It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Conservatism, it just isn't that any more.

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:15 PM
There's problems with the GOP. It's mired down by in fighting, lack of cooperation with even their own and a lack of cogent focus. Before we go further I have a few questions about Ronald Reagan.

1- Would you say he is the most popular president since WW2(including JFK)?

2- Was he the definition of modern day conservatism?


Now, I was reading an article in a Canadian magazine, Maclean's, totally neutral and it pointed out, with American sources of course, that the former president wouldn't get his parties nomination today. Legacy not factored in of course:

Jonathan Rauch, a scholar in residence at the Brookings Institution, agrees with Ron Reagan. “He is not by any means the person the Tea Partiers seem to think,” Rauch says of the former president. “I don’t think that Reagan running as the man he was would have a prayer in the Republican primary today. He was pragmatic, his policies were primarily centrist, he never made a serious attempt to cut federal spending in a big way, he raised taxes both as governor and repeatedly as president. He was much more interested in growing the economy than in shrinking government.” While conservatives often quote Reagan’s 1981 inaugural address—”Government is not the solution of our problem, government is the problem”—Rauch notes the quotation is incomplete. “People forget to quote the beginning of the sentence, which said, ‘In our present crisis.’ ” Later in the speech, Reagan said, “It’s not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work.” “Try telling that to a Tea Partier!” Rauch says.

That is a damn interesting article about conservatism, then and now. Read it please and answer the questions above too. THAT is what's wrong with conservatism in America today. It's a reason that respectable, qualified conservatives like Romney don't have a hope in hell of leading the country back to what it should be. Quibbling. Lack of willingness to accommodate. Lack of bipartisanship. Washington today has a of policy, "FU2." It isn't working.

Think about it. If Ronnie couldn't gain the nomination of his party in today's day and age, something's wrong. Compromise is a word that is extinct in Washington today. That may be why Ronnie wouldn't make it today. Why Romney doesn't have a chance. Yes, he passed a bill in Mass. for health care. He did that because he listened to his constituents. He didn't pull party line. He reached across the aisle.

Or you can have Palin.

posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:30 PM
The Tea Party was perfectly hijacked and destroyed months ago by the shadow.

It has been re-purposed to mislead and pacify the imbeciles who still think it's their movement.

Either you are believe in core Libertarian / Constitutionalist Ideals, or you don't.

posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:39 PM
reply to post by Tephra

The Tea Party was perfectly hijacked and destroyed months ago....

My feelings exactly. It was hijacked and then made to look like a bunch of wack jobs.

On Ronald Reagan:
Reagan - facilitate Leveraged buyouts/Hostile takeovers

....Both economic and regulatory factors combined to spur the explosion in large takeovers and, in turn, large LBOs. The three regulatory factors were the Reagan administration's relatively laissez-faire policies on antitrust and securities laws, which allowed mergers the government would have challenged in earlier years; the 1982 Supreme Court decision striking down state antitakeover laws (which were resurrected with great effectiveness in the late eighties); and deregulation of many industries, which prompted restructurings and mergers. The main economic factor was the development of the original-issue high-yield debt instrument. The so-called "junk bond" innovation, pioneered by Michael Milken of Drexel Burnham, provided many hostile bidders and LBO firms with the enormous amounts of capital needed to finance multi-billion-dollar deals....


Leveraged buyouts involve an investor, financial sponsors or private equity firms making large acquisitions without committing all the capital required for the acquisition. To do this, a financial sponsor will raise acquisition debt which is ultimately secured upon the acquisition target...

In other words the investor is placing a mortgage on property he does not OWN!!!

This is not moral or ethical and given what happened during the Great Depression, I would be very surprised if laws were not enacted to prevent it. SO - Where the heck was CONGRESS. Where the heck were the COURTS when this was going on??? Where the HECK was Obama and the democrats??? If you want to do one single thing to help America get back on her feet OBAMA??? Then Declare Leveraged Buyouts ILLEGAL. They are certainly immoral and very destructive to the country.

If you want to know what the US government did about it...

...In January 1982, former US Secretary of the Treasury William Simon and a group of investors acquired Gibson Greetings, a producer of greeting cards, for $80 million, of which only $1 million was rumored to have been contributed by the investors. By mid-1983, just sixteen months after the original deal, Gibson completed a $290 million IPO and Simon made approximately $66 million. The success of the Gibson Greetings investment attracted the attention of the wider media to the nascent boom in leveraged buyouts.[10] Between 1979 and 1989, it was estimated that there were over 2,000 leveraged buyouts valued in excess of $250 billion...

The big question is WHO profited from "eating the seed corn"

Remember every single dollar the bankers loan out whether it is to the US Government, business, or home owner is created on the spot. In other words it is legalized COUNTERFEITING. The byproduct of all this money printing was the increase of the money supply from $60.5 billion in 1966 to $2016 billion in Dec 2010 AND it caused the minimum wage to rise from $1.00 to $7.25. (My Mom in the thirties was paid 25 cents an hour and that was considered a very generous wage for an office manager)

....These days, corporations seem to exist for the investment bankers.... In fact, investment banks are replacing the publicly held industrial corporations as the largest and most powerful economic institutions in America.... THERE ARE SIGNS THAT A VICIOUS spiral has begun, as each corporate player seeks to improve its standard of living at the expense of another's. Corporate raiders transfer to themselves, and other shareholders, part of the income of employees by forcing the latter to agree to lower wages. January 29, 1989 New York Times: LEVER AGED BUYOUTS: AMERICAN PAYS THE PRICE

...In the 1980s during the great takeover boom and hollowing out of the industrial heartland, many states adopted amendments to their corporate codes that codified directors' fiduciary duties, so-called "constituency statutes". In general, these provisions made it clear that a director need not "maximize shareholder value." Rather, in complying with their fiduciary obligations, directors may take all sorts of things into consideration - the impact of their decisions on various constituencies, including employees, the community, the environment, the color of the sky, whatever...

The 1980s LBO boom was a scourge for management. They used whatever tools at their disposal to prevent an acquisition... The Delaware courts stepped in... In short, the message from the courts was that boards did not have a free hand to put off all takeover attempts... [remember many firms are incorporated in delaware because of business friendly laws]

Leveraged Buyouts are still going on ‘Whitewashed Windows and Vacant Stores’

Neither the Republicans or the Democrats have made a real move to stop the destruction of US corporations and jobs.

posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 09:50 PM
1st... Great Thread..


The problem is actually pretty simple in my humble opinion..

There is no way anyone can uphold and stand by Conservatism when their number one priority is to get reelected or the acquisition of personal wealth.

Sometimes being conservative is very unpopular, trust me I know. But it is the very foundation of this great nation and as we watch conservative ideals vanish, we subsequently watch our nation fall.

It was Conservative Ideology that catapulted our nation to "Super Power" status just after WWII, it was Conservative Ideology that prepared us for the production capabilities necessary to emerge victorious in both WWII and WWI...
It was Conservative Ideology that the Founding Fathers based their dream on, that became a reality and until recently was the fire that stoked our furnace in the world arena..

The problem currently is the lack of a backbone...

Conservatism requires courage.. The courage of ones own convictions. The ability to stand and listen to Libs call you every name in the book, smile and carry on. Because the issues are what is important, not someones opinion of you. The Lib mentality is and always has been one of emotion not practicality. That is why it fails, that is why it will destroy this country eventually. That is why there is so much hate for Palin and why she is always mentioned in conversations such as this.. Fear.. Palin is currently a fairly good strong Conservative... Libs hate her and so use every opportunity to degrade her, insult her and make fun of her; yet never address any of her policies or platforms...

That is a true test to see and recognize the fear.. If the Libs spend time insulting and name calling and no time addressing the platform of the individual, it must be fear. If it was not, they could/would/should be more professional.

There is still Conservatism my friend... But you find it at the grass root level.. At the political stomps and community meetings and sometimes at the state levels...

There is still hope..


new topics

top topics

log in