I am sure some of you are happy I have been too busy to blog in a while but I do have some questions. I keep hearing about the greatness of conservativism. This is of course an oxymoron. Perhaps the greatness of conservativism can be reduced to the residue of an oxidised moron. It seems as though conservatives claim they are for “freedom” in it’s most elusive context — human society. So we can check out this conservative thread, surely history is apolitical even if the interpretations are are not.
Going back to the beginning of this country those who called themselves “conservative” were in fact Tories and against the the Independence of the the USA. Later they were on the side of slavery and against universal suffrage past the age of 21 and for the continuation of segragation.
The Civil war was won by the Liberal side, four score and some odd years after a new nation was born and fought for by liberals against conservatives.
The Liberal West including the USA (Halt the Huns!) fought against the monarchies and empires of Germany (Hohenzollerns), Austria-Hungary (Hapsburgs) and the Ottoman Turks, in WW1. I don’t recall accusations of liberality in those countries with the exception of Bismarck’s social welfare and education access for German citizens, he was fired by the idiot Kaiser Wilhelm II exceeded in stupidity, by his cousin Tsar Nicholas II. What ? Kings are liberal and president Wilson was conservative, right or reactionary? Is green, yellow or orange. Questions only conservatives can answer, sincerely.
How about WWII? FDR. That war was a triumph of liberalism over the dark evil forces of aryan supremacy and the fascisti. Was FDR closer to being a liberal or King George II?
The there is the civil rights evolution ongoing then with blacks, chicanos, Native Americans ansd women as it is now with gays and lesbians added to the crowd.
Viet Nam — a failure of oppression over what? Communism or self determination of people. you decide.
Back to 1215 the Magna Carta. Now was that a concerted effort by the King to force feed freedom into a bunch of lowly nobles? I understand you question the holocaust too.
Quite honestly I can’t find a shred of positive input contributed by conservatives to the ascent of humanity in history.
Did the conservatives want to leave the trees? Did they want to try a new bow and arrow instead of hand held lances. Did they go for tool making or fire building or try out the wheel?
Sorry friends, but it is doubtful that conservatives have contributed anything of species enhancing value to your life that wasn’t dependant on liberal generated education. Otherwise you would be still going for that acorn, wondering how the squirrel beat you to it.
Nice bit of fiction you have posted here. In typical liberal fashion, you choose to ignore fact. I don’t have time to research all of what you proposed, but in taking just your first point to justify your point, “The Civil war was won by the Liberal side, four score and some odd years after a new nation was born and fought for by liberals against conservatives.”
Lincoln was a Republican and a Conservative. He makes this point in fact from his speech at the Cooper Union address. I have posted a link for you can read the whole speech, but in part Lincoln stated in addressing his opponents; “But you say you are conservative – eminently conservative – while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by “our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;” while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new.”
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm
So with this bit of fact and truth, your premise and conclusion that “it is doubtful that conservatives have contributed anything of species enhancing” is wrong, false, based on lies perpetrated by your lack of understanding of history, political parties and probably the actual definitions of conservatism and liberalism.
Sorry to burst your bubble. I realize that blogging is all about uncensored posting, but it also means that we can call you on topics that are clearly written with an agenda, emotional, and nonfactual. Looking forward to your next post.
Nice bit of fiction you have posted here. In typical liberal fashion, you choose to ignore fact. I don’t have time to research all of what you proposed, but in taking just your first point to justify your point, “The Civil war was won by the Liberal side, four score and some odd years after a new nation was born and fought for by liberals against conservatives.”
Lincoln was a Republican and a Conservative. He makes this point in fact from his speech at the Cooper Union address. I have posted a link for you can read the whole speech, but in part Lincoln stated in addressing his opponents; “But you say you are conservative – eminently conservative – while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by “our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;” while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new.”
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm
So with this bit of fact and truth, your premise and conclusion that “it is doubtful that conservatives have contributed anything of species enhancing” is wrong, false, based on lies perpetrated by your lack of understanding of history, political parties and probably the actual definitions of conservatism and liberalism.
Sorry to burst your bubble. I realize that blogging is all about uncensored posting, but it also means that we can call you on topics that are clearly written with an agenda, emotional, and nonfactual. Looking forward to your next post.
OK, I couldn’t just sign out….what about Martin Luther King? Wouldn’t you say he made a very large contribution to our country, its citizens and an example to the world about rights and freedom? Yet, he was considered a conservative both Religiously and socially.
In Harry R. Jackson, Jr.’s January 15, 2007 article “Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr: Conservative or Liberal?” He states that “…King would most likely be a social conservative.”
Food for thought.
The whole article can be found here. Worthwhile reading.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/HarryRJacksonJr/2007/01/15/dr_martin_luther_king,_jr_conservative_or_liberal&Comments=true
OK, I couldn’t just sign out….what about Martin Luther King? Wouldn’t you say he made a very large contribution to our country, its citizens and an example to the world about rights and freedom? Yet, he was considered a conservative both Religiously and socially.
In Harry R. Jackson, Jr.’s January 15, 2007 article “Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr: Conservative or Liberal?” He states that “…King would most likely be a social conservative.”
Food for thought.
The whole article can be found here. Worthwhile reading.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/HarryRJacksonJr/2007/01/15/dr_martin_luther_king,_jr_conservative_or_liberal&Comments=true
[...surely history is apolitical even if the interpretations are are [sic] not…]
Ed–in your extensive vilification of conservatism, at least that phrase holds a kernel of truth, providing you filter it through asbestos. History is a Eunuch if we ignore the political forces that framed it.
For the record, I’ve been a registered Democrat since 1978.
Cheers,
[...surely history is apolitical even if the interpretations are are [sic] not…]
Ed–in your extensive vilification of conservatism, at least that phrase holds a kernel of truth, providing you filter it through asbestos. History is a Eunuch if we ignore the political forces that framed it.
For the record, I’ve been a registered Democrat since 1978.
Cheers,
Alpha6,
I hardly believe you can compare the Democrats and Republicans of today with those of 150 yrs ago. Nor for that matter the conservatives and liberals as we seem to be in a time of bending perspectives, to create division, relative to our present situation. Dig?
But to the point!
Lincolns’ speech at Cooper Union was written and delivered before the secession and the following war.
When Lincoln argues for “conservatism”, he is arguing in the context of the Constitution and the intent of the origional signers of such.
On the other hand I hardly find that his subsequent Emancipation Proclamation was, or is considered yet today,…..conservsative.
As for Harry R. Jackson Jr.s’ article stating that “King would most likely be a social conservative”, I can only imagine the good Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King “spinning like a top” in his hallowed grave.
Again, I hardly think those in the day considered “King…a social conservative”.
This just goes to show the lenghts that we have come in the above stated “bending perspectives, to create division, relative to our present situation”! Star Eagle
Alpha6,
I hardly believe you can compare the Democrats and Republicans of today with those of 150 yrs ago. Nor for that matter the conservatives and liberals as we seem to be in a time of bending perspectives, to create division, relative to our present situation. Dig?
But to the point!
Lincolns’ speech at Cooper Union was written and delivered before the secession and the following war.
When Lincoln argues for “conservatism”, he is arguing in the context of the Constitution and the intent of the origional signers of such.
On the other hand I hardly find that his subsequent Emancipation Proclamation was, or is considered yet today,…..conservsative.
As for Harry R. Jackson Jr.s’ article stating that “King would most likely be a social conservative”, I can only imagine the good Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King “spinning like a top” in his hallowed grave.
Again, I hardly think those in the day considered “King…a social conservative”.
This just goes to show the lenghts that we have come in the above stated “bending perspectives, to create division, relative to our present situation”! Star Eagle
Let us see the short list of Conservatives who contributed nothing:
* John Adams
* Edmund Burke
* Winston Churchill
* Benjamin Disraeli
* William F. Buckley
* Ronald Reagan
* Margaret Thatcher
Why the short list?
A courtesy, for the myopic.
Cheers,
Let us see the short list of Conservatives who contributed nothing:
* John Adams
* Edmund Burke
* Winston Churchill
* Benjamin Disraeli
* William F. Buckley
* Ronald Reagan
* Margaret Thatcher
Why the short list?
A courtesy, for the myopic.
Cheers,
When social orthodoxies in government are faced with a ferocious and sometimes violent dissent, that usually means there is some sort of disagreement, if the rebellion is left it is called revolution and in the forties through the eighties — liberation. If this rebellion is “right wing” in nature it is called reactionary, The Reaction of Thermidor comes to mind (excuse the french). When freedoms, both civil and personal, are expanded it is it is revolution or liberation. When the change is one of increasing control and elimination of those freedoms identified as pacification, law and order and protecting the home land fatherland or what have you it is reactionary. Therefore, the Leonid Brezhnev soviet government was very conservative, while the Mikhail Gorbachov government was very liberal. The secession by the South was reactionary, leaving the North and Lincolns stance regarding the republic and other issues — liberal.
The problem some of you conservatives have is related to historical relativism. Some of the founding fathers would be considered extremely conservative with their exact opinions today, but in the time that they lived, they were (oh do excuse me for this Ha Ha!!!) the vanguard of human social hierarchal evolution. As an example; Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner and yet in his time he was a liberal. Owning slaves today would probably not be considered liberal.
The relativism I am referring to is of course the foundation upon which the reactionary concept of “original intent” is based. But it is a foundation of quicksand. The Constitution has in it the means of changing it as part of it’s original content, pre bill of rights. Thus original intent must include the idea of an evolving change when such change is deemed necessary. That of course is in diametric oppostion to what was presented by Bork and the rest of the miscreants blathering this nonsense.
By 1970 the press in this country was very liberal with TV journalism pieces such as the Harvest of Shame in recent history contemporary to that time , and the Viet Nam war commentary. Recently for us, we had CNN’s Blitzer and FNN’s Hannity, O’Reilly and Hume, OK we’ll get Limbaugh in there too, all media people being hucksters for this administration. The media is reactionary compared to the body politic of 2007 the exact opposite of the situation during the Viet Nam war.
Republican conservatives along with collaborative Democrats created the divisions economically through tax policies including painting the estate tax as a death tax the morons and minions, composing the rank and file of the Republican party could consume with their moral modesty and Taliban christianite education. These same plunderers spawned from the incubator of self aggrandisement, indulged with out a bit of racism, in race baiting their fearful pious stooges, all for raw power (obscure but just to be sure I am not referring to Iggy Pop and the stooges ‘raw power’ album of the early seveties). When naked power is all that matters, one cannot underestimate the value of that mass of ignoratti in the Republican party. Now if the parasitical leadership of that party were only feasting on the paleolithic ignorance of the Taliban Christianite ignoratti and counting their shameless harvest of wealth by the hundreds of millions — I wouldn’t care about their pitiable condition and their foolish pious smiles, I do however care about them as pathogenic vectors because of insufficient healthcare, and the lack of spending because of wages that are too low when compared to the Republican power elite, their lack of education which is the economic justification for outsourcing their jobs and throwing “Old Glory” over it and calling that freedom. I do care because they can’t compete with the Chinese for capital or the world market. Nor do I expect them to lead the upcoming effort to reign in global warming something they don’t believe in or understand even in a conceptual way.
I look forward to reading those comments from those who do feast on this ignorant lot with contented smiles and the flag flying smartly over their domociles. I understand your minions are ready to be a part of the the rabble, but not the discussion.
As I see it we have a country to save and a planet that actually needs management.
What is your plan? and while you are at it, if you can show any contribution by conservatives to the ascent of Homo Sapiens from Homo sapsuckers, please do so. But the plan if any is more pertinent to the condition of humanity.
Lay on Mac Duff!
When social orthodoxies in government are faced with a ferocious and sometimes violent dissent, that usually means there is some sort of disagreement, if the rebellion is left it is called revolution and in the forties through the eighties — liberation. If this rebellion is “right wing” in nature it is called reactionary, The Reaction of Thermidor comes to mind (excuse the french). When freedoms, both civil and personal, are expanded it is it is revolution or liberation. When the change is one of increasing control and elimination of those freedoms identified as pacification, law and order and protecting the home land fatherland or what have you it is reactionary. Therefore, the Leonid Brezhnev soviet government was very conservative, while the Mikhail Gorbachov government was very liberal. The secession by the South was reactionary, leaving the North and Lincolns stance regarding the republic and other issues — liberal.
The problem some of you conservatives have is related to historical relativism. Some of the founding fathers would be considered extremely conservative with their exact opinions today, but in the time that they lived, they were (oh do excuse me for this Ha Ha!!!) the vanguard of human social hierarchal evolution. As an example; Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner and yet in his time he was a liberal. Owning slaves today would probably not be considered liberal.
The relativism I am referring to is of course the foundation upon which the reactionary concept of “original intent” is based. But it is a foundation of quicksand. The Constitution has in it the means of changing it as part of it’s original content, pre bill of rights. Thus original intent must include the idea of an evolving change when such change is deemed necessary. That of course is in diametric oppostion to what was presented by Bork and the rest of the miscreants blathering this nonsense.
By 1970 the press in this country was very liberal with TV journalism pieces such as the Harvest of Shame in recent history contemporary to that time , and the Viet Nam war commentary. Recently for us, we had CNN’s Blitzer and FNN’s Hannity, O’Reilly and Hume, OK we’ll get Limbaugh in there too, all media people being hucksters for this administration. The media is reactionary compared to the body politic of 2007 the exact opposite of the situation during the Viet Nam war.
Republican conservatives along with collaborative Democrats created the divisions economically through tax policies including painting the estate tax as a death tax the morons and minions, composing the rank and file of the Republican party could consume with their moral modesty and Taliban christianite education. These same plunderers spawned from the incubator of self aggrandisement, indulged with out a bit of racism, in race baiting their fearful pious stooges, all for raw power (obscure but just to be sure I am not referring to Iggy Pop and the stooges ‘raw power’ album of the early seveties). When naked power is all that matters, one cannot underestimate the value of that mass of ignoratti in the Republican party. Now if the parasitical leadership of that party were only feasting on the paleolithic ignorance of the Taliban Christianite ignoratti and counting their shameless harvest of wealth by the hundreds of millions — I wouldn’t care about their pitiable condition and their foolish pious smiles, I do however care about them as pathogenic vectors because of insufficient healthcare, and the lack of spending because of wages that are too low when compared to the Republican power elite, their lack of education which is the economic justification for outsourcing their jobs and throwing “Old Glory” over it and calling that freedom. I do care because they can’t compete with the Chinese for capital or the world market. Nor do I expect them to lead the upcoming effort to reign in global warming something they don’t believe in or understand even in a conceptual way.
I look forward to reading those comments from those who do feast on this ignorant lot with contented smiles and the flag flying smartly over their domociles. I understand your minions are ready to be a part of the the rabble, but not the discussion.
As I see it we have a country to save and a planet that actually needs management.
What is your plan? and while you are at it, if you can show any contribution by conservatives to the ascent of Homo Sapiens from Homo sapsuckers, please do so. But the plan if any is more pertinent to the condition of humanity.
Lay on Mac Duff!
Mitch, I applaud you for throwing those names out there. By the way I used to be a registered Republican when they seemed to be responsible fiscally. Now that party is a mass of Taliban Christianite ignoratti run by parasitical plunderers turning our nation over for administration by China. I guess that makes them traitorous scoundrels as well as parasitical plunderers.
John Adams — conservative compared to the Tories??
Churchill — conservative compared to Hitler??
Disraeli — Victoria’s flower boy and just what happenned to that empire, I will still take Gladstones initiative over Disraeli’s reaction.
Will Buckley; said he would be a communist in the ANC if he had been black, in apartheid Union of South Africa. More pragmatic don’t you think. Interesting thinker and debater but how did that enhance the country, humanity; by bringing us Goldwater and the fiscally irresponsible Reagan who also had some kids at Berkley killed protesting the Viet Nam war.
Reagan — Fiscally conservative???? Your laughing too!!
Thatcher — while Ireland invested in educating it’s people, she let capital flow just like we are allowing, right out of the U.K. and out of the possible education of offspring of the unions put out of work by the Iron lady. British glory is in it’s history, forked and done in by the greedy aristocracy during the Victorian age. They are not likely to copy the success of Ireland.
Why don’t we leave the acorns for the squirrels. There are better things to focus on.
Mitch, I applaud you for throwing those names out there. By the way I used to be a registered Republican when they seemed to be responsible fiscally. Now that party is a mass of Taliban Christianite ignoratti run by parasitical plunderers turning our nation over for administration by China. I guess that makes them traitorous scoundrels as well as parasitical plunderers.
John Adams — conservative compared to the Tories??
Churchill — conservative compared to Hitler??
Disraeli — Victoria’s flower boy and just what happenned to that empire, I will still take Gladstones initiative over Disraeli’s reaction.
Will Buckley; said he would be a communist in the ANC if he had been black, in apartheid Union of South Africa. More pragmatic don’t you think. Interesting thinker and debater but how did that enhance the country, humanity; by bringing us Goldwater and the fiscally irresponsible Reagan who also had some kids at Berkley killed protesting the Viet Nam war.
Reagan — Fiscally conservative???? Your laughing too!!
Thatcher — while Ireland invested in educating it’s people, she let capital flow just like we are allowing, right out of the U.K. and out of the possible education of offspring of the unions put out of work by the Iron lady. British glory is in it’s history, forked and done in by the greedy aristocracy during the Victorian age. They are not likely to copy the success of Ireland.
Why don’t we leave the acorns for the squirrels. There are better things to focus on.
Yes, “just the facts” would be nice to hear in the news. I would like to hear some Iraqi voices rather than US politicians deciding on the direction in Iraq. Interviews with Iraqi Shia Imam Ibrahim Kazerooni (303) 506-2300, who was imprisoned 5 or 6 times and had relatives killed by Saddam’s regime, would give welcome insight.
Yes, “just the facts” would be nice to hear in the news. I would like to hear some Iraqi voices rather than US politicians deciding on the direction in Iraq. Interviews with Iraqi Shia Imam Ibrahim Kazerooni (303) 506-2300, who was imprisoned 5 or 6 times and had relatives killed by Saddam’s regime, would give welcome insight.
Ed,
Your analogies and assumptions regarding revolution, rebellion, reactionary, and liberation to name just of few that you threw out is just that, assumptions you have made to support your point of view. You have given nothing to back up or support those assumptions and analogies and I doubt that you can. I can make just the opposite arguement that you did with your statement “The secession by the South was reactionary, leaving the North and Lincolns stance regarding the republic and other issues — liberal.” The fact that Lincoln wanted things to remain the same and keep the republic together is in fact conservative, and as I pointed out, Lincoln even states that this is the fact. Second, even when Mitch gave you a list of Conservatives, you tend to mock and lessen its importance because it doesn’t fit into your agenda. The FACT is they are conservatives something you can’t deny but choose to dismiss.
I find the same issue with Star Eagles comments. She attempts to dismiss Lincolns statement that he is a conservative with an assumption that he changed to a liberal sometime during his tenure, yet gives nothing to back up that assumption. Additionally, even when given a source to back up the conservative ism of MLK, she dismisses that as ‘He would turn over in his grave” but gives nothing to back that up. You guys are going to have to do better then emotional appeal if you want to give any credence to what you are saying.
Lastly Star, it wasn’t me that made the analogy comparing the Democrats and Republicans of today with those of 150 yrs ago, that was Ed’s premise which is completely false and which is why I pointed out the flaw in his initial post.
Great discussion here….like all the input.
Ed,
Your analogies and assumptions regarding revolution, rebellion, reactionary, and liberation to name just of few that you threw out is just that, assumptions you have made to support your point of view. You have given nothing to back up or support those assumptions and analogies and I doubt that you can. I can make just the opposite arguement that you did with your statement “The secession by the South was reactionary, leaving the North and Lincolns stance regarding the republic and other issues — liberal.” The fact that Lincoln wanted things to remain the same and keep the republic together is in fact conservative, and as I pointed out, Lincoln even states that this is the fact. Second, even when Mitch gave you a list of Conservatives, you tend to mock and lessen its importance because it doesn’t fit into your agenda. The FACT is they are conservatives something you can’t deny but choose to dismiss.
I find the same issue with Star Eagles comments. She attempts to dismiss Lincolns statement that he is a conservative with an assumption that he changed to a liberal sometime during his tenure, yet gives nothing to back up that assumption. Additionally, even when given a source to back up the conservative ism of MLK, she dismisses that as ‘He would turn over in his grave” but gives nothing to back that up. You guys are going to have to do better then emotional appeal if you want to give any credence to what you are saying.
Lastly Star, it wasn’t me that made the analogy comparing the Democrats and Republicans of today with those of 150 yrs ago, that was Ed’s premise which is completely false and which is why I pointed out the flaw in his initial post.
Great discussion here….like all the input.
Sorry Alpha but no where in my initial post am I comparing Republicans and Democrats from 150 years ago. To clarify; I was bouncing up and down liberal and conservative threads. I was not limiting myself to American history. Another disconnect is that many call radical “liberal” the two are not synonymous. The secession of the South was certainly radical, but not in any general way, liberal. The South was going against what was the liberal founding of our country, while seeking their own, again radical but not liberal, indeed to the contrary, quite reactionary. I will remind those who claim to be conservative; if one was a conservative in this country, in 1776, you were a Tory and not in support of national independence, period. The very idea of independence, the child of the age of enlightenment was in that context, liberal.
Conservatives are behind the curve when it comes to evolution in social hierarchies. Conservatives throughout known human history have had the attitude of do it the way it has always been done, I see that as stagnation. Some here will attempt to equate nationalism with conservativism or reactionary movements. Throwing flags over a movement that is nationalistic is not equivalent to being conservative; I have doubts about how much self described “conservatives” share political viewpoints with Castro and Ho Chi Minh.
Liberalism brought us democracy and voting, liberalism ended slavery, liberalism brought age qualified universal suffrage, liberalism brought social welfare and general education to many countries (thank you Otto Von Bismarck for standing up to the conservative Junkers and getting that done in Germany and copied here by FDR in the New Deal, oh my and he was a shameless nationalist), liberalism gave hopes for further advances in human social organisations and many utopian ideals only a few that were tried and only one which became a huge effort –communism doomed to failure because humans are not ready to abandon hoarding tendencies.
Conservatives to me are those who talk endlessly about freedom; National freedom, which is not threatened and personal freedoms without the attendant means to get those freedoms. My summation for where they stand , “I and a few in my circle want the power and wealth. When WE want a war WE will be brave and send YOUR children, and a flag if they die for our cause.
My basic challenge still stands; What have conservatives done to enhance the quality of the human species. The one thing I might consider would be the concept of law, usually based on some kind of social tradition on how things are to be done. The code of Hammurrabi?? But is there anything else and is law something the conservatives would even want to claim. Laws do restrict the rights and nature of personal activity. How about inventions. Is there something beyond the hate and war mongering generally associated with being conservative?
I seriously do applaud Mitch for bringing up names. Mitch implies there is a long list, but if he gave the best first it doesn’t look good for the rest. Also those are people, I am looking for deeds, inventions anything. Is there anything??
Sorry Alpha but no where in my initial post am I comparing Republicans and Democrats from 150 years ago. To clarify; I was bouncing up and down liberal and conservative threads. I was not limiting myself to American history. Another disconnect is that many call radical “liberal” the two are not synonymous. The secession of the South was certainly radical, but not in any general way, liberal. The South was going against what was the liberal founding of our country, while seeking their own, again radical but not liberal, indeed to the contrary, quite reactionary. I will remind those who claim to be conservative; if one was a conservative in this country, in 1776, you were a Tory and not in support of national independence, period. The very idea of independence, the child of the age of enlightenment was in that context, liberal.
Conservatives are behind the curve when it comes to evolution in social hierarchies. Conservatives throughout known human history have had the attitude of do it the way it has always been done, I see that as stagnation. Some here will attempt to equate nationalism with conservativism or reactionary movements. Throwing flags over a movement that is nationalistic is not equivalent to being conservative; I have doubts about how much self described “conservatives” share political viewpoints with Castro and Ho Chi Minh.
Liberalism brought us democracy and voting, liberalism ended slavery, liberalism brought age qualified universal suffrage, liberalism brought social welfare and general education to many countries (thank you Otto Von Bismarck for standing up to the conservative Junkers and getting that done in Germany and copied here by FDR in the New Deal, oh my and he was a shameless nationalist), liberalism gave hopes for further advances in human social organisations and many utopian ideals only a few that were tried and only one which became a huge effort –communism doomed to failure because humans are not ready to abandon hoarding tendencies.
Conservatives to me are those who talk endlessly about freedom; National freedom, which is not threatened and personal freedoms without the attendant means to get those freedoms. My summation for where they stand , “I and a few in my circle want the power and wealth. When WE want a war WE will be brave and send YOUR children, and a flag if they die for our cause.
My basic challenge still stands; What have conservatives done to enhance the quality of the human species. The one thing I might consider would be the concept of law, usually based on some kind of social tradition on how things are to be done. The code of Hammurrabi?? But is there anything else and is law something the conservatives would even want to claim. Laws do restrict the rights and nature of personal activity. How about inventions. Is there something beyond the hate and war mongering generally associated with being conservative?
I seriously do applaud Mitch for bringing up names. Mitch implies there is a long list, but if he gave the best first it doesn’t look good for the rest. Also those are people, I am looking for deeds, inventions anything. Is there anything??
Ed,
Nice job of commandeering every political proclivity you perceive as good and shading them under the tent of Liberalism.
While the amusement is still fresh in our minds, why not compare Hitler to Satan so we can make Hitler a Liberal, too—whupps, mustn’t bring any theological notions into a political discussion, you know, that whole “separation of Church and State thing”… my bad.
Your “liberal good, conservative bad” premise is a nothing if not a dialog stopper, don’t you think?
Still, your characterization of Churchill, for one, as a Liberal is hilarious. Do you really expect people to take you seriously when you pull Churchill’s political beliefs into the tent of Liberalism by contrasting him with Hitler? You cling mighty tightly to Churchill’s seminal leadership in World War II, but you fail to mention his contempt for ideas like public health care and better education. I guess those views put him on that ratty sofa in the back of the liberal tent, eh? Especially after your hatchet job on Maggie Thatcher, where you dangle Ireland’s “investment in education” in front of what you contend is her un-stunning Parliamentary leadership…
I’d like to commend you for generating some substantive dialog on this subject, but that’s clearly not what’s happening here.
Cheers,
Ed,
Nice job of commandeering every political proclivity you perceive as good and shading them under the tent of Liberalism.
While the amusement is still fresh in our minds, why not compare Hitler to Satan so we can make Hitler a Liberal, too—whupps, mustn’t bring any theological notions into a political discussion, you know, that whole “separation of Church and State thing”… my bad.
Your “liberal good, conservative bad” premise is a nothing if not a dialog stopper, don’t you think?
Still, your characterization of Churchill, for one, as a Liberal is hilarious. Do you really expect people to take you seriously when you pull Churchill’s political beliefs into the tent of Liberalism by contrasting him with Hitler? You cling mighty tightly to Churchill’s seminal leadership in World War II, but you fail to mention his contempt for ideas like public health care and better education. I guess those views put him on that ratty sofa in the back of the liberal tent, eh? Especially after your hatchet job on Maggie Thatcher, where you dangle Ireland’s “investment in education” in front of what you contend is her un-stunning Parliamentary leadership…
I’d like to commend you for generating some substantive dialog on this subject, but that’s clearly not what’s happening here.
Cheers,
Come on Ed, you can’t seriously attempt to compare the advancement of our society to those with just liberal ideas. If thats the argument you make, then by the same token we can establish as a fact that the terrorism that is infecting the world today and leading to so much destruction is a direct result of liberals and liberal policy under the Carter Administration and its stance towards Iran during his tenure. As such, we can therefore, based on your reasoning, conclude that terrorism is a product of Liberalism.
As you can see, the equation of this is just a audacious as your assumption that someone with Conservative ideas does nothing to benefit or improve the world around them.
Lastly, I love your statement “Is there something beyond the hate and war mongering generally associated with being conservative?” Wasn’t it the North and its war of aggression against the South that lead to the Civil War? : )
Plus, wars are not that bad. Great for population control and look what it has done in the areas of medical advancement, communications, electronics, aviation, and other means of transportation. It it weren’t for wars we wouldn’t be near as advanced with regards to any of these things.
Lastly, you idea that as a conservative, they only send other peoples kids off to war…where did you get that from? I served in combat, and in the Infantry, not some support branch. I still carry pieces of an enemy rocket under my flesh. I find it insulting to myself and others who have served under this flag to imply that we are not someone who is willing to sacrifice so that liberals and conservatives alike can have the freedom to do exactly what you are doing today.
I don’t hate liberals, some of my best friends are liberals. I agree with some of their ideas and disagree with many of what the most outspoken conservatives think. I think that most in this country are middle of the road like I am with a leaning towards one ism or the other based on their beliefs, life experiences and hope for the future.
This whole notion of blame and fault, miscommunication and push for a singular union of ideas is truly what leads to conflict. I sincerely believe that if we as a nation don’t stop polarizing ourselves and continually forcing people into one camp or another, we need not worry about outside forces destroying us, we are well on our way of accomplishing exactly what we may be trying to prevent.
Come on Ed, you can’t seriously attempt to compare the advancement of our society to those with just liberal ideas. If thats the argument you make, then by the same token we can establish as a fact that the terrorism that is infecting the world today and leading to so much destruction is a direct result of liberals and liberal policy under the Carter Administration and its stance towards Iran during his tenure. As such, we can therefore, based on your reasoning, conclude that terrorism is a product of Liberalism.
As you can see, the equation of this is just a audacious as your assumption that someone with Conservative ideas does nothing to benefit or improve the world around them.
Lastly, I love your statement “Is there something beyond the hate and war mongering generally associated with being conservative?” Wasn’t it the North and its war of aggression against the South that lead to the Civil War? : )
Plus, wars are not that bad. Great for population control and look what it has done in the areas of medical advancement, communications, electronics, aviation, and other means of transportation. It it weren’t for wars we wouldn’t be near as advanced with regards to any of these things.
Lastly, you idea that as a conservative, they only send other peoples kids off to war…where did you get that from? I served in combat, and in the Infantry, not some support branch. I still carry pieces of an enemy rocket under my flesh. I find it insulting to myself and others who have served under this flag to imply that we are not someone who is willing to sacrifice so that liberals and conservatives alike can have the freedom to do exactly what you are doing today.
I don’t hate liberals, some of my best friends are liberals. I agree with some of their ideas and disagree with many of what the most outspoken conservatives think. I think that most in this country are middle of the road like I am with a leaning towards one ism or the other based on their beliefs, life experiences and hope for the future.
This whole notion of blame and fault, miscommunication and push for a singular union of ideas is truly what leads to conflict. I sincerely believe that if we as a nation don’t stop polarizing ourselves and continually forcing people into one camp or another, we need not worry about outside forces destroying us, we are well on our way of accomplishing exactly what we may be trying to prevent.
Alpha6,
I have added a bit here and there for your clarification.
I hardly believe you can compare the Democrats and Republicans of today with those of 150 yrs ago. Nor for that matter the conservatives and liberals. We seem to be in a time of bending perspectives, to create division, relative to our present situation. Dig?
But to the point!
Lincolns’ speech at Cooper Union was written and delivered before the secession and the following war.
When Lincoln argues for “conservatism”, he is arguing in the context of the Constitution and the intent of the origional signers of such in relation to the issue of expanding slavery to the countries new “Territories”.
This is pretty black and white (no pun intended) to me after reading the speach. Although reading his explanation of such you can see how all of this liberal-conservate labeling is really subjective to the issue and perspectives of the times.
See my points above and below.
On the other hand I hardly find that his subsequent Emancipation Proclamation was, or is considered yet today,…..conservsative.
Again, this is exceptionally black and white to me but maybe you can give me your perspective alpha6. Was Lincolns’ Emancipation (a liberal or a conserative) Proclamation? What you say alpha6?
As for Harry R. Jackson Jr.s’ article stating that “King would most likely be a social conservative”, I can only imagine the good Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King “spinning like a top” in his hallowed grave.
Talk about having nothing to back that statement up. Jackson doesn’t even come close. Certainly not in the context of Kings actions of time.
Again, I hardly think those in the day (I being one)considered “King…a social conservative”. And alpha6, can you possibly argue the point that those calling Dr. King with death threats were LIBERALS.
This just goes to show the lenghts that we have come in the above stated “bending perspectives, to create division, relative to our present situation”
As far as Eds so called “attempt to compare the advancement of our society to those with just liberal ideas”, I can certainly see his point from social perspective.
But then you have alpha6 and his statment…” wars are not that bad. Great for population control and look what it has done in the areas of medical advancement, communications, electronics, aviation, and other means of transportation. It it weren’t for wars we wouldn’t be near as advanced with regards to any of these things.
BINGO!!! There you have it.
The perfect yin-yang of the liberal-conservative argument.
What a balanced and beautiful world we live in.
Or perhaps not!
Enter one solution. Eliminate the Republicans and the Democrats and revise this present elective system. Get rid of private money.
Here we go…I have a feeling the conservo boys ain’t gonna like this one. Social problem you know. Don’t go there, don’t need to change nuthin…damnit!
Ohh and by the way alpha6, going back to Ed and his reference to Iggy Pop and the music of the early 70′s here is another one for you.
This one from Iggy contemporary Lou Reed dated 1972.
Seems… Star Eagle-”Holly came from Miami, F.L.A.
Hitch-hiked her way across the USA
Plucked her eyebrows on the way
Shaved her legs and then” she was a… he?
He “says, Hey babe
Take a walk on the wild side
Hey honey
Take a walk on the wild side…
and the coloured girls say,
doo do doo do doo do do doo”
Dug! Star Eagle
Alpha6,
I have added a bit here and there for your clarification.
I hardly believe you can compare the Democrats and Republicans of today with those of 150 yrs ago. Nor for that matter the conservatives and liberals. We seem to be in a time of bending perspectives, to create division, relative to our present situation. Dig?
But to the point!
Lincolns’ speech at Cooper Union was written and delivered before the secession and the following war.
When Lincoln argues for “conservatism”, he is arguing in the context of the Constitution and the intent of the origional signers of such in relation to the issue of expanding slavery to the countries new “Territories”.
This is pretty black and white (no pun intended) to me after reading the speach. Although reading his explanation of such you can see how all of this liberal-conservate labeling is really subjective to the issue and perspectives of the times.
See my points above and below.
On the other hand I hardly find that his subsequent Emancipation Proclamation was, or is considered yet today,…..conservsative.
Again, this is exceptionally black and white to me but maybe you can give me your perspective alpha6. Was Lincolns’ Emancipation (a liberal or a conserative) Proclamation? What you say alpha6?
As for Harry R. Jackson Jr.s’ article stating that “King would most likely be a social conservative”, I can only imagine the good Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King “spinning like a top” in his hallowed grave.
Talk about having nothing to back that statement up. Jackson doesn’t even come close. Certainly not in the context of Kings actions of time.
Again, I hardly think those in the day (I being one)considered “King…a social conservative”. And alpha6, can you possibly argue the point that those calling Dr. King with death threats were LIBERALS.
This just goes to show the lenghts that we have come in the above stated “bending perspectives, to create division, relative to our present situation”
As far as Eds so called “attempt to compare the advancement of our society to those with just liberal ideas”, I can certainly see his point from social perspective.
But then you have alpha6 and his statment…” wars are not that bad. Great for population control and look what it has done in the areas of medical advancement, communications, electronics, aviation, and other means of transportation. It it weren’t for wars we wouldn’t be near as advanced with regards to any of these things.
BINGO!!! There you have it.
The perfect yin-yang of the liberal-conservative argument.
What a balanced and beautiful world we live in.
Or perhaps not!
Enter one solution. Eliminate the Republicans and the Democrats and revise this present elective system. Get rid of private money.
Here we go…I have a feeling the conservo boys ain’t gonna like this one. Social problem you know. Don’t go there, don’t need to change nuthin…damnit!
Ohh and by the way alpha6, going back to Ed and his reference to Iggy Pop and the music of the early 70′s here is another one for you.
This one from Iggy contemporary Lou Reed dated 1972.
Seems… Star Eagle-”Holly came from Miami, F.L.A.
Hitch-hiked her way across the USA
Plucked her eyebrows on the way
Shaved her legs and then” she was a… he?
He “says, Hey babe
Take a walk on the wild side
Hey honey
Take a walk on the wild side…
and the coloured girls say,
doo do doo do doo do do doo”
Dug! Star Eagle
Was Churchill conservative compared to Neville Chamberlain, absolutely and vastly more intelligent in political life. Was Churchill liberal compared to Hitler, I happen to think so, he was also more liberal than King George III. Humanity has become more progressively liberal over thousands of years.
Why deny it. Continue to be amused. If any of you think for a minute that I think Churchill was liberal WITHIN English politics during the period from 1935 to his death, then you are most assuredly overestimating your understanding of where I am coming from.
If one were to take two lines where there is a left line (liberal extreme) and a right line (conservative extreme) describing a spectrum of acceptable human behavior at chronologically sequenced times, Both lines would have drifted to the left with the “conservative’ line moving more than the “liberal” line. There a few remnants of slavery and state sponsored homocides(execution)but things like universal healthcare and access to education have lagged far behind where humanity should be.
Mitch, you may be a democrat but that doesn’t make you a liberal within American politics. But both you and Alpha are more liberal than the wahabist herecy and yikes, much closer to where I stand than where the Wahabists stand. Our country is much more liberal than where those heretical looneyticks stand. If I am wrong, Saudi Arabia might be a good place for conservatives to relocate.
Alpha, all opportunities for wars shouldn’t be taken advantage of. The technology of today will not produce the results of the past you refer too, if there is an all out war. I also do not believe you would fight for this president, I want to believe you did fight for this counrty but that is not Bush. Was WWII a case where the US didn’t think efforts to create a third reich didn’t go far enough? Wars have provided a great stimulus for technology that sometimes has a second use and is helpful — radar, and the turbojet come to mind.
Do either of you or anyone you know have a plan for planetary management? Global warming or is that fiction based on science which is phoney mumbo jumbo garbage. Where does humanity go from here? Ignorant pious tribes killing each other over religious books, skin and language? Conservative claim they won the cold war and I consider that rubbish. Nevertheless. Do you conservatives have a coherent plan for the ascent of humanity?? Or will we continue hiding in nation states with all the sense good self respecting trilobites had? What do you think America can do to lead the way?? Have another war!!! I am sure you have something besides that “solution.”
Was Churchill conservative compared to Neville Chamberlain, absolutely and vastly more intelligent in political life. Was Churchill liberal compared to Hitler, I happen to think so, he was also more liberal than King George III. Humanity has become more progressively liberal over thousands of years.
Why deny it. Continue to be amused. If any of you think for a minute that I think Churchill was liberal WITHIN English politics during the period from 1935 to his death, then you are most assuredly overestimating your understanding of where I am coming from.
If one were to take two lines where there is a left line (liberal extreme) and a right line (conservative extreme) describing a spectrum of acceptable human behavior at chronologically sequenced times, Both lines would have drifted to the left with the “conservative’ line moving more than the “liberal” line. There a few remnants of slavery and state sponsored homocides(execution)but things like universal healthcare and access to education have lagged far behind where humanity should be.
Mitch, you may be a democrat but that doesn’t make you a liberal within American politics. But both you and Alpha are more liberal than the wahabist herecy and yikes, much closer to where I stand than where the Wahabists stand. Our country is much more liberal than where those heretical looneyticks stand. If I am wrong, Saudi Arabia might be a good place for conservatives to relocate.
Alpha, all opportunities for wars shouldn’t be taken advantage of. The technology of today will not produce the results of the past you refer too, if there is an all out war. I also do not believe you would fight for this president, I want to believe you did fight for this counrty but that is not Bush. Was WWII a case where the US didn’t think efforts to create a third reich didn’t go far enough? Wars have provided a great stimulus for technology that sometimes has a second use and is helpful — radar, and the turbojet come to mind.
Do either of you or anyone you know have a plan for planetary management? Global warming or is that fiction based on science which is phoney mumbo jumbo garbage. Where does humanity go from here? Ignorant pious tribes killing each other over religious books, skin and language? Conservative claim they won the cold war and I consider that rubbish. Nevertheless. Do you conservatives have a coherent plan for the ascent of humanity?? Or will we continue hiding in nation states with all the sense good self respecting trilobites had? What do you think America can do to lead the way?? Have another war!!! I am sure you have something besides that “solution.”
From 1968 to 1992 twenty four years Republicans held the Presidency for twenty of those years broken only by the PResidency of James Earl Carter of PLains GA. I remember well how Carter was blamed for almost everything under the sun the following twelve years. CArter inherited a country still recovering from Viet Nam, Watergate and the biggest action O.P.E.C. has ever made, getting oil prices to 12USD per barrell from 3USD. There are a lot of reasons that were called motives for this situation. Certainly the fact that Israel was not in the sea was one of them. But what about our good friend Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who we installed in 1953, eliminating a popular government and resurrecting the defunct peacock throne, after hundreds and maybe a thousand years, the best seat in the house of Iran? Our policy was to protect this miscreant, our miscreant. What did our good friend do during the oil embargo? As our good friend, the Shah was the leading price hawk. Our rationalisation from the day was that those higher oil prices meant that he had more currency to use to buy more weapons from us. The dough was coming back to the US, through weapon sales. I guess that makes sense, the military industrial complex gets weapon sales funded by American workers, laundered through our friend the Shah. A simple tax to support the military industrial complex might have been better, but golly gee a tax is just so completely in violation of economic freedom.
Of course the Shah put his petro dollars to good use and those purchased weapons certainly helped fund SAVAK — his secret police, winning friends and influencing people, or so we were expected to assume.
Jimmy CArter inherited the intelligence of the CIA. CArter, a nuclear engineer, eventually broke down in certain areas and began trusting some people in government. The CIA may or probably had some inkling that all was not well in Iran. It is possible but unlikely by 1978 the CIA was unaware of the tectonic changes wrought by the death of Gamel Abdel Nasser, the most visible and by far the most charismatic secular leader in the Arabic world back in 1970, of heart attack. Anwar Sadat sought to fill that vacuum with the Yom Kipper war in 1973, the halcyon of Arabic efforts to push Israel into the sea. Had that war gone on, Israel which was already turning it around, would have crushed the the invaders. (I have often wondered why they didn’t wait for updated battlefield intelligence before accepting the ensiung peace.).
The larger Islamic world including the Shi’a saw the failure to push ISrael into the sea, as a failure of secularism. Additionally, within Iran, SAVAK the tool of the Shah failed to win friends and influenced the Iranians to think the unknown of the Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini then residing in FRance would be better than the known monster of the SHah. To help matters in the Islamic world, the Godless Soviets invaded Afghanistan replacing the leaders there with one of their short term friends. Meanwhile, the Wahabists took over Meccah and our friends in the royal house of Ibn Saud adopted the Wahabist blueprint for Sunni interpretation. The alternative was probable extinction of the royal family.
Jimmy Carter has some blame for the problem in Iran, but certainly not even most of it. Our foreign policy for the region remains consistently at odds with any reasonable solution, perhaps the goal. Even so, going back to the thrust of this blog, I share more in common with most self identified American conservatives than liberals from repressive societies. A liberal in Kuwait is ready to have women vote, I support that effort, but in this country the Kuwaiti liberal most likely would be extremely conservative socially speaking. Our country still represents the last best hope for the ascent of humanity, again I ask what are the conservative plans for the future what is your vision? Leadership may contribute to history (Hitler, and Thatcher yes I now totally different results from leadership), but I am looking for something that will contribute to the ascent of humanity. A new wheel, agriculture, turbojet, democracy…
From 1968 to 1992 twenty four years Republicans held the Presidency for twenty of those years broken only by the PResidency of James Earl Carter of PLains GA. I remember well how Carter was blamed for almost everything under the sun the following twelve years. CArter inherited a country still recovering from Viet Nam, Watergate and the biggest action O.P.E.C. has ever made, getting oil prices to 12USD per barrell from 3USD. There are a lot of reasons that were called motives for this situation. Certainly the fact that Israel was not in the sea was one of them. But what about our good friend Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who we installed in 1953, eliminating a popular government and resurrecting the defunct peacock throne, after hundreds and maybe a thousand years, the best seat in the house of Iran? Our policy was to protect this miscreant, our miscreant. What did our good friend do during the oil embargo? As our good friend, the Shah was the leading price hawk. Our rationalisation from the day was that those higher oil prices meant that he had more currency to use to buy more weapons from us. The dough was coming back to the US, through weapon sales. I guess that makes sense, the military industrial complex gets weapon sales funded by American workers, laundered through our friend the Shah. A simple tax to support the military industrial complex might have been better, but golly gee a tax is just so completely in violation of economic freedom.
Of course the Shah put his petro dollars to good use and those purchased weapons certainly helped fund SAVAK — his secret police, winning friends and influencing people, or so we were expected to assume.
Jimmy CArter inherited the intelligence of the CIA. CArter, a nuclear engineer, eventually broke down in certain areas and began trusting some people in government. The CIA may or probably had some inkling that all was not well in Iran. It is possible but unlikely by 1978 the CIA was unaware of the tectonic changes wrought by the death of Gamel Abdel Nasser, the most visible and by far the most charismatic secular leader in the Arabic world back in 1970, of heart attack. Anwar Sadat sought to fill that vacuum with the Yom Kipper war in 1973, the halcyon of Arabic efforts to push Israel into the sea. Had that war gone on, Israel which was already turning it around, would have crushed the the invaders. (I have often wondered why they didn’t wait for updated battlefield intelligence before accepting the ensiung peace.).
The larger Islamic world including the Shi’a saw the failure to push ISrael into the sea, as a failure of secularism. Additionally, within Iran, SAVAK the tool of the Shah failed to win friends and influenced the Iranians to think the unknown of the Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini then residing in FRance would be better than the known monster of the SHah. To help matters in the Islamic world, the Godless Soviets invaded Afghanistan replacing the leaders there with one of their short term friends. Meanwhile, the Wahabists took over Meccah and our friends in the royal house of Ibn Saud adopted the Wahabist blueprint for Sunni interpretation. The alternative was probable extinction of the royal family.
Jimmy Carter has some blame for the problem in Iran, but certainly not even most of it. Our foreign policy for the region remains consistently at odds with any reasonable solution, perhaps the goal. Even so, going back to the thrust of this blog, I share more in common with most self identified American conservatives than liberals from repressive societies. A liberal in Kuwait is ready to have women vote, I support that effort, but in this country the Kuwaiti liberal most likely would be extremely conservative socially speaking. Our country still represents the last best hope for the ascent of humanity, again I ask what are the conservative plans for the future what is your vision? Leadership may contribute to history (Hitler, and Thatcher yes I now totally different results from leadership), but I am looking for something that will contribute to the ascent of humanity. A new wheel, agriculture, turbojet, democracy…
Edward Troy,
You too have the proper prospective of history and what we are really up against today.
You too keep up the good work and thank you Con-Man for providing the forum for real dialoge on these important issues before us as we yes…Keep the faith!
Star Eagle
Edward Troy,
You too have the proper prospective of history and what we are really up against today.
You too keep up the good work and thank you Con-Man for providing the forum for real dialoge on these important issues before us as we yes…Keep the faith!
Star Eagle