• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What makes a "True Conservative"

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
14,094
Reaction score
4,599
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I keep hearing that Santorum is the true conservative in the race.

How would would describe what it means to be a true conservative? The one act that stands out to me is the Terry Schiavo fiasco. For folks who do not remember that is when the Federal government decided it would impose itself on a family having to make a terrible decision about their child who was on medical machines to keep her alive. Santorum was a key player in imposing the federal government into this decision. How could anyone in their right mind consider such a politician to be a small government conservative.

Or is it because he proposes a lower tax rate in the limbo game of who can offer up the lowest tax rate. Is it because he is not a member of a cult? Is it because he "only" made a couple of million a year doing whatever ex-politicians in Washington do to make their millions versus Romney who made much more than that in business?

Perhaps it is because people fear that Romney will actually get things done even if it means compromise?

So does the term "True Conservative" mean to you a blind adherence to every doctrine, if so who in modern American politics fulfills this mantra. Certainly not Reagan the standardbearer for the right.
 
According to a lot of people on DP, a true conservative is someone who thinks exactly like the person complaining that another person is not a true conservative.
 
I keep hearing that Santorum is the true conservative in the race.

How would would describe what it means to be a true conservative? The one act that stands out to me is the Terry Schiavo fiasco. For folks who do not remember that is when the Federal government decided it would impose itself on a family having to make a terrible decision about their child who was on medical machines to keep her alive. Santorum was a key player in imposing the federal government into this decision. How could anyone in their right mind consider such a politician to be a small government conservative.

Or is it because he proposes a lower tax rate in the limbo game of who can offer up the lowest tax rate. Is it because he is not a member of a cult? Is it because he "only" made a couple of million a year doing whatever ex-politicians in Washington do to make their millions versus Romney who made much more than that in business?

Perhaps it is because people fear that Romney will actually get things done even if it means compromise?

So does the term "True Conservative" mean to you a blind adherence to every doctrine, if so who in modern American politics fulfills this mantra. Certainly not Reagan the standardbearer for the right.

american "liberalism" has-at the economic level-become reactionary parasitic statism so to me true conservatives are the opposite of that. On social issues it gets more difficult to define since you have competing interests of the moral fascism of the bible right vs the libertarian "it's none of the federal government's damn business" attitudes of many of us
 
There is no such thing as a "true conservative".

Conservationism is based on preserving tradition and allowing only slow gradual change to the status quo.

The reality is that the status quo has changed considerably since society has liberalized significantly over the last 50 years.

That means that conservatives can't agree on what traditions they should be preserving and to which status quo they would like to return. Should they go back to the 80s? The 70s? They 60s? The 50s? The Biblical days?

You hear this sentiment echoed in how conservatives associate themselves with conservative politicians who most epitomize the era to which they most wish to return. I'm an Eisenhower conservative. I'm a Reagan conservative. I'm a Bush Conservative. And so forth.

To be a "true conservative" you would have to want to go back to living in caves and painting on walls until we could tell how the wheel thing would play out since we wouldn't want to make any sudden changes to how we do things.
 
Last edited:
A willingness to ignore facts.
 
The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order. - from the Free Dictionary - Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve") - from home dictionary
 
I keep hearing that Santorum is the true conservative in the race.

No, he's not a True Conservative, but he is the closest thing that the Republican Party has spit up in quite a while. That's why he's getting quite a but of support from those of us who are True Conservatives.

How would would describe what it means to be a true conservative?..... Santorum was a key player in imposing the federal government into this decision. How could anyone in their right mind consider such a politician to be a small government conservative.

True Conservatism isn't about Big Government or Small Government. It's about focusing the Government on the proper things and making sure they have the means and capability of overseeing those things. It's about going back to the Traditional and Olde ways of doing things rather than blindly marching ahead with "progress". It's about what one SHOULD DO rather than what one CAN DO.

Or is it because he proposes a lower tax rate in the limbo game of who can offer up the lowest tax rate. Is it because he is not a member of a cult? Is it because he "only" made a couple of million a year doing whatever ex-politicians in Washington do to make their millions versus Romney who made much more than that in business?

Fiscal Conservatism, while a part of being a True Conservative, is a secondary issue to SOCIAL Conservatism. Without Social Conservatism, Fiscal Conservatism doesn't work. One of Santorum's downsides is that he is about Religion rather than Morality. Morality is the higher calling of the two, as it takes the silly mythology out of the equation. As for the money; True Conservatism doesn't care whether you make $10 Million a year or $10 a year. It's about how you make it and what you do with it.

Perhaps it is because people fear that Romney will actually get things done even if it means compromise?

That is a part of it. Anyone who would compromise their supposed values never really had any to begin with.

So does the term "True Conservative" mean to you a blind adherence to every doctrine, if so who in modern American politics fulfills this mantra. Certainly not Reagan the standardbearer for the right.

Yes. True Conservatism is a Black v. White philosophy. It's a Pass/Fail grade. There is no middle ground. There has not been such a politician in this nation since President Andrew Jackson.
 
I think it would be difficult for a "true conservative" to endeavor to run for national office. By definition, they would have to be willing to force their ideas onto other people. I know many associate "religious right" with "true conservative", but I would also submit that the "true Christian" would also have a difficult time forcing their ideas upon others. So, I don't consider Santorum as a true conservative even though he has many similar beliefs. Ron Paul, is probably the closest thing to a "true conservative", but alas, I don't buy into his international policies.

So, I'm stuck with middle of the roader, a religious righter, a danger to the world, or someone with too much baggage. I voted for baggage. But, the policies of the middle of the roader and religious righter will both have less of a negative impact on me (according to my economic and world views) than 'Ole Big Government/Weak International who's in office now.
 
I think it would be difficult for a "true conservative" to endeavor to run for national office. By definition, they would have to be willing to force their ideas onto other people. I know many associate "religious right" with "true conservative", but I would also submit that the "true Christian" would also have a difficult time forcing their ideas upon others. So, I don't consider Santorum as a true conservative even though he has many similar beliefs. Ron Paul, is probably the closest thing to a "true conservative", but alas, I don't buy into his international policies.

So, I'm stuck with middle of the roader, a religious righter, a danger to the world, or someone with too much baggage. I voted for baggage. But, the policies of the middle of the roader and religious righter will both have less of a negative impact on me (according to my economic and world views) than 'Ole Big Government/Weak International who's in office now.

Not sure I agree with your opening premise. Someone in office could rather than forcing his ideas on the public could try to carry out the wishes of the public. Or if his/her ideas are different, try to explain why he wants whatever and be accountable at the time of the next election.
 
Santorum isn't remotely conservative, he's neo-conservative. Conservatives want to keep government out of the business of the people, he wants nothing of the sort. Conservatives want small government, he wants nothing of the sort. Conservatives understand separation of church and state, he absolutely wants nothing of the sort. Santorum isn't conservative, nobody running on the Republican side is conservative. True conservatives have nothing resembling a horse in the 2012 Presidential race.
 
I keep hearing that Santorum is the true conservative in the race.

How would would describe what it means to be a true conservative? The one act that stands out to me is the Terry Schiavo fiasco. For folks who do not remember that is when the Federal government decided it would impose itself on a family having to make a terrible decision about their child who was on medical machines to keep her alive. Santorum was a key player in imposing the federal government into this decision. How could anyone in their right mind consider such a politician to be a small government conservative.

Or is it because he proposes a lower tax rate in the limbo game of who can offer up the lowest tax rate. Is it because he is not a member of a cult? Is it because he "only" made a couple of million a year doing whatever ex-politicians in Washington do to make their millions versus Romney who made much more than that in business?

Perhaps it is because people fear that Romney will actually get things done even if it means compromise?

So does the term "True Conservative" mean to you a blind adherence to every doctrine, if so who in modern American politics fulfills this mantra. Certainly not Reagan the standardbearer for the right.

I can not understand this term "true conservative", were not all Republican candidates said to be "true conservative".

So what does it take to be a "true conservative ", maybe take a lie detecter test . or maybe check your urine?

I have to say back when I was a Democrats we had Liberals and Democrats to chose from ,maybe sometimes a moderate.
However the Democratic party got too wimpy too weak I could no longer remain a Democrat, for I can not in good faith support a weak party nor remain a member.

So I became an Independent, an Independent sees something wrong he/she don't have to check his /her party line handbook he/she just says that is wrong they don't have to overlook the mistakes of the people they are considering voteing for they make the judgement based on merit and what the politician has to offer.

It would seem that the Right wing has made a move recently to corner the political market.
For you have Republicans "right wing", you have Libertarian "right wing " they say different but Ron Paul was a Republican, and last but not least The Tea Party "right wing on acid", and now perhaps waiting in the wings is the "True Conservative Party",
I see a lot of Political Parties, but all mean the same RIGHT WING.
I'm surprised there wasn't a "NEOCON" PARTY in there.

As for me I am an Independent voter I care not if you're Liberal or True Conservative or just plain conservative, Republican or Democrat.

My question is found in two simple questions,
1.What can you do for the progress of America as a nation?
2. What can you do for the people of America , ALL THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA?:peace
 
No such thing really exists because there are too many competing components that make up conservative ideology and no conservative ever agree's how much each particular component should be focused on comparative to the others.
 
no such thing, in the real world, as ideological purity...life and politics is far too complex to allow for purity of any sort.

ideological purity is, almost exclusively, something people utilize to denigrate or debase the other guy and his ideas/positions... IE " he isn't a true conservative/liberal/progressive/libertarians because < insert specific aspect/perspective of a specific position> is not consistent with his chosen ideology"
the specific aspect or perspective is generally chosen by the person doing the judging.. as is the definition of the other guys ideology.

IOW, there is no such thing as a "true conservative"... or "true liberal".... or "true libertarian"... or "true <insert ideology>"
 
american "liberalism" has-at the economic level-become reactionary parasitic statism so to me true conservatives are the opposite of that. On social issues it gets more difficult to define since you have competing interests of the moral fascism of the bible right vs the libertarian "it's none of the federal government's damn business" attitudes of many of us

So you define conservatism by what it isn't, and in particular your imagined hyperbole laden description of what you are not?
 
So you define conservatism by what it isn't, and in particular your imagined hyperbole laden description of what you are not?

I gotta agree with that, there seems to be a lot of talk about what the right don't stand for but little of what they do.

However the left talk a lot of what they do stand for but little about what they don't stand for.:peace
 
I gotta agree with that, there seems to be a lot of talk about what the right don't stand for but little of what they do.

However the left talk a lot of what they do stand for but little about what they don't stand for.:peace

I am not sure I agree with the last sentence, and certainly not in my case. I can think of many things I am against and am perfectly willing to publically say so.
 
I am not sure I agree with the last sentence, and certainly not in my case. I can think of many things I am against and am perfectly willing to publically say so.

Perhaps you should get in touch with the Democrats of D.C. caused I've heard a lot about change and yes we can but by my records I don't see a lot of change, and I've heard a lot of Obama bashing from the right wing political parties, but no retaliation.

Scratch that there were the budget cuts for education, Nasa, training schools, a lot of budget cuts for the poor, and a health care bill that looks like an ad for an Insurance company.
Then there is the unemployment WELL?
I thought change meant making it easier for the next generation, yet once again we pass the debt.

Granted the Republicans have always supported the rich and rich corporations.
What has the Democratic party done any differant?
Rich cuts for the rich budget cuts for the poor and middle class, rich corporations outsource more and more jobs all we get is what?

So in this election I've heard it said many times and now repeat it the voter has to choose between "the lesser of two evils."
And all I see camapaigning is right wing candidates.

If there was a third political moderate party with the power either one of the present parties have , the Republicans as well as the Democrats would lose.

Why for 11 years we have watched and listened while the Republicans and Democrats did the "blame game shuffle" and the "not my fault dance".

The American people are not that stupid both parties have made mistakes to cause America to be in the shape it is today yet neither left nor right takes any responsibility, none so what are the American people to believe that it's all the Right's fault or it's all the left's fault that one party is perfect while the other is morons?
Perfection is always just out of.........reach.
So both parties are leiing.:peace
 
Santorum isn't remotely conservative, he's neo-conservative. Conservatives want to keep government out of the business of the people, he wants nothing of the sort. Conservatives want small government, he wants nothing of the sort. Conservatives understand separation of church and state, he absolutely wants nothing of the sort. Santorum isn't conservative, nobody running on the Republican side is conservative. True conservatives have nothing resembling a horse in the 2012 Presidential race.

sure they do, several of them look exactly like the south end of a north bound horse...
 
sure they do, several of them look exactly like the south end of a north bound horse...

You be sure to point out anyone in the race who put forth the platform I listed. Let me know when you come up with anything.
 
You be sure to point out anyone in the race who put forth the platform I listed. Let me know when you come up with anything.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, really I wasn't.....:2wave:
 
I wasn't disagreeing with you, really I wasn't.....:2wave:

That's fine, just lots of people seem to pretend that neo-conservatives and conservatives are the same thing. We don't have a conservative-vs.-liberal race, we have a neo-conservative-vs.-liberal race. No matter who wins, conservatives lose, we have no conservatives anywhere on the ballot to vote for.
 
There is no such thing as a "true conservative".

Conservationism is based on preserving tradition and allowing only slow gradual change to the status quo.

The reality is that the status quo has changed considerably since society has liberalized significantly over the last 50 years.

That means that conservatives can't agree on what traditions they should be preserving and to which status quo they would like to return. Should they go back to the 80s? The 70s? They 60s? The 50s? The Biblical days?

You hear this sentiment echoed in how conservatives associate themselves with conservative politicians who most epitomize the era to which they most wish to return. I'm an Eisenhower conservative. I'm a Reagan conservative. I'm a Bush Conservative. And so forth.

To be a "true conservative" you would have to want to go back to living in caves and painting on walls until we could tell how the wheel thing would play out since we wouldn't want to make any sudden changes to how we do things.

Liberal = Change
Conservative = Status Quo
Reactionary = Rolling back Change
 
Back
Top Bottom