Is Conservative Ideology Finally Dead?

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

What I'm coming away with though is the feeling that so called conservatives are not so quick to embrace the classical sense of conservative ideas. It seems a lot of conservatives like to sprinkle a bit of progressive ideas into their plan.

The "conservatives" in the main stream political system were all born after the FDR New Deal, which followed from the precedent of centralization set in WW1. So they think conservatism is about using the gov to solve problems.

Realer conservatives were in the 2008 Tea Party. They have yet to get 501c3 status from the IRS. (A progressive tax program) The Tea Partiers mostly wanted less taxes and smaller government. Smaller physically and financially as well as hypothetically. Main Stream conservatives live on hypothetically smaller government.

Conservatives don't use government. Society is straight from nature and is the only fair arbitrator of human activity. Gov is ignorant or tyrannical.

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: ExNihiloRed

You are clearly a Libertarian/Classical Liberal.


To call yourself conservative is to conserve the zeitgeist...
To preserve tradition.

Decriminalisation isn't a conservative value it is a Libertarian position.

Equal rights to marriage for LGBT, and pro choice are not conservative values they're Classical Liberal.


You may hold a few conservative values, but to label yourself like that is to do yourself a disservice.

And to be fair, and to eat crow myself on generalizing, I think in this debate we have bifurcated the multiple factions of both parties into conservative vs. liberal. In that, I side with the former, notwithstanding the fact that my particular sect may be more libertarian, etc. (or a "moderate" republican).

Agreed, I'm learning a lot in this thread.
Very enlightening.

What I'm coming away with though is the feeling that so called conservatives are not so quick to embrace the classical sense of conservative ideas. It seems a lot of conservatives like to sprinkle a bit of progressive ideas into their plan.

Thus my OP that the conservative ideology is probably dead and what we have is now in the world is this:
Extreme Left, Left, Center and then finally: Outdated and Destructive Selfish Insanity (classic conservatism) which doesnt really work anymore in todays world.

I respect this post a lot. I think you have a point, that the paradigm of conservatism is shifting. I think the modern conservative (and, in my opinion, the only way conservatism survives in the long run) is one that has moved closer to center with respect to social issues. I would add to your list "right to center" or moderate conservatives.

Although, let us not forget that true conservatism means a lot of the issues the federal government is meddling in should be left to the states. That could result in some of the more socially progressive ideas falling to the wayside in more traditional values states.

As I am more than willing to admit, I find myself generally more liberal on social issues (in the sense that I am more for freedom of person, which some would characterize as a Libertarian value), so I can not disagree that some conservative values are a bit outdated.

a reply to: ketsuko

His mother was an unwed 16-yer-old who missed Roe v. Wade by one year. As a result, he was adopted, but if he had happened a year later, he might never have been born at all. Don't you think he isn't at all conscious of that fact?

Apparently he is exquisitely sensitive about that fact.
So - you two have a son - is he a naturally-conceived offspring of yours? Or is he adopted?

This is one of the disconnections that I observe. You say you'll drop dead before you accept liberal programs, before you allow the government to tax the wealthy and hold giant corporations liable for the taxes they owe! Right? Over your dead body will that conservative, Ayn-Rand (Paul, Rand) mindset die!!!.....because you are a conservative.
Right?

Okay - so - but, you'd have adopted a kid if you could, and Mr Ketsuko has 2 adopted nephews.
That's wonderful...good for those parents who adopted unwanted kids!!!!


SO - WHY is it then!!??, that you both balk at the very idea of helping out (via taxes) the unwanted children born as orphans or abandoned? WHY IS IT that you think all you have is yours and only yours and nothing else that lives or breathes or grows on this planet is worthy of your contribution? You don't want a DIME of your money to lend support to ANYONE else but you. I'm sorry if I'm mistaken, but that is some serious cognitive dissonance.

"We are going to prevent birth control and let unwanted babies be born...praise Jesus!.....which is great! because sin and abortion and stuff....... Woohoo!!! " < ------ that is how I hear you

But, so then, there are going to be lots and lots and lots of unwanted babies.....shouldn't we, as a nation, support these unwanted kids?

This is what I hear ---- > "No! We certainly WILL NOT agree to being taxed in order to support those babies!!! Or to ensure birth control is publicly accessible! It's just WRONG!!

Sorry, just, really getting mixed signals here.
Not that it matters......was just reading along and had a thought.

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

I don't know if the conservative ideology is dead, but I'm sure many here won't shed a tear when conservatives die.

And I'm sure there are many that would want to destroy the conservative ideology.

Cultural Marxism is on the move now that Sanders is on the move.

The onslaught of cultural propaganda is getting thick.

a reply to: xuenchen

Da, Tovarich.

One of the defining differences, I notice, between progressives and conservatives is personal responsibility.

I know a lot of progressives, who don't think they are at fault for any of their failures. It is always someone else's fault. They don't see their own liability for their mistakes and failures.

The progressives think they should be taken care of, regardless of their work status. A few of them think they should be paid to sit at home, despite being of sound body, and be paid to simply exist.

However, the majority of the conservatives I know bust their butt to live, don't live off government handouts. They're responsible for their actions, their incomes. They live within their means.

In my opinion, there is a huge lack of personal responsibility across the board.

Nothing worth while, worth the effort, is ever easy. It takes work and dedication, something very few of my progressive friends seem to understand, let alone practice.

There is no such thing as a "free lunch" because someone is paying for it.

"Socialism works great, until you run out of other people's money". (Currently what is happening in the Eurozone, because there is not enough production to support the amount of consumption).

Sanders seems to think he can give everyone what they want, and I say it's impossible. Someone else pandered the same thing, and it's not working out either, but we sure did put the country in debt trying to.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

I don't know if the conservative ideology is dead, but I'm sure many here won't shed a tear when conservatives die.

And I'm sure there are many that would want to destroy the conservative ideology.

Conservationism won't die but either it becomes more socially moderate as the electorate's attitude changes or conservatism become irrelevant and impotent.

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

Then people who are socialists (including social democrat/democrat socialist/, and communists like this poster wonder why we state they are like "Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, the castros, and Little Kim among others"...

Well, this post shows exactly why we say this and shows it is nothing but the truth...

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein
Imagine a society where everything is free. There is no struggle for anything anymore.

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein
...
Can you describe to me what liberties you would be missing in a Sander's America?

I really want to know.

To add, in my mind one should always be able to:

Own land

Own a firearm

Vote

Have health insurance

Have food when in need of assistance

Be able to travel freely

Freedom of speech

The right to choose life or death

The right to use "drugs"

The right to have or not have any religion that you would want

The right to marry whomever you would want



What else? What am I missing?


Funny, looking at this list, the only side that ever would want to change any of the above would be the conservatives.

I could be wrong

Really?... You have to ask that when in your original post you state that conservative ideology should die?...

You only want liberty, property, etc ONLY for people who share your ideals... Only those like you an extremist leftist/socialist or even communist...

You only want liberty for those who agree with you, but want to take all those rights and liberties away from EVERYONE who disagrees with you... You claim that is "liberty", but in reality you only want despotism...

originally posted by: olaru12

Conservationism won't die but either it becomes more socially moderate as the electorate's attitude changes or conservatism become irrelevant and impotent.

Do you understand the concept that every man/woman has the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?...

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say people must bow to political ideas that are contradictory to theirs...

Your train of thought, just like the op and many others like you is what allowed dictators like Hitler, Mao, the castros, and Little Kims to get control of nations and oppress them...

People shouldn't have to compromise their ideals for what others want them to believe or do...

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

I can't say I disagree. One thing I noticed about the last republican debate was how poorly conservatism was defined.

In my own analysis, conservatism can be expressed as "the means justify the end", as opposed to "the end justifies the means". We retain and pass on to our children what our ancestors have passed on to us. These institutions, laws, religions, principles, represent a society's collective wisdom, have arisen naturally through the interactions of people over countless generations, and they should adapt from the bottom up instead of from the top down. Those who attempt to level never equalize; they only pervert the natural order.

I'm not a good teacher. There is plenty of literature on conservatism.

Thanks... although that sounds more like a family tradition of dog eat dog survival of the fittest Darwinism... preservation instead of conservation.

a reply to: Cygnis

I think I'm comatose from all the generalization your post espouses.

Especially the first line leading in about responsibility being a line of separation and demarcation to judge another from... society requires social harmony and effort of all members to work together to function, and well the far right that loves the conservative label is wholly separatist... which goes against a cooperative society that includes all of those found in it like them or not to have equal rights and liberties and opportunity to not cause unrest in the masses.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: Cygnis

I think I'm comatose from all the generalization your post espouses.

Especially the first line leading in about responsibility being a line of separation and demarcation to judge another from... society requires social harmony and effort of all members to work together to function, and well the far right that loves the conservative label is wholly separatist... which goes against a cooperative society that includes all of those found in it like them or not to have equal rights and liberties and opportunity to not cause unrest in the masses.

Just because I point out one groups inability to be responsible, you become comatose?

I suggest you take off the rose colored glasses.

A majority of the "progressive" group are the younger generation, the "youth" if you will forgive the age defining adjective.

Tell me, can a family exist if none of it's members are responsible?

Tell me, if none are responsible for their actions, who's fault is it then, if not the very society that has bread such?

a reply to: Cygnis

Nope it is was the pointing at groups for faults found all groups because groups are made up of individuals... look far right on your screen now look far left of your screen what does it say? Generalized statements used to point fingers are generally followed by ignorant statements.(see what I did there?) If you're going to make a sweeping untrue determination onto the whole then you can say "generally" otherwise anything after that generalization? No one you're trying to point a finger at will listen to anything you have to say and consider your side and go damn guess I am that way... didn't know it was because I'm progressive... tell me more.

Not a personal attack your beliefs are your own and you have every right to them fact or not... but you'll never win any debate or have people consider your point of view making strong generalized statements... they just show ignorance which many equate with stupidity and tune any and everything afterwards out... unless they agree then all you are doing is preaching to a choir wasting your time and breath; like atheists having church... we still don't believe in god right? Nope. OK, see you next Sunday.

This website has turned into nothing but political bickering back and fourth.Not even conspiracy stuff anymore.A BIG FAT NO,liberals and conservatives both are still really real.
The Title of these kind of threads are just political stuff.

originally posted by: Jobeycool
This website has turned into nothing but political bickering back and fourth.Not even conspiracy stuff anymore.A BIG FAT NO,liberals and conservatives both are still really real.
The Title of these kind of threads are just political stuff.

Not entirely true....

The conspiracy surrounding this political election is enormous!!! Hidden in plain sight, and manipulating the electorate into a cultural no man's land of cult like adoration, with almost unbelievable consequences.

I think it's fantastic entertainment in it's mystery and surreal behavior by those involved. Witness the response by those emotionally invested; very strange indeed.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You didn't answer the questions Emmanuel Goldstein asked you (well, specifically he asked ketsuko, but also conservatives in general), though.
What liberties will you lose under Sanders?
This is what he typed:

Can you describe to me what liberties you would be missing in a Sander's America?

I really want to know.

To add, in my mind one should always be able to:

Own land

Own a firearm

Vote

Have health insurance

Have food when in need of assistance

Be able to travel freely

Freedom of speech

The right to choose life or death

The right to use "drugs"

The right to have or not have any religion that you would want

The right to marry whomever you would want



What else? What am I missing?

So.....
what about those liberties and rights are problematic for you?

What liberties will you lose if Sanders' policies are realized?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Bernie nor any other politician has the authority to "grant liberties".

It's none of their damned business what I do with my freedoms as long as I don't infringe upon the rights of others.