Reply With Quote
You could do a lot worse than this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_conservatism
Is it the Rush Limbaugh version?
The Sean Hannity version?
The New Gingritch version?
The Yonivore and Xray version?
Of is the fact that "definition" in itself is open to discussion?
I've been talking to as many republicans, and they all call themselves conservatives, and I can't get the same answer from any of them.
Some support McCain and they do call him a conservative where as others can't stand him and say no way he is a conservative. Then turn around and tell me that Bush is a conservative.
What the....
You could do a lot worse than this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_conservatism
Why haven't I received an answer from any of the conservatives on this board? Are they as confused as I am?
Well, in my mind conservative just means small government. Highly free market, no en lement, and no government intrustion into people's lives. Basically what Libertarians claim.
Not that I classify myself as conservative, although most people who know me say I'm conservative on a federal level and liberal on a state level.
I'm all down with the NO government intrusion so why are so many conservatives supporting the patriot act and like that?
Small government? I don't think so.
No en lements? You mean only when it helps them out?
If you look at the roots of the words, there is no contradiction between liberal (liberty) and conservative (conserve tradition). Isn't liberty our tradition?
Well, the true definition is classical liberalism, at least for the Goldwater/Reagan brand of conservatism. The problem, of course, is that many are comfortable with the general theory but deviate when it suits their own interest. The traditional conservative position on foreign policy and national security has been what Paul has advocated in this campaign, open diplomacy with all, favors to none, and certainly a military focused on defending the nation and not maintaining standing bases all over the globe or fighting offensive wars.
I'm not sure what this thread is getting at, there are just as many, if not more, flavors of progressive/liberal political ideology.
Maybe Rush Limbaugh's point of view will help.
Rush Limbaugh on conservatism
The government should protect the people AS A WHOLE, and as such, sometimes its growth is a necessary evil (I say evil because ANYTHING the govt. does is wasteful and inefficient); the government should NOT be in the business of distribution of wealth whose beneficiaries are INDIVIDUALS. Therefore, a Conservative COULD be in favor of the war because he thinks it is the best way to defend the country; OR a conservative could be AGAINST the war because he thinks it is a waste of time and money and isn't keeping us safe; the position isn't mutually exclusive - because, ultimately it falls under the pervue of an action the govt. OUGHT to be in charge of.
Eavesdropping, torture, etc... ALSO COULD fall under this definition, although a conservative OUGHT to resist any increase in governmental power; because the government tends to put the whole Camel in once the first nostril hair squeaks through.
ALL Conservatives should agree that en lement programs ought to fall outside of the realm of governmental necessity.
Again, the govt. shold be around for infrastructure and protection (for each other and from foreign threats - and ultimately JUST these jobs create a pretty good sized government, though much smaller than the one we have now); beyond that; I'm pretty much against it.
So basically they can flip-flop very easily and still call themselves conservatives? There is no true conservatism or liberalism in the US today. Both sides can flip-flop depending on how they see things
That's the thing. It's not just about limited government (as in scope), but cir scribed executive power.
A conservative should be against an offensive war unless there is a clear and present danger to the country, in which case it could be classified as 'defensive' in nature. That's how the Iraq invasion was sold.
Well, I really didn't plan on posting on this thread and then this
article came to my attention. Maybe some of you have already
seen it. But I thought this is about a close to what I consider a
conservative to be. It defines it by using an Angry White Man. But
that is not true in every sense of the word, because there are
many blacks I am sure feel the same way. This article
speaks about Hillary at the end, but the bulk of the article
speaks of the conservative, in my view. Bold type.
Aspen Times
In election 2008, don’t forget Angry White Man
Gary Hubbell
February 9, 2008
Comment Comments (46) Print Friendly Print Email Email
There is a great amount of interest in this year’s presidential elections, as everybody seems to recognize that our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush. The Democrats are riding high with two groundbreaking candidates — a woman and an African-American — while the conservative Republicans are in a quandary about their party’s nod to a quasi-liberal maverick, John McCain.
Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical Christians.
There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.
His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an independent businessman and employs several people. He pays more than his share of taxes and works hard.
The victimhood syndrome buzzwords — “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” — don’t resonate with him. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him. He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the company Christmas party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding.
He believes the Cons ution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living do ent” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.
The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing someone who needs killing really doesn’t bother him.
The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a sexual or a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he got his people together and got the out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.
His last name and religion don’t matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.
He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play golf, spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon, change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch.
Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am.”
He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.
He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.
Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don’t pay taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.
He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It’s not that she is a woman. It’s that she is who she is. It’s the liberal victim groups she panders to, the “poor me” at ude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves.
There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush.
He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum.
BACK
Sounds like the definition of a good old American redneck.
Why wouldn't you respond to this thread. Are you not a conservative?
Because it is a question that really cant be adequately
answered to everyone's satisfaction or to those that are
looking to find something to be critical of. Like religion.
But when I read the article I said, it came very close. So
I posted it, knowing I would get some snide remarks from
the usual suspects.
Look no further then this forum. You have Whott who only agrees with what "conservatives" say, and you have Boutons who only agrees with what "liberals" say.
These are the classic example of narrow minded s who refuse to acknowledge that one side or the other may be correct on certain issues and therefore bog down our political system, our government, and our society in general. They are a prime example of what's wrong with America really.
I hear ya. It is exactly the same when it comes to liberals. I agree with 01/20 that conservatism and liberalism are not unique and cannot be "defined" on paper since there are so many aspects to each. While I agree that I tend to lean to the left I also have many conservative values.
I'm about preaching abstinence but also am not naive enough to think kids don't need to learn about sex education.
I don't like the saggy pants and am all for school regulations to stop that crap. I'm a democrat who believes in a strong national defense and that we WILL defend ourselves against any enemy.
But the artilce will get your some remarks since. As I am always called out on since I am against abortion but support a woman's right to chose.
I see it as the same as the Angry White Man who says he's not racist but then gets pissed off at illegal imigrants. Who says he's compassionate yet wants to cut programs that help the needy.
I just started the thread since I've so many discussions amongst conservatives and they don't seem to agree.
^RACK THAT!!! I concur.
Joe, I think everyone has some conservative traits.
I know I have what you would call some "liberal" traits.
I do believe we need to care for the real disabled people
that are unable to fend for themselves and families
are unable to care for them. I also think we should
place people in ins utions who have mental problems,
instead of putting them on the streets. But liberal
judges disagree.
I may be wrong, but I sense you come from an old
time Hispanic family. And I know you understand the
concept of family caring for family, an old time
Texas trait also. It was so very common in my
younger years. Family caring for family. It was
what happened. And I consider that a conservative
thing. People did not depend on government, they
took care of business, family business. Friends
helped also. And I see nothing wrong with this
concept.
I find it really troubling to see the number of small
children murdered these days by young people who
are living with their "mates". Is this what has been
taught? You don't want kids, kill them! Is this
what abortion has taught these young people? I
am asking. Something has made it appear to be
acceptable to handle things this way.
Good post.
Yes, I do come from the traditional Hispanic family. Parents have been married for over 50 years. Raised with strong Catholic beliefs and tough parenting. No back talking was allowed. But I've also seen my father evolve with the times in regards to abortion and gay rights. Not saying that abortion is right but he tries to understand the dilemna a woman with an unwanted pregnancy must deal with. Or a gay person having to deal with his family's reaction.
I was also raised to think of others and I'm sure that is why I'm a liberal and a I grew up during the JFK and MLK years. Both of whom have their portraits hanging in my parent's home to this day.
Now don't get me wrong. My father and I disagree on many things. He is still a big union supporter.
I guess I would call myself a conservative liberal.
"Liberal" and "conservative" are widely misused and misinterpreted words, frequently used to try and paint someone with a broad stroke.
The reality is there is no definitive definition for either word. In terms of "conservatism" there are many kinds - fiscal conservative (someone who believes the government should not be spending much money on social programs, excessive military, or anything else that is deemed unnecessary), social conservative (someone who resists progressive changes, usually around issues of civil rights and social changes), religious conservative (someone who believes in a strict, literal interpretation of their religious text). Constructionists are a lot like religious conservatives, in that they try to apply a strict literal interpretation to the cons ution.
Huckabee is a social and religious conservative, and economically progressive.
McCain is a social moderate and mixed on economic issues
Paul is a social and economic conservative
Thompson is a social conservative and constructionist.
Romney is whatever the he thinks will get him elected.
Clinton is a social progressive, and mixed on economic issues.
Obama is a social progressive, and mixed on economic issues.
I'll have to disagree. On social issues he's "mixed".Paul is a social and economic conservative
For those of you who missed it, "johnsmith" wanted my mother dead (congrats, she's now dead. Feel better?) and wanted to fight me.
And he calls ME a ?
"The Conservative's first concern will always be: Are we maximizing freedom?"
Who said it? Should be rather easy...
For those of you who missed it, "johnsmith" wanted my mother dead (congrats, she's now dead. Feel better?) and wanted to fight me.
And he calls ME a ?
Link please.
And good comeback too by the way.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
