The Future of Conservatism

[DangerBoy]

How likely is it that the Tea Party will actually become a party?.

Hopefully it won't. If the movement stays dedicated to its principles of lower income taxation and decreased spending on social entitlement programs, then they can force both parties to change their behavior.

[BigBallinStalin]

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 conservatives will need to change their attitude, and any neo-con or hard right politician will most likely (And praying to the lord hopefully) not be selected.

But this recent shift towards a majority in liberal thought (or a lack in popularity for conservatives represented by Republicans) is mostly connected to a backlash against Republicans for 8 years of Bush and his neo-con cronnies.

This doesn't mean that conservatives are becoming less and less, but that conservatives and independents have been sick of Republicans, so things will shift towards the Democrats or split off into the Tea Party. With this shift in the power base, of course conservatives/Republicans will lose ground, but it's not a credible enough evidence that there's less conversatives or that conservatism is on the decline.

[khazalid]

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.

No, gang!

Listen to SAXI

RaInBoWs FoR AlL <3

[PLAYER57832]

[quote="saxitoxin"]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.
Well, those of us who listen to real news were aware:
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/med ... =126770834

However, what you posted seemed far more a slam on the south than real British arguments. And your description of Cameron seems almost liberal, which I don't believe is accurate.

[PLAYER57832]

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.

No, this is what the right wing in the U.S. tries to pass off as "real conservativism"... and at the same time as "populism".

[saxitoxin]

Well, those of us who listen to real news were aware:
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/med ... =126770834

As I noted, 17 Americans were aware.

And your description of Cameron seems almost liberal, which I don't believe is accurate.

What's even less accurate is saying I ever mentioned - let alone "described" - David Cameron, which I didn't.

Reading comprehension is learned, not bred, Player57832. Now scurry off, the grown-ups would like to have a chat.

Thanks, Player57832!
- Saxi!
Official CC Forums "Dad"
Unofficial CC Happiness Ombudsman

[Phatscotty]

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.

I have 2,102 friends on facebook. you need to add 2,102 + 17 = 2,119 Americans have heard. I don't let anything slip by them. My friends are the ones that get clobbered with information the hardest. You think I'm bad here?

[thegreekdog]

I am aware of the elections across the Pond. However, I choose not to comment because (1) I do not know enough to comment and (2) I don't feel right commenting on politicians who do not directly affect my life. I urge our friends across the Pond to do the same when thinking about discussing American politics.

With respect to the OP, I want to think that conservatism in the United States will become one of fiscal conservatism only, with the Republican party splitting up between Rockefeller Republicans and Bush Republicans. However, I suspect that the Republican Party will somehow embrace the tea party movement and will become the party of fiscal conservatism until they control Congress and the presidency and move back to fiscal liberalism.

[saxitoxin]

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.

I have 2,102 friends on facebook. you need to add 2,102 + 17 = 2,119 Americans have heard. I don't let anything slip by them. My friends are the ones that get clobbered with information the hardest. You think I'm bad here?

Ol' Saxi has been thinking about getting a MyFace account - is it hard to do? I was thinking I could use it to spread the word of didactic Marxism-Leninsm because I have a hard time doing that lately except to the choir ("preaching to the choir" - LOL!)and it will take everyone doing their part.

Also, will I need to get a newer iPod to set-up a MyFace account? My current iPod is a Zune.

[Symmetry]

I am aware of the elections across the Pond. However, I choose not to comment because (1) I do not know enough to comment and (2) I don't feel right commenting on politicians who do not directly affect my life. I urge our friends across the Pond to do the same when thinking about discussing American politics.

With respect to the OP, I want to think that conservatism in the United States will become one of fiscal conservatism only, with the Republican party splitting up between Rockefeller Republicans and Bush Republicans. However, I suspect that the Republican Party will somehow embrace the tea party movement and will become the party of fiscal conservatism until they control Congress and the presidency and move back to fiscal liberalism.

Amazingly, I completely disagree with your first paragraph, and generally agree with your second.

[thegreekdog]

I am aware of the elections across the Pond. However, I choose not to comment because (1) I do not know enough to comment and (2) I don't feel right commenting on politicians who do not directly affect my life. I urge our friends across the Pond to do the same when thinking about discussing American politics.

With respect to the OP, I want to think that conservatism in the United States will become one of fiscal conservatism only, with the Republican party splitting up between Rockefeller Republicans and Bush Republicans. However, I suspect that the Republican Party will somehow embrace the tea party movement and will become the party of fiscal conservatism until they control Congress and the presidency and move back to fiscal liberalism.

Amazingly, I completely disagree with your first paragraph, and generally agree with your second.

What specifically do you disagree with (or is it completely)? I'm looking for a basis for argument.

[Symmetry]

I am aware of the elections across the Pond. However, I choose not to comment because (1) I do not know enough to comment and (2) I don't feel right commenting on politicians who do not directly affect my life. I urge our friends across the Pond to do the same when thinking about discussing American politics.

With respect to the OP, I want to think that conservatism in the United States will become one of fiscal conservatism only, with the Republican party splitting up between Rockefeller Republicans and Bush Republicans. However, I suspect that the Republican Party will somehow embrace the tea party movement and will become the party of fiscal conservatism until they control Congress and the presidency and move back to fiscal liberalism.

Amazingly, I completely disagree with your first paragraph, and generally agree with your second.

What specifically do you disagree with (or is it completely)? I'm looking for a basis for argument.

Apologies, it was kind of rude of me not to elaborate. First of all I would say that the British media are much more clued in on American politics than the American media on the UK. The Guardian (my liberal paper of choice), has a US branch online, for example. As Saxi pointed out, very few Americans were aware of the British elections.

The second point, that we shouldn't talk about things that don't affect us seems redundant for two reasons.

The first being that the political machinations of the US clearly affect the rest of the world, and the UK in particular as a major ally and economic partner.

The second being that I simply don't believe in the kind of intellectual isolationism your post seems to argue for. If a political idea is good, why reject it simply because the politician is from a foreign country? And why refrain from discussing political and social policies that you disagree with based on some principle of "it doesn't affect me directly"?

[saxitoxin]

Apologies, it was kind of rude of me not to elaborate. First of all I would say that the British media are much more clued in on American politics than the American media on the UK. The Guardian (my liberal paper of choice), has a US branch online, for example. As Saxi pointed out, very few Americans were aware of the British elections.

*Psuedo-Cyber High Five*

Ol' Sax loves the Graun's ownership model but, frankly, their American "coverage" really borders more on "obsession." Open the Graun and here are the sections:

News
Sports
Business
United States
Entertainment

WTF?

It would be like opening a general interest newspaper in the U.S. and there being a full section, every day, dedicated to news from and about Sierra Leone. Why?

If the US were a person it would be getting a restraining order against the Guardian.

[Symmetry]

Apologies, it was kind of rude of me not to elaborate. First of all I would say that the British media are much more clued in on American politics than the American media on the UK. The Guardian (my liberal paper of choice), has a US branch online, for example. As Saxi pointed out, very few Americans were aware of the British elections.

*Psuedo-Cyber High Five*

Ol' Sax loves the Graun's ownership model but, frankly, their American "coverage" really borders more on "obsession." Open the Graun and here are the sections:

News
Sports
Business
United States
Entertainment

WTF?

It would be like opening a general interest newspaper in the U.S. and there being a full section, every day, dedicated to news from and about Sierra Leone. Why?

If the US were a person it would be getting a restraining order against the Guardian.

Heh- maybe if you open from the US. From the UK it goes:

News
Sport
Comment
Culture
Business
Money
Life & Style
Travel
Environment
TV
Blogs
Video
Community
Blogs

If anyone wants to check me on this:Sections are at the top

[saxitoxin]

Apologies, it was kind of rude of me not to elaborate. First of all I would say that the British media are much more clued in on American politics than the American media on the UK. The Guardian (my liberal paper of choice), has a US branch online, for example. As Saxi pointed out, very few Americans were aware of the British elections.

*Psuedo-Cyber High Five*

Ol' Sax loves the Graun's ownership model but, frankly, their American "coverage" really borders more on "obsession." Open the Graun and here are the sections:

News
Sports
Business
United States
Entertainment

WTF?

It would be like opening a general interest newspaper in the U.S. and there being a full section, every day, dedicated to news from and about Sierra Leone. Why?

If the US were a person it would be getting a restraining order against the Guardian.

Heh- maybe if you open from the US. From the UK it goes:

News
Sport
Comment
Culture
Business
Money
Life & Style
Travel
Environment
TV
Blogs
Video
Community
Blogs

*tickle tickle*

*Saxi Tickles Symmetry*

Silly Saxi! LOL! I haven't read the print edition of the Graun in years (or any newspaper since the internet arrived, I think ), I was just going by the leader on the Graun's website. ACK, gang - foiled!

[Symmetry]

No problem Saxi, I've added a link to graun above, but I'll add again here:

Guardian

Of course, that's where I took the topic list from. Which site had your list?

[saxitoxin]

This is what I see but they may change it based on IP address (i.e. my IP is in the US of Amerik'er)?

[Symmetry]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present the future of conservatism:

This is what I see but they may change it based on IP address (i.e. my IP is in the US of Amerik'er)?

[thegreekdog]

I am aware of the elections across the Pond. However, I choose not to comment because (1) I do not know enough to comment and (2) I don't feel right commenting on politicians who do not directly affect my life. I urge our friends across the Pond to do the same when thinking about discussing American politics.

With respect to the OP, I want to think that conservatism in the United States will become one of fiscal conservatism only, with the Republican party splitting up between Rockefeller Republicans and Bush Republicans. However, I suspect that the Republican Party will somehow embrace the tea party movement and will become the party of fiscal conservatism until they control Congress and the presidency and move back to fiscal liberalism.

Amazingly, I completely disagree with your first paragraph, and generally agree with your second.

What specifically do you disagree with (or is it completely)? I'm looking for a basis for argument.

Apologies, it was kind of rude of me not to elaborate. First of all I would say that the British media are much more clued in on American politics than the American media on the UK. The Guardian (my liberal paper of choice), has a US branch online, for example. As Saxi pointed out, very few Americans were aware of the British elections.

The second point, that we shouldn't talk about things that don't affect us seems redundant for two reasons.

The first being that the political machinations of the US clearly affect the rest of the world, and the UK in particular as a major ally and economic partner.

The second being that I simply don't believe in the kind of intellectual isolationism your post seems to argue for. If a political idea is good, why reject it simply because the politician is from a foreign country? And why refrain from discussing political and social policies that you disagree with based on some principle of "it doesn't affect me directly"?

AGREE TO DISAGREE!

I cannot comment on whether the British media is more clued in on American politics than the American media is on British politics, but I imagine this is the case. The American media is probably more clued in on American pop culture than politics anyway.

Political machinations of the US do affect the rest of the world, as do most countries' politics. I agree with that. And I have no problem if you or anyone else would like to discuss foreign policy of the US.

I am not arguing for intellectual isolationism. I'm arguing for political isolationism. For example, "you guys need universal health insurance" is a standard discussion point from our British friends. In fact, it's usually argued most vehemently (on this forum) by posters from countries other than the US. And when I say "vehemently," I mean vehemently. However, I do not think the international community quite understands (at least as well as most Americans) the American political psyche or the American political landscape. So, I get angry about it. Therefore, I've determined that it's best that I not discuss non-US politics with anyone else because it doesn't affect me and I don't know.

So, in sum, US politics affecting international relations... I'm cool with discussing that. US domestic policy and politics... I get a little offended. Because really, domestic policy has nothing to do with you (and please don't make the "the world is so interconnected" argument). Anyway, it's a personal ideology (not to argue domestic politics of non-US countries).

[PLAYER57832]

With respect to the OP, I want to think that conservatism in the United States will become one of fiscal conservatism only, with the Republican party splitting up between Rockefeller Republicans and Bush Republicans. However, I suspect that the Republican Party will somehow embrace the tea party movement and will become the party of fiscal conservatism until they control Congress and the presidency and move back to fiscal liberalism.

Fiscal liberalism?
Do tell! First time I have heard that bandied about!
In truth, there is such a thing, but I highly doubt it is what you intended. Liberal economics means looking for sustainability. Ironically enough, that is actually far more conservative than the so-called "conservative" position, which is primarily to support big business against the individual and the government (which is supposed to be the people's representative).

But to get back to the topic, The Republicans realized about 30 years ago that they were losing ground and that the only way to capture the "heartland" back was to go after so-called "family values". So, you saw people formerly pro-union, pro labor standards suddenly leaping to the party that attacked gays and abortion, in the rush to avoid the so-called "liberal elite". Never mind that the true elite is very, very far from liberal (with a few exceptions, but those mostly public and "political").

England seems to be moving in a different direction. As you mentioned, though, I know little more than what is said here (a bit more than that, but not much). I am content to watch and observe. Also, things seem to be in such flux, we will have to wait and see what actually falls out.

[saxitoxin]

Liberal economics means looking for sustainability.

actually, liberal economics means laissez-faire economics

"fiscal" - as used in the original quote - refers to a regime of government finance (revenue/outlay) and "liberalism" - as used in the original quote - most likely means "to act freely"

neither mean "looking for sustainability"

[PLAYER57832]

Liberal economics means looking for sustainability.

actually, liberal economics means laissez-faire economics

"fiscal" - as used in the original quote - refers to a regime of government finance (revenue/outlay) and "liberalism" - as used in the original quote - most likely means "to act freely"

neither mean "looking for sustainability"

I was referring to U.S. liberal movements.

Though, ironically enough, your definition would seem to fit in with unbridled capitalism, almost conservative... lol.

[saxitoxin]

Liberal economics means looking for sustainability.

actually, liberal economics means laissez-faire economics

"fiscal" - as used in the original quote - refers to a regime of government finance (revenue/outlay) and "liberalism" - as used in the original quote - most likely means "to act freely"

neither mean "looking for sustainability"

I was referring to U.S. liberal movements.

Though, ironically enough, your definition would seem to fit in with unbridled capitalism, almost conservative... lol.

1 - You really weren't referring to anything at all. As per your modus operandi, instead of attempting to engage in discussion you were attempting to correct people by providing a somewhat unread and incorrect definition of a social studies concept to people who didn't need correcting in the first place. You do that better than anyone here but it wears tedious on poor ol' Saxi's frail nerves.

2 - This is not "my" definition; this is the academically accepted definition. (In another thread I said the sun was a celestial body made of hydrogen and helium. It may surprise you to know that this is not the result of any research I have done into the sun but is simply the generally accepted fact.)

Thanks, Player12345!
- Saxi!
Unofficial CC Happiness Ombudsman

[GENERAL STONEHAM]

Liberal economics means looking for sustainability.

actually, liberal economics means laissez-faire economics

"fiscal" - as used in the original quote - refers to a regime of government finance (revenue/outlay) and "liberalism" - as used in the original quote - most likely means "to act freely"

neither mean "looking for sustainability"

I was referring to U.S. liberal movements.

Though, ironically enough, your definition would seem to fit in with unbridled capitalism, almost conservative... lol.

1 - You really weren't referring to anything at all. As per your modus operandi, instead of attempting to engage in discussion you were attempting to correct people by providing a somewhat unread and incorrect definition of a social studies concept to people who didn't need correcting in the first place. You do that better than anyone here but it wears tedious on poor ol' Saxi's frail nerves.

2 - This is not "my" definition; this is the academically accepted definition. (In another thread I said the sun was a celestial body made of hydrogen and helium. It may surprise you to know that this is not the result of any research I have done into the sun but is simply the generally accepted fact.)

Thanks, Player12345!
- Saxi!
Unofficial CC Happiness Ombudsman

YES! Commander Saxitoxin you're correct that the Sun consists of Helium and Hydrogen, but the Sun will eventual have an IRON center which will eventually KILL the fusion. This will result in the death of the Sun.

Your loyal foot soldier,
GS

[tzor]

Let me throw a curve ball here; I would argue that there are three basic types of “conservatism” at play here and that they only occasionally intersect.

Social conservatism: These are the people who take strong moral stands. A social conservative would say that abortions are wrong. (For example)

Fiscal conservatism: These are the people who, for want of a better word, are “frugal” with government money because that money is their money. A fiscal conservative would say that government shouldn’t pay for abortions. (Same example)

Structural conservatism: These are the people who want to keep the structure of government as simple and as representative as possible. In the United States these people are known for having government work as the Constitution designed it to work. Again using the above example, they would argue that it is the state legislatures and not the federal government (cause under the constitution that is not one of their enumerated powers) nor the courts (because they are not elected by the people) who should decide abortion laws that they live under. If the people of New York are for it and the people of South Carolina are against it then so be it.

Most conservatives are a mix of the above three; it gets confusing because you cannot be an extreme on all three at once. Those who are an extreme in any one of the three tends to be radically deficient in one of the remaining two.