The end of the Conservative movement?

a reply to: Krazysh0t


Exactly. There was a time when the losing candidate for the Presidency became the Vice-President...

a reply to: nwtrucker

Put simply, on the one hand, you have a political party which seeks to control how people live their lives, spend money like a drunken multi-trillionaire sailor, and place the heaviest burden on the middle class, while inventing, encouraging and enforcing policies which encourage wage deflation and reduction of jobs in the US.

On the other hand, you have a political party which seeks to control how people live their lives, spend money like a drunken multi-trillionaire sailor, and place the heaviest burden on the middle class, while inventing, encouraging and enforcing policies which encourage wage deflation and reduction of jobs in the US.

Hopefully they all get Ebola while locked in a quarantine room together someday, and then really terrible things start to happen to them.

originally posted by: tinymind
It is just my opinion, but the G O P began its demise when the leadership decided to go more toward the "socially" conservative side and forgot about the "fiscally" conservative issues which had always been their primary focus. This was the party of Reagan which so many have been wishing they could return to.

I agree with you, except anyone who thinks Reagan should be considered any sort of fiscal-conservative hero must have been born no earlier than 1989. But yes, claiming "conservative" because one has "traditional" views on social issues, while foaming at the mouth to spend trillions of dollars fighting foreign wars is absolutely laughable.

originally posted by: nwtrucker


I have a small hope that there would be a meeting of the minds somewhere in the middle....

And you have made a noble effort toward those ends here at ATS.

But if ATS is an example of the nation at large; we will see blood in the streets before we see compromise of any kind.

And perhaps that's what America needs to finally get some perspective.

I'm so glad I don't have any kids....

a reply to: nwtrucker

Survival and sufficient food for the coming winter was our lot and interest.

This is just as true today as it ever was

I hope you won't read my reply as snark or even criticism - the truth is - things are changing big time and your OP is interesting

The only thing I'd really like to point out is that you seem to be leaning into anti intellectualism

In as much as education is not evil - I'm not sure there's much point in defending the common man versus the elites argument. There are plenty of educated people that are monsters, but there are also monsters that are common men

Life doesn't break down into easily digestible chunks like that - and it's about time we all started to realize it. Ethics are for everyone and there's no magical irony in the universe that prevents us all from expecting the best from each other - no matter who we are

a reply to: nwtrucker

For what it is worth Trucker. Even as strong a presence as those calling themselves conservative and Libertarian have on this site, the Thread on the Libertarian Party Debate early last evening garnered only 4 replies, two of which were scrubbed by mods for serious drift. This makes me wonder just how serious can the conservatives be on this site that that thread was so unattended.

Our educated are too educated, too specialized, too vested in their incomes and groups and 'the machine', too insulated from suffering the effects that we, outside those comfort zones, almost instantly become aware of.

And so true. Yet Trucker, are not these individuals the ones who have been the most successful? They were told to get educated, so they did. They were told that their goal was to find a good paying position and live in comfort, and they have. This, for all the years of my adulthood has been the goal set for each individual to accomplish in their lives. To support themselves and express themselves, indeed, to steal a line, to be all that they can be. Many of these people do not consider themselves to be liberals, but rather conservatives. The strength of the individual. They put their will to being a success and have achieved it. Certainly a strong conservative principle.

At best, those that honestly worked for the conservative ideals in our gov't achieved perhaps a slowing of the movement away from those ideals.

Might this be so because they were fighting with liberals rather than seeking to help guide the country into a future that for the last 50 years or so shows in so many cases an inexorable trend AWAY from the mores and perceptions of the past?
I think that even though we lambast liberalism, liberalism is not the cause of our discomfort with modern society. I think that the confluence of populations and technology and media and all the other 'modern' advances(or reversals) is sweeping us along into a future that is beyond the ability of most of us to understand. I think that liberalism, though certainly complicit in much of our whoas today, sought at it's core, to help guide us to that future.

I too am a pragmatist. As I have come to understand pragmatism, it is about holding to s set of principles dedicated to getting the job done. Of finding a solution that fits the times, fits the situation, allows for accomplishment within a defined paradigm and then sticking with it until a desired result is achieved. Then, either when those results are achieved or the paradigm shifts, moving on and developing another pragmatic approach to the new and changing situations. I would suggest that attempting to hold staunchly to ideals, or goals that were set in a past paradigm has no pragmatism about it.

Please understand that I am not arguing with you here but only trying to offer my own insight(flawed though it may be) to your own insights on our present situation.

a reply to: nwtrucker

The time is ripe for conservatism to prove itself the best of ideologies. The environment, the economy, relativism, and an increasingly uglier culture, requires these heralds and defenders to stand up for what is precious, before the selfish and self-promoting looters seek to remake them in their image.

The problem I see with any movement is litmus tests that you must "pass" before you can be called a member. This works for ANY movement, but since OP started out discussing the conservatives, we'll start there. For example, in order to be a conservative you MUST be against abortion. You MUST believe in God. You MUST adhere to a wide variety of conservative ideals. And if you do not, your labeled a "RINO" or some other moniker. The other side of this coin is groups that adhere to conservatism as their default. For example, Cruz openly catered to evangelicals, who are staunch Christians and often very fundamentalist in their approach. As a conservative myself I will tolerate evangelicals--that's part of the American deal--but I really don't want to have anything to do with them and pretty much share none of their religious beliefs at all. So "the movement" contains all these special-interest groups within it, from the ultra-right to people who are actually fairly liberal, but want fiscal accountability and conservatism. For my own part I have gravitated to one leading principle:

Mistrust Anyone With a Cause.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: introvert
If conservatives want conservatism to live on, they better start acting like conservatives.

They are acting like conservatives.

I disagree. Conservatives believe in limited government and fiscal responsibility. The modern GOP and Right Wing in general do not believe in those things. They talk about it, but they spend just as foolishly, waste government time and resources conducting witch hunts and focusing on social issues.

a reply to: schuyler

Mistrust Anyone With a Cause.

A very troubling but valid piece of cynicism. The anti-revolutionary instinct is often painted as "reactionary" or against progress, when in fact it is counter-violence. The history of the Left, from its very beginning, was always the side of violence and turmoil, often disguised as the side of progress.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: introvert
If conservatives want conservatism to live on, they better start acting like conservatives.

They are acting like conservatives.

I disagree. Conservatives believe in limited government and fiscal responsibility. The modern GOP and Right Wing in general do not believe in those things. They talk about it, but they spend just as foolishly, waste government time and resources conducting witch hunts and focusing on social issues.

True...I was commenting on the Theocratic/ Social control/retro evolution end of the spectrum.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis


It was general comment on my part. Largely from the frame of reference of specialization....at the expense of overview.

Still, the evidence is plain to see in the current state of affairs of the nation. The 'experts'. Fine, as much a generality as the 'elites', the 'left', the 'right'...

I suppose if our 'education' included...say 2 years mandatory military service, four years college, 2 years driving a truck or running a farm...then we'd likely have an 'overview'....LOL.


Still, I suppose you are correct. I can't really single out education/intellectualism....Lord knows those one could use some tweaking as well....

P.S.. I would see a central-like stance. Balance. An uneducated/ intellectually vacant society is equally ripe for exploitation as the ivory-towered,pontificators are unrestrained by reality...

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: RomeByFire


Let me respond this way to your points. My first reaction is there's too much 'collateral damage' in your post.

You called it familial connections. OK. Yet I only have to look at my own family.....to wit, not far at all, to see all families don't agree and internal struggles are the norm rather than the exception.

In Trump's case, he get's a mulligan from me, and I assume others, for the very fact of being a 'N.Y.er'. A democrat, good old boy network if there ever was one. One does what one has to in that environment to succeed, including donations to TPTB in N.Y.. That was a 'Hillary' as a Senator from N.Y..

The telling difference in our views is I/we are willing to take the chance that his rhetoric is more than just rhetoric. You have already condemned him. (Either in honest belief or based on personal support for someone else....Sanders(?))


As the OP implies, find the points in common that made this country. Not the ones that are breaking it up.....

I don't support Trump nor do I support Sanders.

The largest proponents involved in breaking this country up are those involved in highest rings, ranks, and echelon of government (imo). We the people have virtually no say and realistically no part in public affairs, legislation, or things along those lines.

I am NOT willing to "take the chance," of any political rhetoric - at all. You may believe Trump, but I see that as no different than those who believed in Obama.

The same pandering techniques; different faces, different names, different slogans, different promises, different problems - but it's all the same game.

Perhaps I'm too cynical regarding the political establishment, but many Americans are quick to forget that the oh-so benevolent federal government gave amnesty to Nazi scientists, have contemplated murdering American citizens and blaming it on foreign nations to justify invasions, subsequent occupations, and military dethroning of - again, sovereign nations.

Besides, Trump's rhetoric is that of an authoritarian and I believe in silly little liberal things like Justice, peace, and equality. I'm not saying conservatives don't - but Trump surely doesn't. Not that it's all in all a breaking factor, I could list them all of if pressed, but what it comes down to is the fact that Americans are now rallying behind a media entertainment mogul who consistently uses back-door trickery (Riverside Project) rather than honest and humble business etiquette.

You may support him, I don't. I certainly don't support Bernie either, but nice try.

a reply to: introvert


Conservatives also believe in 'Free Trade' and where has that gotten us? It has proven, in application, to be as destructive as Communism or Federal level socialism.


Fine in theory yet destructive in result.

a reply to: RomeByFire

The Sanders bit was only a possibility. I also stated an honest believe, as well.

I am clarified, then, and stand corrected.

The only problem I have with your 'clarified' stance is it offers up no solution. Almost a nothing can be done attitude.

I still think your 'trash bin' is too large. At least, I hope it is....

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: nwtrucker

The time is ripe for conservatism to prove itself the best of ideologies. The environment, the economy, relativism, and an increasingly uglier culture, requires these heralds and defenders to stand up for what is precious, before the selfish and self-promoting looters seek to remake them in their image.

I believe the time is well past 'ripe'. That opportunity has passed us by. When we were a centralist leaning nation was the time for conservative restraint being applied....keeping that balance. Staying the course is pragmatic...if one IS on course...

First and foremost, I would 'define' on course as flourishing as a nation. Methinks to regain that, some un-conservative-like actions will be required....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: introvert


Conservatives also believe in 'Free Trade' and where has that gotten us? It has proven, in application, to be as destructive as Communism or Federal level socialism.


Fine in theory yet destructive in result.

I believe free trade only truly exists on the micro-level.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: introvert


Conservatives also believe in 'Free Trade' and where has that gotten us? It has proven, in application, to be as destructive as Communism or Federal level socialism.


Fine in theory yet destructive in result.

I believe free trade only truly exists on the micro-level.

Free trade only exists in the underworld. If it is illegal then its market is completely free trade based. But keep in mind that legal trade has NEVER been completely free trade. There have always been government restrictions or benefits with buying and selling certain products, and that holds true across literally every government that has ever existed past, present, small, large, state, local, federal, etc.

a reply to: nwtrucker

P.S.. I would see a central-like stance. Balance. An uneducated/ intellectually vacant society is equally ripe for exploitation as the ivory-towered,pontificators are unrestrained by reality...

:-)

Balance. And a willingness to think

I meant to say - I hear conservatives beginning to have this conversation now. It might be too late, but better late than never. I think you should know - I see this conversation picking up all over with the left too

So, not for nuthin' is this period of uncertainty. We might just come out of it much better off - with a genuine middle ground and the ability to work together

a reply to: introvert


Hmmm, more agreement....