Blogcritics Comments on 21st Century Conservatism: What Are We Conserving?

Comment by gonzo marx on 21st Century Conservatism: What Are We Conserving?

Thu, 24 Aug 2006 00:21:32 EDT

for John in #106 when ya like, scope the figures per capita for the US and those nations mentioned, as well as the rest of the criteria i laid out... which i am guessing is ok for baseline parameters with you as well... ya might just be suprised... more high/low spikes for the US... much steadier growth curve for the others (all this being post WW2, of course) but it is when you scope some of the other Variables i mentioned when things get really interesting... glad yer Interested in actually checking on this, i'm interested to see the "empirical proof" you were talking about... oh yes.. as to why i didn't mention some of the other nations who share a type of hybrid System... the Germans are still absorbing East Germany... and i don't think they have really worked everything out yet... and the French just aren't as good at it as the northern european countries in general... being a much more volatile culture, and more skewed to one end of the spectrum than a balanced hybrid economy/system just my one sixth billionths of the world's Opinion... Excelsior? ]]>

Comment by pleasexcuse on 21st Century Conservatism: What Are We Conserving?

Thu, 24 Aug 2006 00:05:36 EDT

Well I guess the final conclusion to be drawn from the definition John has given us is that we are all conservatives. I mean who honestly wouldnt want to "preserve what works" or "develope where there are gaps" or "reject bad institutions." The real question is, what works, where are there gaps, and which institutions are bad? ]]>

Comment by MCH on 21st Century Conservatism: What Are We Conserving?

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:56:00 EDT

"I have to point out that the flag I bought at Home Depot prominently displays a 'Made in America' tag." - Dave Nalle Wow. All should bow to an even greater American patriot than Rush Limbaugh. Did you know that more people were injured in traffic accidents than those who got hurt waving the flag or patting themselves on the back....? ]]>

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem on 21st Century Conservatism: What Are We Conserving?

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:49:08 EDT

"Socialists are just people who are honest about wanting the government to provide for them. Capitalists want the government to provide for them while pretending they did it all for themselves." Victor, you're not far off the mark. But there is one variety of socialist, the syndicalist socialist, who believes in having people being more or less equal and in having them own their own businesses, competing in the open market; no subsidies, no baloney. You know this concept as the co�perative movement. That is the variety of socialist I am, and this system has worked and does. ]]>

Comment by John Bambenek on 21st Century Conservatism: What Are We Conserving?

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:40:48 EDT

Well one thing jumps right out, namely the balance sheet. Many conservatives would argue against the deficit the US has. However deficits can be due to several things, taxes too low, spending too high, economic slowdown, etc. And not all debt is bad. Using the household example, taking on debt to buy a house or student loans is a smart move, even though it increases debt load. Now, I'm not going to defend the US deficits, but they do make a good argument that certain economic policies have increased productivity and reduced the deficit because of increased revenue from taxes on that productivity. Personally, I'd rather they pay off the national debt by stopping pork spending on things like a bridge to nowhere, but that's me. The point is, the deficit seems to be more a measure of the effectiveness of a particular administration, not necessarily a governmental form. That and the statistics used would have to be over a long period of time to correct for short-term conditions.... ]]>

Comment by gonzo marx on 21st Century Conservatism: What Are We Conserving?

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:30:43 EDT

oh yes,.... and the USSR and China aren't strictly "communist" either.. a long standing euphemism for totalitarian oligarchal distatorships.. but inherently incorrect in the terms of the actual definition of the political Ideology as far as i'm Aware, there has never been a true "communist" government... many who have either called themselves (Cuba for instance) such... and more that have been called such... but none in the actual definitive of said Ideology... just as i can't recall a true socialistic government... always a "mixxed breed" of some sort or another just a Thought Excelsior? ]]>

Comment by gonzo marx on 21st Century Conservatism: What Are We Conserving?

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:26:19 EDT

well, i would think there are a few Objective ways... for the Gov't itself... look at the balance sheet, just like you would for your household for the People of said nations, you can begin with education levels standard of living those simple Variables can give you a relatively simple index... the more complex would be to try and determine much more difficult and subtle indicators that woudl be near impossible to calculate objectively and accurately i wa smerely citing those countries because i have spent some time in each of them... and that as far as i am Aware, the systems utilized by said nations, appears to be working pretty well for the citizens as well as the nation itself am i saying it's "the best" Way? of course not... merely pointing out that in some cases, it CAN and DOES "work" which you stated having empirical evidence to the countrary each of the criteia i listed is easily and readily available, and if you check, you will find it bears out the basics of my statement these nations have decent balance sheets, a high level of education for it's citizens, and a very high standard of living (especially considering what many woudl think of as relatively low populations, and not a hell of a lot of natural resources native to said countries) hope that helps Excelsior? ]]>

Comment by John Bambenek on 21st Century Conservatism: What Are We Conserving?

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:14:09 EDT

Of course China or the USSR isn't socialist, that's communist which is obviously different, but in the same neighborhood of thought. We could talk about the incentive problem (i.e. people will not work as hard when the fruit of their labor goes to feed other people's family). I'm wondering why you skip past other socialist-like countries such as France and Germany. In comparing the two, what means are we using for comparison? I'm not hemming and hawing, but if we are going to have a discussion and not talk past each other, we need to agree on the terms of discussion first. Otherwise it turns out little different than cable news discussion programs where two parties talk past each other beating on each other with talking points. And we all get no where. So how do you propose we compare the governments? ]]>

Comment by Christopher Rose on 21st Century Conservatism: What Are We Conserving?

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 12:31:12 EDT

PETI: Please break your screen name up into individual words. It is too long for the site design to contain. ]]>

Comment by gonzo marx on 21st Century Conservatism: What Are We Conserving?

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 12:30:59 EDT

John..please show your work about "socialism" neither the USSR nor China are "socialist" by definition of their actual, and not theoretical, forms of governance... same with Cuba... these are simple oligarchy's set in a dictatorship mode of totalitarianism closest you have to actual "socialism" are the hybrid governments of scandanavian countries (Norway, Sweden, Fniland, Denmark, Holland) and looking at their numbers, it seems to work ok for them does that mean the same would work for the US? i doubt it... does that exculde the two types learning frmo each other, both good and bad? i would hope not... learning is good, eh? just some Thoughts... Excelsior? ]]>

Comment by Christopher Rose on 21st Century Conservatism: What Are We Conserving?

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 12:29:30 EDT

Mr Bambenek: I'd like to see such proof. Got any references to where I might find it? ]]>

Comment by John Bambenek on 21st Century Conservatism: What Are We Conserving?

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 12:22:17 EDT

Clavos- You will find no argument here. Others- Socialism can be empirically proven to NOT work. ]]>

Comment by Clavos on 21st Century Conservatism: What Are We Conserving?

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 12:08:02 EDT

If anything all your article does is show how hypocritical the GOP is by making the unfounded assertion they are conservatives. They are by in large right wing christians who would as soon favor fascism as small govt if it suited them. A little hyperbolic (not all Republicans are right wing Christians by a long shot; not even most are), but the GOP IS anything but conservative these days. ]]>

Comment by pleasexcusetheinterruption12 on 21st Century Conservatism: What Are We Conserving?

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:57:40 EDT

If socialism works, he can be a conservative socialist, intent on preserving the institutions that make socialism work so well in his opinion. Likewise if he found himself in a minimalist govt capitalist state that was functioning brilliantly, he may want to preserve those institutions. Conservatism has nothing in it inherently opposed to socialism. Your assertion that it does oppose socialism, is part of my ongoing assertion that you are trying to associate the historic definition of conservatism with modern "conservatives." If anything all your article does is show how hypocritical the GOP is by making the unfounded assertion they are conservatives. They are by in large right wing christians who would as soon favor fascism as small govt if it suited them. ]]>

Comment by Victor Plenty on 21st Century Conservatism: What Are We Conserving?

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:51:20 EDT

Socialists are just people who are honest about wanting the government to provide for them. Capitalists want the government to provide for them while pretending they did it all for themselves. ]]>

Comment by John Bambenek on 21st Century Conservatism: What Are We Conserving?

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:37:44 EDT

If you understood that, you wouldn't be a socialist. ]]>

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem on 21st Century Conservatism: What Are We Conserving?

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:30:13 EDT

John defines for us, "Conservative does NOT mean no change. It does NOT mean clinging to outmoded ideas. It DOES mean preserving what works and what is good in social institutions and ideas. It DOES mean developing in areas where there are gaps. It DOES mean rejecting institutions (or more likely portions of them) that are bad." John, we all know that - even socialists like me know that. So? ]]>

Comment by John Bambenek on 21st Century Conservatism: What Are We Conserving?

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:15:25 EDT

Either people are responding to what other people are saying, or they simply didn't read what I had to say. Conservative does NOT mean no change. It does NOT mean clinging to outmoded ideas. It DOES mean preserving what works and what is good in social institutions and ideas. It DOES mean developing in areas where there are gaps. It DOES mean rejecting institutions (or more likely portions of them) that are bad. Ending slavery and the American revolution would not be reviled by conservatives. We simply want to be sure that radical change as opposed to reform is the only path forward. ]]>

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem on 21st Century Conservatism: What Are We Conserving?

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 08:02:06 EDT

I'm glad I do not define myself as a conservative of any variety (I used to be a conservative Jew). I might be attracted to seriously involve myself in this thread and attempt an original thought and find myself stating simplistic generalities, rewording truisms, and/or accessorising a verbal turd-sandwich with a cheap tuxedo from Roget's Thesaurus. By the way, how much does a cheap tuxedo from Roget's Thesauras rent for these days? ]]>

Comment by SHARK on 21st Century Conservatism: What Are We Conserving?

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 07:01:25 EDT

re: Baronius on the flag in #86 -- "There are military benefits to displaying the flag. The soldier knows who to shoot at; the general can assess his troops' positions. But it serves an additional purpose. The flag improves morale." Jeesus! Do you people ever read what you fucking write? Seriously, Baronius, you and Bambineck are in a close race to see who can make the most silly, naive, simplistic statements meant to sound profound. *I'd be shocked if you could come up with an astute, original thought. *One main reason I don't spend much time around here anymore: too many young punks who just discovered their brains and decided to take 'em out and play with 'em in fucking public. Listen, kids: Stating simplistic generalities, rewording truisms, and/or accessorising a verbal turd-sandwich with a cheap tuxedo from Roget's Thesaurus does not automatically make an original, creative thought.It's PS: Hey Nalle, that Iraq thing is still goin' real swell, eh? Gimme a call when "Mission's Accomplished"! ahahahahahahaha. ]]>

Comment by Clavos on 21st Century Conservatism: What Are We Conserving?

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:42:14 EDT

Dave 88: You got something against Hawaiians and Alaskans? :>) ]]>

Comment by pleasexcusetheinterruption12 on 21st Century Conservatism: What Are We Conserving?

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:26:40 EDT

Dave #79, who gives a shit what he said in his campaign? And I guess you're still laboring under the delusion he didnt have Iraq in mind long before he was elected. And wrt his environmental policy.. his environmental policy is EXACTLY what he wants. What Congress wont approve, he has illegally instructed the EPA to perform (or in most cases, not perform) in direct violation of the standards Congress has approved. And yes, you're right, he didnt get his SS. And so what if he didnt get the tax reforms he wanted, he got the tax cuts he wanted which are much more significant in who pays how much in taxes. So I think it's fair to say he has implemented *much,* not all, of the policy he wants. ]]>

Comment by Dave Nalle on 21st Century Conservatism: What Are We Conserving?

Tue, 22 Aug 2006 23:55:12 EDT

Let's hope, Bliff. Maybe slave labor in Guam. I certainly want workers in the 48 continental states to have better paying jobs than making flags. Dave ]]>

Comment by Bliffle on 21st Century Conservatism: What Are We Conserving?

Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:46:25 EDT

"I have to point out that the flag I bought at Home Depot prominently displays a 'Made in America' tag. Dave" Probably made in the Mariannas by low-paid workers. Tom Delay got a special dispensation allowing them to apply the "Made In America" label. ]]>

Comment by Baronius on 21st Century Conservatism: What Are We Conserving?

Tue, 22 Aug 2006 21:01:03 EDT

This is off-subject, but since we're talking about the flag, maybe we can tie it into the original conversation. There are military benefits to displaying the flag. The soldier knows who to shoot at; the general can assess his troops' positions. But it serves an additional purpose. The flag improves morale. Clavos articulates the conservative mindset in post #85. We should be careful in trying to "correct" lessons learned through human experience. If the flag inspires troops, we shouldn't tamper with it (for example, by sending troops into battle wearing UN patches). In military life, dated thinking will get you killed. It'd be crazy to march in formation across the Iraqi desert, halberds and shields at the ready. So there is no "pure" conservatism. But a healthy respect for history can save a person from making stupid mistakes. ]]>