic party is made up of one group. People who want to take other people's money and spend it as they please. " +1 troll points plus bonus for being off-topic.

The post is more mean as a philosophical debate on conservatism as a whole. Weather you are left/right wing is more of a philosophical question. The bulk of human history supports the fact that the group of people with power will always attempt to abuse it in some way.

And yes, obviously the above is taking things to extreme, that's how you provoke debate. Fox news does it all the time:P

Odd how this became a discussion on american politics:P

btw my issue with the current conservative movement in canada is mostly that they are anti-democratic and anti-due process. I see evidence of this at both the municipal and federal level.

*runs away*

It'd be very easy to write a hit piece categorizing liberals also.

To boil it down in the American system the role of liberals is to drive new ideas, and the role of conservatives is to filter out the bad new ideas. Both are fundamentally important and neccesary roles and is why I support a candidate based system rather then a party based one.