The word conservatism is based on the word "conserve". What exactly do conservatives want to conserve?
One of the most immediate questions that comes up when discussing conservatism is what exactly are we trying to conserve? Is it individual freedom? Is it the power and influence of the "enfranchised?" Is it locking in the racial divide? Or is it a fear of change and psychological disorder as researchers at Berkeley so banally suggested? There is an obvious focus on tradition among conservatives, but why does tradition matter?…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
Wait are you saying I misuse them or I do a good job pointing out how they are misused? Sorry I was confused...
27 - Zet
Jim Wynne:
I understand that the foundations for "Intelligent Design" go as far back as Cicero however the compilation that is now being taught in our school systems as science is a new one.
28 - Dave Nalle
PETI you misuse them in the customary way, and in doing so in combination with your listing of positions you demonstrate perfectly how badly they are misused.
Conservatism isn't even a political philosophy, and while Liberalism is a political philosophy, what we apply the term to here in America isn't Liberalism. And they certainly aren't opposites.
Here, I'll run through your points and illustrate.
The "conservatives" in America are the ones that want to overhaul/destroy:
You wisely put 'conservatives' in quotes. You should do the same with Liberal.
1. The existing income tax rates.
This is a Liberal position because taxes are by nature illiberal as they are the taking of propertty by the state.
2. The social security system.
Eliminating the social security system is politically liberal, because the system puts government in the role of caring for individuals rather than giving them the autonomy to care for themselves.
3. Roe v Wade.
Eliminating Roe v. Wade could be considered conservative because it's a desire to move back to the way things were in the 1950s. Aside from that it's a moral rather than a political issue, and the liberal position should be to leave that moral decision up to individuals.
4. Existing methods of defending America. (ie creation of Dep. of Homeland Security). - Accomplished
This is just pure statism or bureaucratism. It's certainly not Liberal or Conservative.
5. Existing methods of wiretapping (ie dont need a warrant anymore). - Accomplished
Clearly neither Conservative or Liberal. Again, a statist position.
6. The environment. - Accomplishing
This is too broad a topic. Conservatives want to preserve the environment, or even turn back industrial progress. Liberals traditionally idolize the environment. I suppose opposition to the environment could be a Plutocratic position.
7. The former government of Iraq and the creation of a new one. - Attempting
A misguided Liberal position. Some Liberals believe that part of their responsibility is to spread liberalism throughout the world. Traditionally American liberalism has not believed in this.
8. The UN. (appointment of anti-UN abassador to the UN)
Now that's just fun. It's also a Liberal position, because the UN is an inherently illiberal organization.
9. Existing system of public education (privatize, not all conservatives)
Another Liberal position. Anything which puts control of their kids education in the hands of parents rather than bureaucrats is a Liberal position. The Liberals who started our school system did not have our current state-run system in mind and it would outrage them.
10. U.S. oil reserves in Alaska. (use much of the last known U.S. oil reserves as a cheap solution to oil prices).
The ANWR oil is not our last known reserve, not cheap, and not a solution to our oil crisis. That aside, this is more of a Plutocratic position.
So what you call Conservatives here are actually Liberal Plutocrats.
Liberals on the other hand want to:
1. Maintain 90s income tax rates that led to strongest economy in the world.
And since an income tax runs directly counter to Liberalism - and is in fact one of the main issues on which Liberals have historically defined themselves, this is a Conservative position. Plus they believe taxes should be used to redistribute wealth, so it's a socialist position.
2. Keep the existing social security system with some fixing.
Supporting a socialistic system of wealth redistribution.
3. Keep Roe v Wade.
Debatable as again it's a moral rather than political issue. I guess Roe v. Wade leaves the decision to the individual so this actually is a Liberal Position.
4. Too late.
But again, this is just growing the bureaucracy, and the American Left always supports that.
5. Return to the traditional methods of wiretapping, ie YOU NEED A WARRANT.
A Liberal position up to a point. A true Liberal wouldn't support eavesdropping even with a warrant.
6. Strengthen laws to CONSERVE the environment and U.S. resources.
A liberal position except that the conserving interferes with the freedom of individuals and businesses, so it's not really liberal. I guess I'll give you that this is a conservative position.
7. Too late.
The left DOES have a position on this, which is to abandon the people of Iraq, which is not based on political philosophy but rather political opportunism.
8. Participate in the TRADITIONAL governing body of international affairs.
Calling the UN traditional is a bit much. This isn't a conservative position, it's an internationalist position. The desire to give up state sovereignty to a larger more socialistic state isn't Liberal or Conservative. I'd argue that it's statist/socialist.
9. Fix the existing, TRADITIONAL public education system. (origins in the 1890s)
Actually it originated in the 1830s, and a true traditionalist would want to move back to the community school model of that era, not the state indoctrination model of the 20th century. This position is unarguably statist/socialist.
10. Protect Alaskan ecosystem, preserve U.S. oil in Alaska for when it is more needed, and find other more effective, long term solutions to rising oil prices.
Which is really all being done solely because they oppose business and the oil business in particular. ANWR drilling doesn't threaten the ecosystem in any meaningful way, so that argument's a non-starter. This is basically a socialist/statist position.
So what we have in the American left is Conservative/Statist Socialism, and certainly not Liberalism.
The opposite of Conservative is Progressive.
The opposite of Liberal is Authoritarian (or statist)
There really are three axis which ought to be considered when looking at our political parties.
There's political philosophy (liberal vs. authoritarian), moral philosophy (religious vs. humanist) and principles of governing (conservative or status quo vs. progressive or experimental or maybe even radical).
A lot of your discussion above is muddied by the way that moral issues have gotten mixed into politics and labeled conservative just because they're judeo-christian.
Dave
29 - Clavos
Dave 28,
WOW! Really good. I learned a lot from that. NO sarcasm, I mean it.
30 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
Another good point Dave, learned some too. Another example of why trying to associate todays "conservatives" with conserving is vain.
And thank you for pointing out I should have put liberal in quotes as well, I fully intended to put it in quotes like I put conservative in quotes.
I was quite aware that the group I classified as liberals has little to do with the political philosophy of liberalism associated with the French Revolution and "a celebration of individualism." Obviously any semblance of a SS system or welfare would imply individuals are to incompetent to take care of themselves which is not at all a liberal philosophy.
But for the purpose of a **simplified** discussion to debunk Bambenek's theory about today's conservatives tending to conserve and liberals tending "to recreate the wheel," I stuck to the groups commonly referred to as "conservatives" and "liberals."
It seemed to me he was associating what are commonly referred to as conservatives today with the verb "to conserve."
Either way his characterization of liberals as those who want "to recreate the wheel," is flat out wrong. Today's "liberals" dont want to recreate the wheel any more than today's "conservatives" do, which was my original point. The political philosophy of liberalism also has nothing to do with "recreating the wheel," as you point out.
31 - Mohjho
"One of the defining differences between conservatives and others is that when faced with an inadequate institution or policy, conservatives will tend towards cautious reform while others seek to recreate to wheel."
Not entirely.
Most of what moves conservatsm out of there 'dogmatic slumbers' is a healthy dose of liberalism. Slavery, emancipation, civil rights, depression era economics all were moved not by conservatives being cautious, but by others forcing the issues that get the conservatives to move at all.
The slow cautious moves that conservatives are so known for are usually the regrasping of power that they feel slipping through their hands.
Same as it ever was.
32 - misterrosewater
There are many ways to define conservative, I believe the most important however, is "to avoid excess."
We should apply this to Government as an entity, the taxes that it levies, the number of employees and social programs that it puts forth and its dealings with foreign nations.
In all of these areas we should focus on avoiding excess. Excess in government funded social programs leads to excesses in taxes. These first two may lead the government to lead to excesses in dealings with foreign governments.
Stepping back we should focus on this, the key meaning of Conservatism.
33 - Lumpy
Conservative and liberal should be avoided because they've lost all meaning and become nothing but perjorative labels.
34 - Zet
There is no Conservative party in the U.S.
What we currently have is a party wich has spun its way into oblivion. The Republicans under Newt's leadership decided to manipulate the American public with soft rhetoric. Understanding that the majority do not read and that we are transported by the strongest media images of the day, they set out to propagandize in a revolutionary way. They developed a network of spin, Rush played along and the Reverends couldn't resist the publicity so they were sucked in. What resulted was a zelous population with strong convictions about NOTHING. It was like taking candy from a baby. The Republicans played bait and switch with ideas and values, used smoking mirrors and code words to envoke fear, hatred and support. The truth is they were talking about NOTHING. The plan backfired. As a result the Republicans have no real ideology any more. They talked themselves out of any real stance. They just want to be in power. They stand for nothing and do nothing meaningful. The politicians are now forced to vote for the stupid ideas that they said that they support. We are in the war right now because they talked tough so they had to back it up. Even the Democrats were scared not to be tough talking, postering, numbheads else they would be called Eastern Ivy League Liberals (meaning smart... god forbid)
35 - gonzo marx
Lumpy in 33 sez...
*Conservative and liberal should be avoided because they've lost all meaning and become nothing but perjorative labels.*
Quoted for Truth
Excelsior?
36 - John Bambenek
As much as I hate to participate in comments anymore, this thread was just too silly.
Perhaps my intent here is unclear, so let me specify.
I couldn't care less, for the purpose of this feature, what other people who call themselves conservative are doing. Not at all, and it's wholly irrelevant.
I'm trying to build a coherent political philosophy based on what I think conservatives SHOULD stand for. Bring in what Bush is doing is stupid and besides the point... even skipping past the fact that Bush is not a conservative anyway.
You'll find much that the GOP does against what I am advocating, that doesn't disprove anything... well except the attempts to simply disregard me as a Republican shill, which the small minds here will do anyway.
Excelsior?
37 - gonzo marx
i don't think anyone called you a shill here, John...
quite the Contrary... good for you for attempting to define your Terms
now, am i supposed to do a drive by Don Rickles here?
nah....
[note to self: Self, send the lawyers after John fer tring to steal the tagline i stole]
Excelsior?
38 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
We're a nation of discontents, John, there are *nearly* no true conservatives.
39 - Baronius
As Margaret Thatcher famously said, sometimes in order to be a conservative you have to be a radical. If there is a sharp break with tradition, the conservative would support a sharp break back again. That constitutes no contradiction.
Intellectual conservatism is sometimes called "the opposite of ideology". It's a reluctance to pursue any radical change. Intellectual conservatism is different from American political conservatism, which is different from the Republican Party.
As an example, take the most radical policy initiative in recent years, the expansion of Medicare. That was neither intellectually conservative nor politically conservative. It was politically expedient, but radical. The true conservative would support the radical step of discontinuing the plan.
If you want the discussion to go from confusing to insane, let's add European conservatism into the mix. That could mean anything from free markets to monarchy to a national religion.
40 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
Was this article entitled "Please Define Conservative in Your Own Words" or something? Sheesh.
41 - John Bambenek
pleaseexcusetheinteruption12-
Well, if you had actually noticed, this is a series, and yes, that's exactly what it is... it's me defining a political ideology that I label as "21st Century Conservatism".
Baronius-
Because people mean so many different things, that's why I'm defining what *I* mean with this series.
42 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
The article is obviously your definition of conservatism. My hypothetical title is meant in reference to the flurry of others offerring their own personal opinions on the definition of conservatism.
43 - Zet
I see a big problem with the Conservative aproach as defined.
America is a very young country. We have had a lot of reform within our short lifespan. These reforms have resulted in the current structure of our society... the one that we are so proud of. The problem is, when one harkens back to the past for answers to solve todays challanges, one is bound to run into some problems because the past worked because not everyone in our society was taken into account when making those policies. We had severe race, gender, labor, environmental discounts which made many things possible in our past. The policies of the past worked because so many could say nothing if they didn't like them or even if they were hurt by them.
In the late 80's the conservatives started using the phrase political correctness when people of various groups started screaming fowl when policy and societal behaviors infringed on the rights and ideals of their group. In the past, these groups had no say so there was nothing to complain about. Conservatives took it that the Liberals are getting more and more whinny when the truth was that people who didn't have a voice in the past could now say "OUCH", when it hurts.
Conservatives pine for the good old days when they were not so good for most Americans. Conserving most of the past would make America unAmerican. America would resemble the societies that we preach to about their need to move towards democracy.
Side note: Jesus Christ was one of the most radical figures in history.
44 - Dave Nalle
Zet, your definition of conservatism is innacurate, self-serving and mostly just an attack on what you think conservatives believe in.
As self-defined in the most positive way, Conservatives in America could most accurately be called governemental minimalists who believe that over the years the government and the body of law have been unnecessarily added to and augmented. They want to strip away the layers of garbage and go back to an idealized time when law and government were simpler, more direct and more representative of the people.
They would counter your argument by saying that in the past all of the people who were not specifically disenfranchised were better and more directly represented. They would preserve the steps taken to broaden the franchise, while getting rid of all of the unnecessary and intrusive government rules and regulations which have come along in the last 50 or 100 years.
As practically applied this means that women and minorities keep the right to vote and other basic equalizing civil rights, they just lose any special favoritism or compensatory priveleges they've gained which set them above other citizens.
Dave
45 - Jim Wynne
Disdain for unfettered bureaucracy ("big government") is indeed a conservative notion, but one that's certainly not exclusive to "conservatives." Therein lies the confusion. I can, if you like, cite hundreds of ridiculous regulations, statutes and ordinances of the past two centuries, many of which are still on the books, that would meet with the gleeful approval of neocons, but serve no useful modern purpose. Conservatives love to make laws and regulations, and they love activist judges, and they love executive powers that make a mockery of checks and balances. Of course, they love all of that until something or someone threatens to takes something away that they hold dear, even though the taking away is done in the name of the greater good of society. Then, and only then, Big Government is evil.
No one gives a flying fack what Bambenek thinks conservatism should be. Conservatism is the politics of selfishness.
46 - Zet
Dave Nalle
I gave no definition of what conservatism is. I was responding to the article and how it defines a conservative.
However, you miss the point. The simplicity of the past existed because there were less voices to be considered. Looking at world politics, in countries that are the most divers, it is impossible to apply a non complex system to govern a complex make up. In a collaboration such as marriage it is easy to see how order and stubility can be skewd because of the divers perspectives that are involved. We are a complicated mix of people. In order for EVERYONE to be engaged in society, complex solutions will HAVE to be applied. EASY is not the most affective method and in the end, it's not the most simple actually. I realise that my comments don't sound folksy (for some reason folksy has been interpreted as wise) but they are lucid.
Currently there is NOTHING in wage comparisons and unemployment numbers which would suggest that that White males are not still experiencing a prefered status in our society. At every measure of social status, White males are at the top. It isn't because they are innately superior. The illusion of preference for minorities and White women is another meaningless and emotion political ploy which has NO real substance. It is a fantasy.
Again, the conservative aproach is established to support what is most beneficial for the privaleged in society. Please see #17 also. Offcourse those who benefited the most would want things to go back to when it was easier to attain and maintain power. Now THAT is simple to understand.
47 - Zet
Jim Wynne
Conservatives claim to have disdain for big government. What they really have a distaste for is regulation and accountability. They dislike systems which give everyone equal footing. They support the most punitive measures for groups that they are not affiliated with. Those punitive measures always require beaurocacy. Its been shown that government grows substantially under a "conservative" leadership.
What we conclude is there are no real conservatives or at best, very few conservatives.
48 - John Bambenek
Zet-
If you want to bring Jesus Christ into this fine.
Part of the mission Jesus came with was to deshackle the people from the excessive legalism of the Pharisees and Scribes. In that sense, Jesus tried to strip unneccessary regulation and laws.
By your own definitions, Jesus is a conservative.
Now, to get past the banalaties...
Perhaps it wasn't clear, but change isn't impossible, nor is radical change. It should be rare, cautious, and necessary. Hence why I said getting rid of slavery was fine, the revolution was fine and so on. Yes, we are a young nation, but we didn't invent our system of governance out of this air... you can point to many philosophers that we drew from. There influence counts for something, which is exactly the point.
There would be no revolution without the body of knowledge that the Founders stood on from previous generations.
49 - Clavos
Zet #47:
Your entire post is nothing but sweeping generalizations and personal opinions. You present absolutely no evidence to back up what you allege.
As an argument for debate, your post is worthless. It's nothing but unsubstantiated conservative bashing, and doesn't even accomplish that with authority.
50 - Baronius
John, sorry about the digression. The point of my post #39 was to address Peti. I applaud your efforts to clarify the word "conservative".
Peti, I don't think that the many definitions offered here are that far apart. You've mentioned conservation a couple of times. There's a sense of preserving the past among family farms. You don't often hear the ideas articulated, but they include:
- care for animals, rather than the cruel conditions of the industrial farm.
- preservation of the land.
- personal independence.
There is a natural connection between conservation and conservatism, even if the leftward edge of the environmental movement doesn't see it.
51 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
This is a shortened list of the definitions of conservatism we have seen so far:
Zet - conservative: opposite of left-wing, a favoring of the priveleged.
John Bamenek - conservatism: the tendency to only promote slow, necessary reform w/o radical change
Jim Wynne- conservatism: the politics of selfishness veiled by a disdain for big govt
Dave Nalle- conservative: govt minimalist
Baronius: intellectual conservatism: reluctance to pursue change
political conservatism: go back to the
past
misterrosewater- conservatism: to avoid excess
gonzo marx & lumpy - conservative: no meaning anymore (pejorative labels)
Me: conservatism: the desire to preserve the status quo, most useful in the days of Metternich as a term for describing opposition to industrialization
Since the "conservatives" were keenly unhappy with the 90s status quo under Clinton, I would claim none of them are conservatives.
Because we are largely a nation of discontents, I would argue everyone wants change in one direction or another and that therefor there are no true conservatives.
Im not quite sure how Dave and several others are fitting govt minimalist into the definition of conservative. A 1920s conservative might have been a govt minimalist. I would appreciate if Dave or someone else attempted to explain how historically being a govt minimalist has fit into the definition of a conservative.
52 - Dave Nalle
Conservatives claim to have disdain for big government. What they really have a distaste for is regulation and accountability. They dislike systems which give everyone equal footing. They support the most punitive measures for groups that they are not affiliated with. Those punitive measures always require beaurocacy. Its been shown that government grows substantially under a "conservative" leadership.
Zet, again you define conservativism as its opponents would define it. What you have here is a smear of conservatism, not a definition of it which anyone who believes in it would recognize.
Dave
53 - Dave Nalle
Im not quite sure how Dave and several others are fitting govt minimalist into the definition of conservative. A 1920s conservative might have been a govt minimalist. I would appreciate if Dave or someone else attempted to explain how historically being a govt minimalist has fit into the definition of a conservative.
I was only trying to define conservative as American conservatives define it today. They lay claim to government minimalism with a vengeance, even though they seem not to follow through on it. This is a legacy from Liberalism, which really does believe in minimal government, and ground they can stake out because the Democrats - historically the real conservative party as both I and Zet have described it - have been for big government.
Dave
54 - John Bambenek
I never said no radical change, I said rarely is it necessary. Generally radical change is an imposition of norms on people by elites. Say, like the USSR, or China.
Many of your definitions are not imcompatible with what I have said in a previous post... this is only one post in a series. Dave would probably be most pleased when I start talking about subsidiary.
55 - gonzo marx
John in #54 sez...
*Generally radical change is an imposition of norms on people by elites. Say, like the USSR, or China.*
or the so-called *Moral Majority*
there, fixT
glad ya help
Excelsior?
56 - Bryan
Fundamentalist Islamic states are simply trying to preserve the traditions that have kept their ruling class in power for a long time.
Is tradition always good? Even if it "works"?
57 - John Bambenek
I didn't say it couldn't go "both ways", no did I, Gonzo?
Bryan-
I don't know how many times I need to repeat the answer to this question... sometimes radical change **IS** necessary. However, just because there are extreme cases doesn't mean that the answer to every little petty concern should be revolution.
And just because Fundamentalist Islamic states have some very bad things associated with them, I would not characterize them as 100% wrong and in need of total cleansing. Things fixed, absolutely, dissolved completely, I'm not quite there.
Which is exactly my point. We retain the good from the past and move forward. Radical change or revolutionary change tends to disregard the bad AND the good. Something things require reform instead of razing. A conservative knows the difference.
58 - gonzo marx
of course you didn't John... i wasn't in any way "attacking" your position
merely adding my 2 cents to it in order to expand and expound upon a Point, and it appears you Understand it completely...
Excelsior?
59 - John Bambenek
Fair enough...
Excelsior?
;)
60 - The Fifth Dentist
"Conservativism" as applied to most self-described conservatives in the United States is something of a misnomer. The prevailing ideology of the Republican Party is more accurately described as a combination of 19th century xenophobic know-nothingism with elements of fascism and a sycophantic fellating of the wealthy, topped off with meaningless sops to easily manipulated morons (i.e., fundamentalist Chritians.) To suggest that there is a coherent ideology supporting this convenient alliance of CEOs, Walmart shoppers, and pyschopaths is laughable. But keep trying.
61 - Clavos
Umm, the exercise is defining Conservatism, not The prevailing ideology of the Republican Party.
Where in the original article did you see the word "Republican"?
62 - Dave Nalle
5D, you're committing the same error that Zet did. You're attempting to define conservatism and in your case also the GOP with your own perjorative definition rather than from their perspective or at least a neutral one. You're just putting up a littany of what you think is evil about the GOP and saying that that is the modern definition of conservatism, when it certainly isn't.
Dave
63 - The Fifth Dentist
Point well taken. There may be three people in whole country who are true conservatives according to any reasoned definition of the term. I was just trying to make that clear. I guess I'm still a little bitter about the bitches who turned liberal into a pejorative term. In my opinion Goldwater was reasoned conservative. He may have been the last real one of consequence. Reagan was not despite the anti-government gloss he put on everything.
64 - Dave Nalle
5D, by an objective definition of the term Goldwater was a Liberal - certainly by the end of his career he couldn't be classed as anything else.
Dave
65 - The Fifth Dentist
Goldwater a liberal? To which liberal views of his are you referring?
66 - Dave Nalle
Real ones, 5D. Liberalism as it has always been defined, not the twisted use to which the American left has perverted it or the perjorative way the right uses it.
Goldwater supported gays in the military, civil rights, opposed the religious right and was pro choice. He once said "When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."
Dave
67 - Zet
Dave Nalle:
I was commenting on the ACTIONS of conservatives not on conservatism.
I am a proponent of conservatism in many areas. I am not a conservative.
In my persona and personal life in general, I am conservative but I don't attach myself with The Conservatives because I don't buy the fact that they are really conservative. They are oportunists in most cases, who use the cloak of being cautious and conservative as a tool to gain a perception of being more dignified and therefore more responsible. They are not and have not been. They have never wanted us to take responsibility for ANYthing and therefore have not wanted America to be honorable in its engaments with its citizens. They have always been the last to accept the humanity of others. Their caution has always been attached to money, their personal atonomy (regarding the environment and nature in general) and to overseeing other's behavior. I don't see that as conservatism. I see that as spoiled and selfish.
There are very few true conservatives still left. To them I tip my hat.
68 - Zet
Dave Nalle and 5D:
Dave you are correct about my comments in that I am speaking to what those who consider themselves to be consertive demonstrate.
The truth about conservatism is that it is nearly impossible to practice in todays climate. It is actually a system which supports balance, moderation with a goal of acheiving accord in society. By its nature however, it doesn't present itself to having objectives.
Many suggest as I do that conservativism can't be a political ideology. It is a frame of mind.
By no means can a Newt, Helms, Regan or Chaney call himself a conservative. These are revolutionaries.
Democracy comes out of abstract thought and not tradition. Democracy speaks to equality and diversity. It is an untested experiment. We have nothing in human history to support the idea that democracy works, yet we are fully engaging in this experiment. By its nature it doesn't permit for conservatism. It suggests flexibility and a constant reform which is forced by the majority.
Conservatism can't be practiced as a political ideology in today's context. Hence the pervers monipulation of the concept.
69 - Zet
John Bambenek
Off course all that we are is derived from the past. We evolve and there is no spontaneous generation.
Using your own definition, deshackling or striping any existing system is not conserving the system....
You make my point. It is nearly impossible to be conservative in political ideology. You can not support reform and yet be about conserving the system. Also conservatism would have to be fluid in that whatever system that has been in place for a period of time would be the system to conserve. Therefore can we have such a thing as a conservative ideology?
We can have a conservative mindset but never a conservative ideology.
Lets find another word for those who support the values that we have attributed to conservatives. I think it's rather deceiving to claim conservativeness when you do desire change and revolution. It only sounds as though one is trying to claim high mindedness, and reasonability when claiming to be conservative. The truth is one just wants their way just like everyone else.
70 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
I think what your trying to say Zet is yesterday's revolutionaries are today's conservatives, a point I was trying to make also.
71 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
In other words, Bush was a revolutionary when he ran in 2000, but now that he has implemented much of his policy he is a conservative.
72 - Dave Nalle
Come again, PETI? Bush has implemented almost none of the revolutionary things he promised us. This is why he's a failure.
Dave
73 - Zet
Dave N
Bush is a failure only if he intended to implement the revolutionary things he promised. Some suggest that this administration came in with an agenda. The campaign with its promises was simply a hurtle to be overcome in order to get to the thrown so that the real goals could be enforced.
I am suprised that you were able to decipher a clear agenda from the ramblings of our then conservative candidate. I have to admit, after one endures the initial shock of the cringe filled moments in the pres' speeches, they become quite entertaining. However, most of the time I cant make it past those iky awkward moments. I end up flushed (in my solitude) and I quickly switch the station to something else just to regain my composure and to get rid of the tingles of embarrasment with seem to take over my entire body.
74 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
Well he got his tax cuts, and his wars, and his environmental policy...if there were any other reasonable things he wanted he could have gotten them passed in his first term, when there were large GOP majorities in Congress that would follow him anywhere.
75 - Zet
PETI
What I am saying is that conservatism is not a political ideology. It is a frame of mind or an aproach.
I find it interesting that we have actually coined the phrase radical conservatives. Huh? Also used is "conservative extremist" huh? Radical right wing I understand. Right wing extremist I get....