It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The "conservatives" of modern times are not conservatives.

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Sitting down and getting the update on the daily political news, I alway seems to find myself coming across some Republican senator, or some tea bagger, or some birther proclaiming their "conservatism". "Oh we must be fiscal conservative" said the one republican senator from Kentucky when discussing the current recession. This country is a "conservative nation" said Hannity in one of his shows to a guest of his.

What raises my eye brows the most though are some of these folks who continously commend the "Reagan" and "Bush snr" administrations for their handling of the economy. If anything, this constant worship of Reagan, and this constant support for this modern definition of conservatism only further confirms to me that there are no real original "conservatives" in modern times, only posers who like the idea of carrying around the name. This true conservative would not dare mention "Reagan" or "the military" to describe conservative, the true conservative would know that those are yet more confused definitions and examples of what real conservatism is. If anything the true conservative sticks to the original 18th century text book of conservatism, because he or she knows that the conservatives of today are nothing of the like of the original founding fathers who established this ideological belief into society.

Any conservative who tells you that "strong defense" is the core value of conservativism is always making excuses for the gross over spending of the military industrial complex. While the original authors of conservatism in the 18th and 19th centuries, such as Joseph de Maistre , advocated strongly for the protection of the sovereign nation they mentioned nothing of the sort of over grown militaries. Clearly a military sufficiently enough to protect its nationhood if an important factor to conservatism, however, this excuse to fuel support for half the worlds military expenditure has nothing to do with conservatism in its originality. Reagan himself pounded strong defense and recieved staunch support in funding to the military however alot of that funds wen to matters other than defense such as the funding of resistance fighters, such as the taliban and Sadaam Husseins war against Iran. Which brings me to another point, conservatism is isolationists as well. While the promotion of freedom and democracy is one no real conservative will deny, the involvement of the US in matters concerning other nations goes straight against the text book of conservatism. In the case of the support for the Iraq invasion under false reasons by conservatives, support for el salvador during the 80s, the constant blaming of Carter for doing nothing during the Iranian revolution, to which true conservativism would have nothing to do with, let alone the blatant reality check of what a president is suppose to do to stop such a matter in foreign nations, in this case of foreign affairs conservatives would get a "D-" for their handling of it over the last few decades if assessed on the classic conservative text book.

Fiscal conservatism is another thing. It takes more than merely declaring the importance and support for "fiscal conservatism" to be "fiscally conservative". I have no doubt that the modern conservative will get an A+ for reminding himself the importance of fiscal conservatism, but in terms of their actions conservatives have over the last few decades once again gone against the original text book on conservatism. Edmund Burke, one of the founding fathers of conservatism during the 18th century stated that:


It is to the property of the citizen, and not to the demands of the creditor of the state, that the first and original faith of civil society is pledged. The claim of the citizen is prior in time, paramount in title, superior in equity. The fortunes of individuals, whether possessed by acquisition or by descent or in virtue of a participation in the goods of some community, were no part of the creditor's security, expressed or implied...The public, whether represented by a monarch or by a senate, can pledge nothing but the public estate; and it can have no public estate except in what it derives from a just and proportioned imposition upon the citizens at large


Clearly in definition the point here is that government has no right to run up large debts to throw the burdens over the tax payer, so while modern conservatives echo Mr Burke today and over the last few decades they have done exactly of the sort. Over the last 28 years alone conservative presidents ran up $8 trillion out of the $11 trillion we find ourselvs in debt today. This was during the time so called "conservatives" were hailing the presidents and pushing through their policies. Conservatives continue to hail Reagan himself for his fiscal conservatism despute the fact he tripled the debt left from Carter, from $800 billion to $2.2 trillion upon Reagan leaving office. Reagan also increased welfare by 50,000. So, while Reagan is hailed for being a true conservative, he failed just like the bushes in managing the debt like a true conservative. Conservative presidents did follow one true conservative rule, and that was to cut taxes on the people and ease the burden, yet at what expense?

And then ofcourse, the original founding fathers of conservativism were stuanchly for freedom of the individual, freedom of belief and freedom for the individual to make their own choices. However while todays "conservatives" were howling for such freedoms at town halls against the public option, conservative Texas managed to pass bill HB 3678 forcing school children to learn some type of religion, an attempted to once again dump christianity down the throats of children and parents who send their kids to public schools to learn, not to be forced to follow others beliefs. While conservatives were shutting everybody out about their opposition against the Iraq war the "patriot act" was passed and had full support from conservative politicans and most conservative voters in addition to a fair amount of liberals. When it comes to guns, conservatives advocate the freedom to attain one without registration or identification of the sort, yet conservatives outright opposed the voting right act of 1965 and many still to this day that outlawed discrimmation to americans who wished to carry out their freedom to voted based on the color of their skin, or their ethnicity. What was the excuse from conservatives opposed this constitutional right to all americans?

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., said:


Congress is declaring from on high that states with voting problems 40 years ago can simply never be forgiven, that Georgians must eternally wear the scarlet letter because of the actions of their grandparents and great-grandparents. ... We have repented and we have reformed


So in otherwise, they cannot give the right to all americans to carry out their constitutional freedom to vote because "it makes their towns look racist". True conservatives for you right there, but here, have a "gun".

I could really go on as to why modern conservatism lacks much of the original conservative foundation that such individuals like Burke and Maistre established during the 18th and 19th centuries but the above is another. The conservatives of today have strayed away from what their founding fathers intended. Infact if anything the vast majority of conservatives today are not true conservatives of the sort. They are really cultural nationalists who are concerned about preserving their cultural identity, not necessary following ideological values. And while there is nothing wrong with preserving ones cultural identity, doing so at the expense of others, and labelling it as "conservatism" is where most folks get it wrong and mislead others about their true agenda.


[edit on 10-9-2009 by Southern Guardian]




posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Modern .. Old School..Who Cares... Conservatives are not my cup of tea...


The Conservative Ideology is wrong(in my opinion) and twisted...



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
The debt went up under Reagan because his tax cuts qualrupled tax revenue and the Democrats in charge of Congress couldn't spend it fast enough.

There is no excuse for George HW Bush, but George W Bush had a nation to protect, and in order for his mission to get funded he had to allow Democrats to pork up any spending bill in order to get their support.

Clinton managed to get control of the deficit, and do I have to remind you who controlled Congress for 6 of the 8 years of Clinton?

Presidents don't control spending.....Congress does.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Next_Heap_With
 


I disagree with you. While I oppose "modern conservatism" much of what Mr Burke and Maistre advocated was the importance of government that worked, that did not burden the people with debt, the rights to property, the freedom of the individual to follow their own beliefs, the rights to democracy, the are the things I will readily agree with the original conservative. Its some we all can agree with, across most ideologies. Conservatism then functioned along "common sense" of how a nation should work. The conservatism of today is nothing of the sort. Anybody who embraces modern conservatism are straying away from true conservative, so I think whats not your cup of tea is modern "conservatism", which has little relation to what the founding fathers of conservatism established.

I think there are afew true conservatives left among libertarians, however even they have been over run by a bunch of posers. Thanks to Glenn beck, Alex jones libertarism is being infected by what are really culturalist nationalists. True conservatives are all but gone, and it will take a reawakening for it to come back, but I dont see happening any time soon.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
The debt went up under Reagan because his tax cuts qualrupled tax revenue


First of all I would like to have your source of where this was. And in addition to that why Reagan didnt bring down debt to take off the burden of the people from the supposed revenue.


Democrats in charge of Congress couldn't spend it fast enough.


Oh Im pritty sure any money that came it got sent to Osama Bin laden and Sadaam hussien in the middle east. I cannot believe your not outraged by the fact this "icon" of yours readily supported these two men who you would later rally against as an excuse to fund your military complex. I mean how does that work for you? Is an actor good enough and conservative for you to admire them?


There is no excuse for George HW Bush, but George W Bush had a nation to protect


If Mr Bush had a nation to protect he wouldnt have had to go all cowboy and invade a nation that had nothing to do with the attacks. If Bush had a nation to protect he would have done so with the conservative majority congress before the attacks. If Mr Bush had a nation to protect he would have focused on hunting the man that did this to america on 9/11. If Mr Bush had a nation to protect he would have done so fiscally as well.

I dont see the connection between him having to protect the nation and him running the debt up by $6 trillion.


in order for his mission to get funded he had to allow Democrats to pork up any spending bill


What pork spending bill exactly? 6 out of the 8years of the Bush administration was a conservative majority congress that under them the debt ran up to $6 trillion. I'd like to know where, in the two years of the democratic congress, did this pork bill come up. I in no way am cleansing liberals of supporting fake conservatism, but curious where exactly between late 2006 and 2008 did the dems take all the responsibility for this "pork" you speak of.


Clinton managed to get control of the deficit, and do I have to remind you who controlled Congress for 6 of the 8 years of Clinton?

Presidents don't control spending.....Congress does.


And how does this exactly excuse the fact conservatives strayed away from values? How does this excuse the presidents who were in during the times at congress, what you saying they are irrelevant? And yet you happily blame Mr Obama for the world being upside down for past 8 years right?

We can attribute congress for a whole lot of things, but the president has the power to influence and turn things his way when possible. You say congress is at fault for alot of these things, yet you ignore the silence of the presidents during the actions of congress? How does that work? Tell me how am I wrong in saying your view of conservatism is slanted from that of Mr Burke and Maistre of the 18th centuries?



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Past conservativism would currently be Libertarianism

[edit on 11-9-2009 by Phlynx]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
"Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty."

-George Washington


If a true conservative were ever to take office, our military's overgrown budget would be the first thing to get crunched. The military hogs an enormous portion of the US economy, and is probably the least fiscally sound aspect of US spending.

The fact that every Republican who has held office in the past 50 years has increased (or advocated increasing) defense spending is testament to the absence of true fiscal conservatism in US politics.

Ron Paul is a fiscal conservative, and during the 2008 debates, other Republicans laughed at him. There is no room in the GOP for true conservatism any more.


As I have said before, fiscal conservatism is an important part of a good government. Social libertarianism is also important. Sadly, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans seem to stand for either.




top topics



 
3

log in

join