Conservative Republicans are neither conservative nor republican

[BR]

So, I saw this comment posted by a user (Kadin2048) in the discussion section of an article regarding censorship on slashdot today. I think it sums up quite nicely a lot of the issues I have with today's alleged conservative republicans. I contend that if you want to introduce sweeping changes in any direction, you forfeit the right to the title of conservative.

The problem is that the Republican party, as of the last decade or so, isn't precisely conservative at all. The Republicans have abandoned just about every "conservative" value or position, including small government (or at least opposing its increase), states' rights, individual freedoms, etc. (About the only thing an actual 'conservative' and a modern Republican would agree on is their stance on gun control.)

They are no longer, and haven't been for some time, "conservative." In fact they seem to want to change quite a lot. They're probably best described as 'authoritarian,' particularly on the social side. And IMO, "social conservatives" aren't conservatives at all; the title is a complete misnomer. They're not trying to prevent some sort of drastic change to the social fabric, they're trying to induce a drastic change. They are, by many objective definitions, actually quite radical. (Of course, they tend not to think so -- they prefer to think of themselves as trying to take the country back to some 1950s idyll that never existed outside their own imaginations.)

The actual conservative wing of the Republican party died with Barry Goldwater; what remains has nothing to do with conservatism and everything to do with pushing a transformative agenda. It's just a different transformative agenda than what the more far-left elements of the Democratic party want.

[dmz]

I'd have to agree with you. I think we've slid into a period of almost strictly populist tactics. Say one thing, granted it's been branded, focus grouped well, and then do whatever you we're going to do in the first place.

Kinda like the left and the 2006 elections. Woooo-hoooo, did they ever clean house and stick it to the maaan.

No.

Long, complicated, principled explanations about foreign policiy or economics -- not going to happen -- just spout "WOT", or "Universal 'free' Health Care" and you're in door. We'll believe anything.

[BRussell]

I disagree. George W. Bush Republicanism is the logical conclusion of all the conservatism and Republicanism that came before it. Conservatives can't now tell us that Bush isn't "really" one of them, after all these years of telling us that Bush belonged on Mt. Rushmore. They've always been authoritarian, they've always believed in powerful government, they've always had a militaristic/nationalist streak, and they've always been irresponsible with other people's money. Bush just took all these existing strands and weaved them into one government. Ladies and gentleman, may I present: Bona fide conservative Republicanism.

[Jubelum]

I disagree. George W. Bush Republicanism is the logical conclusion of all the conservatism and Republicanism that came before it. Conservatives can't now tell us that Bush isn't "really" one of them, after all these years of telling us that Bush belonged on Mt. Rushmore. They've always been authoritarian, they've always believed in powerful government, they've always had a militaristic/nationalist streak, and they've always been irresponsible with other people's money. Bush just took all these existing strands and weaved them into one government. Ladies and gentleman, may I present: Bona fide conservative Republicanism.

:no: Republican Conservative and Neo-Con are not the same thing.

[dmz]

I disagree. George W. Bush Republicanism is the logical conclusion of all the conservatism and Republicanism that came before it. Conservatives can't now tell us that Bush isn't "really" one of them, after all these years of telling us that Bush belonged on Mt. Rushmore. They've always been authoritarian, they've always believed in powerful government, they've always had a militaristic/nationalist streak, and they've always been irresponsible with other people's money. Bush just took all these existing strands and weaved them into one government. Ladies and gentleman, may I present: Bona fide conservative Republicanism.
Yea, but at least we get an entertaining WOT while our nation goes bankrupt!

(Watching Air America go bankrupt isn't the same thing.)


So there.

[SpamSandwich]

Haven't you guys been paying attention? Ron Paul is a true American, not just a Republican candidate. The other so-called Republicans are frauds!

[trumptman]

I disagree. George W. Bush Republicanism is the logical conclusion of all the conservatism and Republicanism that came before it. Conservatives can't now tell us that Bush isn't "really" one of them, after all these years of telling us that Bush belonged on Mt. Rushmore. They've always been authoritarian, they've always believed in powerful government, they've always had a militaristic/nationalist streak, and they've always been irresponsible with other people's money. Bush just took all these existing strands and weaved them into one government. Ladies and gentleman, may I present: Bona fide conservative Republicanism.

I'll have a double of whatever he is drinking.:lol: ;)

Nick

[SDW2001]

I disagree. George W. Bush Republicanism is the logical conclusion of all the conservatism and Republicanism that came before it. Conservatives can't now tell us that Bush isn't "really" one of them, after all these years of telling us that Bush belonged on Mt. Rushmore. They've always been authoritarian, they've always believed in powerful government, they've always had a militaristic/nationalist streak, and they've always been irresponsible with other people's money. Bush just took all these existing strands and weaved them into one government. Ladies and gentleman, may I present: Bona fide conservative Republicanism.

Disagree. GWB is no conservative and really has never been. I've been saying it for years. He was more conservative than Al Gore and moreso than John Kerry, that much I'm certain of. But fiscally he's a liberal, except that he believes tax cuts stimulate the economy. That's really the only difference between Bush a true liberal. He's liberal on immigration too.

Now, I do agree that conservatives tend to be more accepting of national security initiatives than liberals. However, I don't think that means they like "big government." They're just more apt to accept authority and do what they feel needs to be done to protect the country. True conservatives despise the growth of government, particular with social programs. Bush has allowed non defense discretionary spending to explode, and he was aided in this by a Congress more interested in clinging to power than to abiding by its GOP roots.

[BRussell]

I'll have a double of whatever he is drinking.:lol: ;)

Nick I'm high on Hillary.

[Jubelum]

I'm high on Hillary.

That's going to be a bitch of a hangover the morning after. Huge tax increases. Socialized medicine. Limitless left-wing lunacy. Paralysis by Political Correctness. And this time, we can't just throw up and feel better. :\

[e1618978]

That's going to be a bitch of a hangover the morning after. Huge tax increases. Socialized medicine. Limitless left-wing lunacy. Paralysis by Political Correctness. And this time, we can't just throw up and feel better. :\

I have lived in Canada and the US, and spent a lot of time in Australia - socialized medicine kicks ass. Not only is the billing hassle all gone, but the quality of care is higher also for some reason.

[dmz]

Let's not forget America's Pill Fairy, theraputic culture. If health care gets 'reformed' without taking that into consideration, it will be worse than worthless.

[spindler]

Let me try to reconcile the two different types of conservatives we are talking about.

The true conservatives believe in low government spending and no government intervention in business or society. But that doesn't really work and just leads to the second type, the George Bush type where the powerful have too much power and write the rules in their favor.

The true conservatives think that with no rules and regulations that everyone will just stay on their own property and everything will work out great. We don't need to put any restrictions on Microsoft or AT&T. But when you have no rules, the powerful get too powerful and influential. Then they start buying people, buying newspapers and political influence, and you get wars that never end, illegal immigration as long as someone is getting rich off of it, credit card companies and banks out of control, etc.

What true conservatives want just doesn't exist in a state of equilibrium. Checks on the powerful are required to prevent corruption. You can't get true democracy without curbing the powerful people. Conservatives don't understand this fine point because their ego won't allow for anyone imposing a rule on them.

[Jubelum]

I have lived in Canada and the US, and spent a lot of time in Australia - socialized medicine kicks ass. Not only is the billing hassle all gone, but the quality of care is higher also for some reason.

In your opinion, maybe...

[Jubelum]

Let me try to reconcile the two different types of conservatives we are talking about.

The true conservatives believe in low government spending and no government intervention in business or society. But that doesn't really work and just leads to the second type, the George Bush type where the powerful have too much power and write the rules in their favor.

The true conservatives think that with no rules and regulations that everyone will just stay on their own property and everything will work out great. We don't need to put any restrictions on Microsoft or AT&T. But when you have no rules, the powerful get too powerful and influential. Then they start buying people, buying newspapers and political influence, and you get wars that never end, illegal immigration as long as someone is getting rich off of it, credit card companies and banks out of control, etc.

What true conservatives want just doesn't exist in a state of equilibrium. Checks on the powerful are required to prevent corruption. You can't get true democracy without curbing the powerful people. Conservatives don't understand this fine point because their ego won't allow for anyone imposing a rule on them.

Thanks for the further descent into Stereotype 101. You don't get "true conservatism."

The kind of social ills you are talking about will happen just as easily when the government is all powerful, and those that control the government are thereby empowered, just like the evil successful capitalists you abhor. That's what you guys constantly miss in the disucssion. You are so afraid of successful, wealthy people that you do not see that the government sent to hurt them on your behalf will hurt you as well. But that's OK, it is a cornerstone of late 20th century liberalism. :rolleyes:

[e1618978]

In your opinion, maybe...

Have you ever been to a doctor in Australia? They are way better than US doctors.

Even if you are rich in the US, health insurance is a big hassle. I have just been through a number of health care switches due to a period of unemployment, and it is a pain. (Old company plan, then COBRA, then a change to COBRA, then private Blue Cross, then new company plan).

Our medical system is so inefficient that we could have the Canadian system for the same cost as we currently spend on our limited social medicine programs now.