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.


Political Scientist: Republicans Most Conservative They've Been In 100 Years

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 04:44 PM

Congressional Republicans have a unique achievement, they are further from the political center than their predecessors of the past century.
When President Obama recently complained to news media executives about their ostensibly even-handed "pox on both of your houses"

After all, his complaint was that the GOP had moved so far right, and intransigently so

But while the president was making the kind of argument you would expect of the nation's top Democrat, he actually had the support of science — well at least political science research that maps that rightward GOP shift. p

And here is that "Science"

This political "Scientist" is an absolute idiot
Being a warhawk for useless wars is not fiscal conservatism
Everyone yelling about things like gay rights and/or religion or this or that is ridiculous, it's all a distraction

True conservative values is what being a conservative is
Conservatives are very pro-privacy and pro-freedom while most the guys on the presidential podium on the right today are all pro-patriot act and more and more expanding govt

This "scientist" should be fired immediately,
What a joke of an article

Science? Really?

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 04:48 PM

Everyone yelling about things like gay rights and/or religion or this or that is ridiculous, it's all a distraction

I could not agree more. It is these people that will destroy the world. Not only do they fuel distraction they also muzzle debate.

edit on 14-4-2012 by Germanicus because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 05:10 PM
It's NPR, they have an agenda. Just follow the money.

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 05:19 PM
That might be true on social issues, but otherwise, it isn't. They're almost as much in favor of high spending and big, intrusive government as the liberal Democrats, and in terms of foreign policy, they're probably even further down the interventionist, lets-play-world-police path than even the Democrats are.

They might want to re-evaluate what a conservative actually is, because that study is garbage, as far as this conservative is concerned. On the balance, Republicans haven't been all that conservative in quite a while.

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 05:24 PM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

I think you're talking about libertarians and not 'conservatives.' Conservative in America is a bit of a blanket statement for fiscal and social conservatives. You, personally, sound like a social liberal but a fiscal conservative, whereas there are social conservatives and fiscal liberals who could also fall under the 'conservative' moniker, the third category would be the 'true' conservatives who are both socially conservative (no gay marriage, anti-abortion) and fiscally conservative (lower taxes, smaller government).

The last few elections have been pushing the moderates out of government and putting more extreme views in. I think that's what the article is trying to convey.

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 05:34 PM
You attack this political scientist for being an idiot (which he really is) then give a completely incorrect version of what Conservatism is. If you cared to pay attention to philosophical premises and historical thinkers which founded the “ideology” it would be realized that your definition of Conservatism has more holes than a slice of Swiss cheese. Please remember I am saying this, not to offend you because I generally enjoy your posts, but rather to correct you from future error.

What you described as Conservatism is actually Classical Liberalism to Conservative Liberalism. The former being more Libertarian and the latter being slightly more socially conservative. Either way modern definitions of Conservatism are just taking Liberalism, finding an era of its reign you favor, and assigning the identification of Conservative to it. This completely disregards any and all intellectual contributors to a genuine Conservative identity, philosophy, and practice. I find that particularly annoying because I actually consider myself a true Conservative and have dedicated priceless hours to understanding its core tenants, only to then read about people arguing in favor of Liberal positions and claiming they are Conservative warriors.

The United States has never had a Conservative tradition; it has been the battle of the Liberals since its inception. This whole misapplication happened thanks to the 19th century Whigs in England who were opposed to the dramatic new reforms being proposed by the more radical elements in their party who later became Socialists. In order to defend Liberalism against the growth of Socialism they had to create an argument in favor of the Liberal (Whig) system. To do this they needed the help of Conservative arguments, for this Edmund Burke’s writings sufficed because it was abstract enough to be applied even to non-Conservative systems. In so doing this the Whigs dug in for the defense of laissez-faire capitalism, free-trade, constitutionalism, and unbridled liberty against the radicalism of its left-wing; i.e. they defended a particular era of Liberalism.

If you want to be a Classical/Conservative Liberal that is your business, not mine.

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:11 PM
Yea, I am gonna have to call this an NPR slam piece too.

Sorry, but that's what it is.

These aren't real conservatives, these are Gingrich era Neo Cons. Nothing like what a true conservative is. I don't agree with everything that true Conservatism stands for, but a lot of it makes sense.

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:24 PM

Originally posted by links234
The last few elections have been pushing the moderates out of government and putting more extreme views in. I think that's what the article is trying to convey.

Agree. From 1980, re Libertarian Party (1% of vote) with VP candidate David Koch (son of John Birch Society founder and who supplied $ for the campaign, and then went on to supply more $ to establish various venues for his "extreme" ideas)...

Clark's party, founded only eight years ago, has a motley, controversial creed that attracts extremists of the left and right—and confounds them both. In general, the platform is seductive—less government, more freedom—but in specifics it becomes less so. Libertarians call for an end to mandatory public education; phasing out of social security and welfare; dismantling of all federal regulatory agencies plus the FBI and CIA; a neutralist foreign policy; and the repeal, among other things, of laws against abortion, gambling, drugs and prostitution.


Sound familiar? Well, repealing abortion, gambling, drugs and prostitution wouldn't sit well with the new "family values" 1980 base of the GOP, but by and by, as long as the GOP stuck to guns, God, and gays to garner votes, the other legs of the GOP stool could be turned on a lathe run increasingly by far right reactionary extremist/corporate hands.

GOP liberals peeled away, then moderates, until even some of those older members who are left are bewildered as they wonder what happened to the party of their parents.

new topics


log in