Reply With Quote
Sometimes I think so:
http://www.newcriterion.com/articles...ism-dead--4166
When in 1962 Clinton Rossiter published a revised edition of Conservatism in America, he gave it the sub le The Thankless Persuasion. A decade earlier, Raymond English had touched upon a similar theme in an article in The American Scholar led “Conservatism: The Forbidden Faith.” Their point was that conservatism as a political philosophy runs against the American grain and thus will always play something of an incongruous and subordinate role in a revolutionary nation dedicated to equality, democracy, and restless change. While the conservative case for order, tradition, and authority may be useful as a corrective for the excesses of democracy, it can never hope to supplant liberalism as the nation’s official governing philosophy. As Rossiter put it, “Our commitment to democracy means that Liberalism will maintain its historic dominance over our minds, and that conservative thinkers will continue as well-kept but increasingly restless hostages to the American tradition.” Liberals will always set the tone for public life, he argued, leaving conservatives with the thankless task of fighting liberal reforms and then adjusting to them after they have been adopted.
Sometimes I think so:
socialized medicine is a LIE now and was when St Ronnie was LYING about it.
Privatized medicine is sucking the wealth out of citizens with exorbitant incomes compared to other industrial countries while under treating or not treating 10Ms of citizens. The Repugs' humane solution is not cut cost of treatment but deliver less treatment, aka, death panels.
I've always thought that the classical role of conservatism was a brake to be applied to liberalism...a check mechanism of sorts.
blocking liberalism, whatever that is, is negative.
does conservatism ever do anything positive, contribute to "progress" (oops, there's that dirty word again), or is it purely regressive, retrograde, negative?
Your definition of contribute is faulty. Not all contributions are active. Prevention can be a net contribution.
so conservatism doesn't contribute anything positive?
ok, my observations are confirmed.
Conservatives will fail on social issues, not a big deal.
Regressives will always fail in other areas because they live in lollypop land.
Ok, so your preconceptions remain confirmed.
Conservatism, by very definition, is not an active positive. Your improper definition of contribution is a result of your myopic political view. Nothing new.
no, my observations are confirmed.
"Conservatism, by very definition, is not an active positive"
Yep, it conserves the status quo (esp the ever-more dominant plutocracy), rather than trying to improve. It regresses society, rather advances it. iow, it's ing useless.
I see you put zero thought into that analysis. Congrats.
Because, obviously, all change is good.
Constant change put forth by malcontents is not healthy for civil society, and conservatism is not necessarily in-apposite to all change, regardless of the strawmen put forth by such malcontents.
Don't confuse him with context or subtleties. His RSS feed won't grok it.
Besides, the VRWC does not approve.
What positives have Repugs done for UCA since St Ronnie was elected?
lol @ goalpost move. Nice job of zeroing in on the time frame wherein the far right social conservatives, ala' the Falwellian Moral Majority, began to supplant the classical conservatives. You get a gold star for your efforts.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
