What is your conservative definition? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Traditional 'common sense' values and duty to the state.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#13312854
DanDaMan what does this

I don't know why you would want a timid technological progress. I personally like my new 60" HDTV. The latter two are reasonable.
Although I think the "wars" should end.


Have to do with this ?

I'm from Vancouver. My definition of the term conservative is this: an ideological disposition favoring timid technological progress, maintenance of the geopolitical status-quo, entailing a minimum investment of public capital.


I don't see anything besides just a random answer :eh:

Edit . DanDaMan is dodging the question it seems .
User avatar
By MB.
#13312857
I suppose my point hinges around an (admittedly, my) understanding radical technological development, which, presumably, would result in the complete elimination of jobs, states and indeed of homo-sapiens.

Suffice it to say, in this context I am using the term 'timid' technological progress to describe technological evolution that occurs at a constant as opposed to an exponential pace.

It follows that any ideology or party that is centrist would desire to avoid radical progress for fear of dramatically changing the social, military, or political status quo.
User avatar
By The Immortal Goon
#13313058
Conservatives tend to build a utopian idea of what the past was, and fight for that non-existent past. As such, they tend to disagree with progress in any way.

Socially, they tend to abide by their simplistic revision of the past:

Franken said it well:

Franken wrote:If you listen to a lot of conservatives, they'll tell you that the difference between them and us is that conservatives love America and liberals hate America. That we "blame Amer-ica first." That we're suspicious of patriotism and always think our country's in the wrong. As conservative radio and TV personality Sean Hannity says, we liberals "train our children to criticize America, not celebrate it." They don't get it. We love America just as much as they do. But in a different way. You see, they love America the way a four-year-old loves her mommy. Liberals love Amer-ica like grown-ups. To a four-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, and helping your loved one grow. Love takes attention and work and is the best thing in the world...When liberals look back on history, we see things we're very proud of. And we also see some things, which might have seemed like good ideas at the time, but turned out to be mistakes. And some things we did, well, they were just bad. That doesn't keep us from loving our country—it's part of loving our country. It's called honesty. What do you think is more important to a loving relationship: honesty or lies?


The present, for them, is the source of problems as it hurls on to the abyss of modernity. Any negative feelings or thoughts they feel bad about result, not from themselves, but from their separation from an idealized past.

On the plus side, some of these ideals of the past can be pleasant and even honorable when practiced as a personal code. It falls apart, however, at almost the same moment the lips attempt to express such a code.

[Edited for a cleaner, more pleasant forum]
Last edited by The Immortal Goon on 06 Feb 2010 10:20, edited 1 time in total.
By PBVBROOK
#13313153
I doubt that there are many here who remember when we actually had a conservative government. Some would say Ronald Reagan 1981 - 1989. Though he was a conservative some would say that we have never had a conservative government.

Clearly DDM is wrong when he claims the founders as conservative. They were not. They were, by and large, progressive British Subjects seeking to establish a revolutionary government based upon liberal principles. Had they been conservative they would have been Tories.

Those who DDM and his 'ilk' mistakenly call conservative are actually what are best called neo-cons, that is to avoid calling their icons Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity by their scientific name....moron.

MB is closest when he says:
an ideological disposition favoring timid technological progress, maintenance of the geopolitical status-quo, entailing a minimum investment of public capital.


I would say that these are manifestations of a conservative mind set rather than the theory behind it.

William F. Buckley Jr. defined a conservative in a similar way. He said
:“A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling "Stop!"”


There are two books that explain American conservatism perhaps better than all of the others combined; Buckley's "God and Man at Yale" and Barry Goldwater's "The Conscious of a Conservative".

So what do the two greatest conservatives of our times say about conservatism?

Buckley said:

“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth.”

"You cultivate the essential virtues: high purpose, intelligence, decency, humility, fear of the Lord, and the passion for freedom.”

"Marijuana never kicks down your door in the middle of the night.
Marijuana never locks up sick and dying people,
does not suppress medical research,
does not peek in bedroom windows
Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could.”

“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.

"We are so concerned to flatter the majority that we lose sight of how very often it is necessary, in order to preserve freedom for the minority, let alone for the individual, to face that majority down."


Goldwater said:

“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.”

“I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.”

“Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism”

"You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.”

"There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom."

"My faith in the future rests squarely on the belief that man, if he doesn't first destroy himself, will find new answers in the universe, new technologies, new disciplines, which will contribute to a vastly different and better world in the twenty-first century. Recalling what has happened in my short lifetime in the fields of communication and transportation and the life sciences, I marvel at the pessimists who tell us that we have reached the end of our productive capacity, who project a future of primarily dividing up what we now have and making do with less. To my mind the single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." - This one is for you MB ;)


And for God's sake POFO conservatives. Listen to this from the father of conservatism in the US:

Goldwater: I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."



Many so called libertarians and Conservatives today are completely missing the point of conservatism. They forget what it is that 'real' conservatives are trying to conserve. The conservatism that I respect is a rich tapestry of ideas that go far deeper than reading Atlas Shrugged, googling Ron Paul and memorizing chalk-talk by Glen Beck. Those who want to call themselves conservatives who have never read the two books I mentioned above are quite frankly full of shit. Those who will continue to call themselves conservatives and not read these books are fools. And as many hand-jobs as they want to give one another, there are people out here who will see right through their shallow understanding of the issues and sophomoric debating techniques.
By JRS1
#13313173
A Conservative is somebody who believes things are the way they are for a good reason.

They do believe in progression but more gradual and measured change. They don’t like risks, in general.

They believe in paternalistic government, one that pretty much lets you get on with life and keeps its nose out unless you are harming others or society at large, will help those that help themselves and will punish those that harm others.


PS - Im from the UK.
By DanDaMan
#13313362
Clearly DDM is wrong when he claims the founders as conservative. They were not. They were, by and large, progressive British Subjects seeking to establish a revolutionary government based upon liberal principles. Had they been conservative they would have been Tories.
Clearly you fail to understand I am speaking from my perspective.
Also, in today's terms, the Founders would be far Right and Libertarian in their revolution to free themselves from the tyranny of a monarchy. They are opposite of what a Progressive is today.

You typify the standard operating procedure of the Left... Pervert the definitions of the day with the definitions of yesterday and constantly re-label yourself.
User avatar
By Demosthenes
#13313373
Conservative (US): N. 1) An elite individual who seeks opportunistic fortunes from a group of corporations with ties to the Republican party.
2) One of the "little people" who believe in said party's "principles" wholeheartedly no matter the truth, lies, or stupidity involved. 3) More "little people" who now call themselves libertarians in order to keep the same principles (That is...the excuses that group 1 teaches groups 2 and 3 are their principles) as 1 and 2, but also avoiding being directly labeled with the Republican Party, which works well as a political parlor trick and smoke screen. Bottom line is, 3 still votes Republican.

Liberal (US): N. 1) An elite individual who seeks opportunistic fortunes from a group of corporations with ties to the Democratic party.
2) One of the "little people" who believe in said party's "principles" wholeheartedly no matter the truth, lies, or stupidity involved. 3) Same as above except their are several smaller movements that accomplish the same thing.

That's a definition we can believe in. :|

The rest of the details of this discussion, no matter how academic some of it actually is, is still largely cosmetic and cause me to picture some group of puppet masters from above chuckling at you as they continue opportunisticly wringing the lifeblood from this country and all the other countries it depends on for resources.

So, the definition of conservatism is largely irrelevant. Now THAT is keeping it real. :hmm:
By PBVBROOK
#13313375
Also, in today's terms, the Founders would be far Right and Libertarian in their revolution to free themselves from the tyranny of a monarchy. They are opposite of what a Progressive is today.


Nonsense. They would apply the same principles they applied to the break with England to a modern break with corporatism. They would be appalled at the recent SCOTUS opinion on campaign spending. They would be shocked at the use of torture by the government.

Your problem is that you do not understand the role of the states early in out history. To understand what the founders believed you have to look at their opinions in the light of states that held considerable authority. So the founders, through the State of Mass for example established government paid health care. They used tax money to fund health care.

Your knowledge of the founders is not deep enough for you to undersand them. Sorry. Study.

Clearly you fail to understand I am speaking from my perspective.


And you are wrong. That was easy wasn't it?
By DanDaMan
#13313377
Quote:
Also, in today's terms, the Founders would be far Right and Libertarian in their revolution to free themselves from the tyranny of a monarchy. They are opposite of what a Progressive is today.
Nonsense. They would apply the same principles they applied to the break with England to a modern break with corporatism.
Define for us how corporatism (monopoly) is the total opposite of a monarchy (a monopoly)?
I'll make it easy for you.. you can't.
You are wrong.
User avatar
By The Immortal Goon
#13313426
I always find it depressing that the Founders are reduced to such simple and absurd archetypes that were all on the same page. Beck is sort of a master at either showing his ignorance in this department, or lying to get people to believe it. They pick and choose between two very distinct political tendencies - Federalist and Anti-Federalist - and quote in such a way so as to imply a connotation to an event or situation that the founders would know nothing about, all while ignoring vast amounts of contrary material that would disprove their point.

Since the people listening are horrifying uneducated in such things (after all, intellectualism and knowledge are the domain of the left) they don't know this.

To paraphrase O'Brien, "It reminds one of Stalin's strained attempts to use Lenin; that first time was tragedy, the second time was farce."
By DanDaMan
#13313429
I always find it depressing that the Founders are reduced to such simple and absurd archetypes that were all on the same page.
I am not surprised a Leftist would feel that way.
To be leftist and embrace the ability to stand back and see what each system brings to the table would be counterproductive since one would see the tyranny collectivism quite often has.
Let's face it... you start adding up those murdered by Stalin, Mao and the Khmer Rouge and your never going to get supporters! :lol:
User avatar
By MB.
#13313473
Typical, when faced with his own ignorance, DanDaMan immediately leaps to a non-sequitur about his standard talking points; genocide, Mao, Stalin, the Khmer Rouge, etc etc.

Luckily the posters he is debating with are much more intelligent than him, and are not likely to fall for such a pathetic and obvious attempt at derailment.
By DanDaMan
#13313480
This is a politics forum correct?
Can you explain to me why I should be intellectually dishonest and leave out the atrocities of great Leftists like Mao, Stalin and the Khmer Rouge?
User avatar
By MB.
#13313485
I dunno, maybe because they have nothing to do with this thread or your topic and even if they some how did I would be forced to move the thread to the history forum because it would be in the wrong section.

Also it is beyond ignorant to simply lump these extremely bipolar characters together into a class of ideologies you have unilaterally determined to be 'leftist'.

Answer your question?
User avatar
By millie_(A)TCK
#13313744
A conservative is reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, racist, nationalistic,sexist, usually religious and paranoid of change. Their simplistic minds can't handle diversity.
By JRS1
#13313761
A conservative is reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, racist, nationalistic,sexist, usually religious and paranoid of change. Their simplistic minds can't handle diversity.


^ sorry, I didn’t realise that the question was “what is your oversimplified demonisistic charactiure of a conservative used by liberals for en masse character assasination” if so, Ill go along with what MA says.

Perhaps we should be talking about what conservatism is rather than how people perceive conservatives?
User avatar
By emoshunless
#13314762
Conservative: one who wishs to conserve the original foundation of its government.

Good job millie! I assume that was your impression of someone who has no idea of what's going on
and hasn't a rational thought in his or her head! It was perfect.... thanks keep it up!
Oh who am I kidding! Of course you will!
By Plaro
#13314834
A conservative is reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, racist, nationalistic,sexist, usually religious and paranoid of change. Their simplistic minds can't handle diversity.
Wow, and I thought I saw everything in this world. Modern liberal propaganda machine works very well, I guess, to produce die hard fanatics.
User avatar
By BurrsWogdon
#13318116
Nonsense. They would apply the same principles they applied to the break with England to a modern break with corporatism. They would be appalled at the recent SCOTUS opinion on campaign spending. They would be shocked at the use of torture by the government.


Which ones? I don't think Hamilton would be appalled at the recent SCOTUS opinion. He probably wouldn't be appalled at the torture either. I think he did some rotten things to the Pennsylvanians.

Madison, Jefferson and others would have found the original campaign finance reform laws appalling along with much of the other progressive era stuff. Hamilton wouldn't have. He and his disciple John Marshall made it all possible... for the sake of corporatism.

I think conservatism is largely a social orientation. It is concerned with tradition for tradition sake, not entirely opposed to change but opposed to revolutionary change. It is concerned with hierarchy and authority and stability.

Republican embracing a constitution, free markets, Liberty


I think this stuff is liberal or only adopted because it is traditional now and maybe as a result of the fusionists. I think it's silly for someone who would choose the ten commandments, by default, as form of governance over the constitution to say the he is embracing of the constitution and align himself with the most prominent founders. DDM you'd probably be as content with theocracy or monarchy.
User avatar
By olgregg
#13322756
Russell Kirk has been described as a "visionary", "artist", and a "prophet" of the conservative movement. Here are some representations of what he believes in, as described by his 6 "canons of conservative thought":

"1) Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems...
2) Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most 'radical' systems;...
3) Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes, as against the notion of a 'classless society'. With reason, conservatives often have been called 'the party of order'...Ultimate equality in the judgment of God, and equality before courts of law, are recognized by conservatives; but equality of condition, they think, means equality in servitude and boredom.
4) Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked...
5) Faith in prescription and distrust of 'sophisters, calculators, and economists' who would reconstruct society upon abstract designs...
6) Recognition that change may not be salutary reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress...."

He seems to place faith as the rudiment for conservative thought.

Here is a quote that sheds light on conservative philosophy:
"We are not indebted to the Reason of man for any of the great achievements which are the landmarks of human action and human progress. It was not Reason that besieged Troy; it was not Reason that sent forth the Saracen from the Desert to conquer the world; that inspired the Crusades; that instituted Monastic orders; it was not Reason that produced the Jesuits; above all, it was not Reason that created the French Revolution. Man is only truly great when he acts from passions; never irresistible but when he appeals to the imagination. Even Mormon counts more votaries than Bentham."
- Benjamin Disraeli, prime minister of England from 1874 to 1880.

From what I can see, it's an encampment at UoA. Am[…]

It’s not even the case that all Zionists are Jews[…]

Weird of you to post this, you always argued that[…]