I don't usually like to dump a quote and ask for discussion, but this one seems kind of interesting when it comes to differences in how the US and the UK treat terms like "conservative" and "liberal":
I think it's going to be really fascinating to see how Southern Conservatives respond to David Cameron. Southern Conservatives worship C.S. Lewis and Winston Churchill (I can say this because growing up in the South you have no idea how many conservative boomer age men I have heard quoting Lewis and Churchill to me). So how are they going to respond now when you have this conservative British Prime Minister who talks about fighting a war on poverty, who talks about his faith in God as going "in and out," who is comfortable with gay people, who is comfortable with evolution?
The American Right has to know that Cameron's way is the future of conservatism. This cocoon they have constructed for themselves against the modern world cannot survive much longer. When we have Republican politicians in the South quoting David Cameron instead of Churchill, that is when we are going to have achieved real progress in this country.
There's a huge amount I disagree with here, but one of the final points seems pretty interesting to me. Will American conservatives really be able to ditch some of these points and become a new kind of conservative? Where do you think the movement will go?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
I don't think you'll find Churchill was uncomfortable with evolution. I'm not sure about C.S. Lewis, I mean he was christain (cross-wavingly so) but I've not heard anything about him being an evolution denyer.
jonesthecurl wrote:...and what has Cameron said that is quote-worthy?
This and your last post were a few of the issues I had with the original quote.
I think the poster was trying to say that Cameron offers a fresh face on conservatism (I agree, but only as far as the face), and yeah- I think he needs to do hell of a lot before he even touches Churchill and Lewis (another point where I disagree- they're way too different from each other or Cameron.
But I do think that the basic model of how he approaches conservatism seems kind of interesting, so I think it's worth discussing if this is how conservatism will look in the future. That applies to the UK too- Cameron is untested.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Phatscotty wrote:that tactic quoted was already used in the USA. We are over it. The premise you start with is outdated.
I'm not sure I started out with a premise. I don't agree with much of the original quote, but I do think that conservatism needs a bit of an intellectual revival. Not that it's stupid at the moment, but it is fickle, opportunistic, and lacks clear leadership (or at least, when the leaders are clear, they aren't politicians).
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Phatscotty wrote:that tactic quoted was already used in the USA. We are over it. The premise you start with is outdated.
I'm not sure I started out with a premise. I don't agree with much of the original quote, but I do think that conservatism needs a bit of an intellectual revival. Not that it's stupid at the moment, but it is fickle, opportunistic, and lacks clear leadership (or at least, when the leaders are clear, they aren't politicians).
well, just so you know, IMO, the intellectual revival amongst conservatives and others is called the Tea Party.
Phatscotty wrote:that tactic quoted was already used in the USA. We are over it. The premise you start with is outdated.
I'm not sure I started out with a premise. I don't agree with much of the original quote, but I do think that conservatism needs a bit of an intellectual revival. Not that it's stupid at the moment, but it is fickle, opportunistic, and lacks clear leadership (or at least, when the leaders are clear, they aren't politicians).
well, just so you know, IMO, the intellectual revival amongst conservatives and others is called the Tea Party.
are we able to even have this conversation?
Sure, if you like. I don't think the Tea Party represents an intellectual revival, as it has no clear policies. Being against big government isn't enough.
It's a revitalising force in some ways, but it seems so focussed on Obama that it's difficult to tell where it wants to go. It just isn't an intelligent voice, it's a voice of protest.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
I don't think you understand the tea party. we have already elected candidates who have already ran on platforms and policies, and been elected. If all you hear is "smaller gov't"... then I don't got nuttin fo ya...
Phatscotty wrote:I don't think you understand the tea party. we have already elected candidates who have already ran on platforms and policies, and been elected. If all you hear is "smaller gov't"... then I don't got nuttin fo ya...
Which candidates, having been elected, are Tea Partiers?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Phatscotty wrote:I don't think you understand the tea party. we have already elected candidates who have already ran on platforms and policies, and been elected. If all you hear is "smaller gov't"... then I don't got nuttin fo ya...
Which candidates, having been elected, are Tea Partiers?
Check out the platform of the NJ governor. It is my opinion he is acting on tea party principles. You can also tell because it is the place where liberals are pulling the hair out of their heads.
The thing is, at some point, sheer demographic shifts will force conservatives to deal with some of the issues mentioned in the OP. Race, sexual orientation, women's rights. poverty, healthcare, environmental issues, religious affiliation. These are all issues with stances that conservatives are losing ground among the electorate.
Where will conservatives stand in the elections of the next generation?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Symmetry wrote:The thing is, at some point, sheer demographic shifts will force conservatives to deal with some of the issues mentioned in the OP. Race, sexual orientation, women's rights. poverty, healthcare, environmental issues, religious affiliation. These are all issues with stances that conservatives are losing ground among the electorate.
Where will conservatives stand in the elections of the next generation?
those are all, interestingly, SOCIAL ISSUES
and maybe in your country. I assure you that is not the situation here. Oh, the conservatives took over in your country too? Guess people are smart enough to realize they can not afford to sit on the sidelines and whine about social issues when they are simultaneously overborrowing and overspending themselves into oblivion.
Conservative position #1
It is more important to survive than it is to be caught up in a court battle over same-sex benefits
Last edited by Phatscotty on Tue May 11, 2010 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Being a conservative is about wanting people to become the best they can be, and understanding that each of us has to be motivated from within to accomplish , government can't do that for people. Government can keep others from oppressing you, but it will never make you sucessful. The United States was founded on Judeo Christian principals. The country was never about a particular religion, but without a basic belief in those principals (not nessisarily the religions themselves) the design of the nation fails. Conservativism is all about belief in one's self, those "conservatives" that need to belittle others who don't look like them to feel better about themselves have already failed because they do not believe in themselves enough to feel good about themselves without making someone else feel worse. Conservativism is about each person lifting themselves up to far as they can not dragging everyone else down into the mire of mediocrity.
Anyone who doesn't value the contributions that WInston Churchill made to our world is a fool. He wasn't always right, but he believed in Democracy over Dictatorship and he was right about the most important thing.
Symmetry wrote:The thing is, at some point, sheer demographic shifts will force conservatives to deal with some of the issues mentioned in the OP. Race, sexual orientation, women's rights. poverty, healthcare, environmental issues, religious affiliation. These are all issues with stances that conservatives are losing ground among the electorate.
Where will conservatives stand in the elections of the next generation?
those are all, interestingly, SOCIAL ISSUES
Yes, sort of. They're mostly social issues. Environmentalism isn't really a social issue, but I take your point. It's kind of the point that I wanted to raise- a possible conservatism free from some of the socially conservative points that really hang around a lot of conservative groups at the moment.
I hope it's not unfair of me to say this, but you seem pretty torn between some of the old styles of conservatism, and the Tea Party as a reforming force.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
rockfist wrote:Being a conservative is about wanting people to become the best they can be, and understanding that each of us has to be motivated from within to accomplish , government can't do that for people. Government can keep others from oppressing you, but it will never make you sucessful. The United States was founded on Judeo Christian principals. The country was never about a particular religion, but without a basic belief in those principals (not nessisarily the religions themselves) the design of the nation fails. Conservativism is all about belief in one's self, those "conservatives" that need to belittle others who don't look like them to feel better about themselves have already failed because they do not believe in themselves enough to feel good about themselves without making someone else feel worse. Conservativism is about each person lifting themselves up to far as they can not dragging everyone else down into the mire of mediocrity.
Anyone who doesn't value the contributions that WInston Churchill made to our world is a fool. He wasn't always right, but he believed in Democracy over Dictatorship and he was right about the most important thing.
Cute
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Symmetry wrote:The thing is, at some point, sheer demographic shifts will force conservatives to deal with some of the issues mentioned in the OP. Race, sexual orientation, women's rights. poverty, healthcare, environmental issues, religious affiliation. These are all issues with stances that conservatives are losing ground among the electorate.
Where will conservatives stand in the elections of the next generation?
those are all, interestingly, SOCIAL ISSUES
Yes, sort of. They're mostly social issues. Environmentalism isn't really a social issue, but I take your point. It's kind of the point that I wanted to raise- a possible conservatism free from some of the socially conservative points that really hang around a lot of conservative groups at the moment.
I hope it's not unfair of me to say this, but you seem pretty torn between some of the old styles of conservatism, and the Tea Party as a reforming force.
I would agree with you if you would allow me to project the reality that republicans strayed from the "old styles" of conservatism and started to get all moderate on social issues(2004-2006-2008). They have already been paying. Linsy Gram, Mccain, NY house race, FL senate race, UT senate race. sitting republican senators are unable to even receive an endorsement to qualify for a primary for re-election! please do not focus on one example and turn it into something else. they all show a bigger picture.
Here in America, we have a special name for these kind of people. RINO, republican in name only. Examples are Arnold, Specter (before).
See, we are already dealing with our weak conservatives. like I said from the start, that strategy is behind the times.
Last edited by Phatscotty on Tue May 11, 2010 10:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
And I will tell you what else. The American people will demand that our democratic representatives in congress move to the center if not join the right in cutting spending, and reigning in the debt/printing press, NOW
I hate to say it, but this thread is predicated on the idea that more than 17 Americans (the Atlantic's entire circulation) are aware Britain had elections this week.
The idea of southern gentlemen rambling around Savannah, quoting C.S. Lewis at the country club while sipping gin, then tipping off to a cotton baron's manor or the greyhound track for a debutante ball at which a portrait of Churchill will be toasted is delightfully literary, but not very literal.
As previously noted, the Philippines elections got more coverage.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
Phatscotty wrote:that tactic quoted was already used in the USA. We are over it. The premise you start with is outdated.
I'm not sure I started out with a premise. I don't agree with much of the original quote, but I do think that conservatism needs a bit of an intellectual revival. Not that it's stupid at the moment, but it is fickle, opportunistic, and lacks clear leadership (or at least, when the leaders are clear, they aren't politicians).
well, just so you know, IMO, the intellectual revival amongst conservatives and others is called the Tea Party.
are we able to even have this conversation?
Thanks. I wasn't sure where you were headed. That's a lot clearer.
rockfist wrote:Being a conservative is about wanting people to become the best they can be, and understanding that each of us has to be motivated from within to accomplish , government can't do that for people. Government can keep others from oppressing you, but it will never make you sucessful. The United States was founded on Judeo Christian principals. The country was never about a particular religion, but without a basic belief in those principals (not nessisarily the religions themselves) the design of the nation fails. Conservativism is all about belief in one's self, those "conservatives" that need to belittle others who don't look like them to feel better about themselves have already failed because they do not believe in themselves enough to feel good about themselves without making someone else feel worse. Conservativism is about each person lifting themselves up to far as they can not dragging everyone else down into the mire of mediocrity.
Anyone who doesn't value the contributions that WInston Churchill made to our world is a fool. He wasn't always right, but he believed in Democracy over Dictatorship and he was right about the most important thing.
That also was a lot clearer and better-thought-out than what you normally post. Thank you.
How likely is it that the Tea Party will actually become a party?
It would help the average voter or just anyone who vaguely follows the news, if there were some official spokespersons for this movement.
I do think that the "movement" is large enough to be a real force in politics. I rather suspect that if the Tea Party were to attempt to actually become a political party, with real official candidates and the whole world of stuff that'd go with that, they'd very quickly splinter into smaller parties.
And, if they won't, use another word than "Party" please.
