• 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!

Interesting question for Conservatives/rightwingers.

Which thinker/Pundit has influenced you most?


  • Total voters
    17
Thomas Jefferson

BTW, Hannity is a dumbass douche bag. He never has anything of any intellectual value to say and should be ignored in all instances.

I usually just laugh at him then change the channel.
 
I would have to say a combination of Glenn Beck and Michael Savage have got me out of the whole "Republicans good, democrats bad" mentality. Stereotypically republicans are generally conservative and patriotic, but that is not always true. Just look at the ones who claim to support the troops and salute the flag when they turn around and toss the salad of multinational corporations by allowing jobs to outsource,allow 12-20 million plus of people from other countries to invade our country with out even the use of a weapon, allow foreign countries and companies to run our ports and many other unpatriotic/anti-American things.

When GWB was speaking out of the leftist side of his mouth ..."The baby boomers are all dead so lets bring in 12 to 20 million foriegners", I thought ,"hell this guy is going to compound the terror of fair trade with fair imigration".( I can`t really say I heard a huge sucking sound ,it was more a blow...). I too am conservative, but the neo con liberalpubs have driven me back to the center. Very glad for your inputs JR. You speak out, and you speak volumes of truth.
 
I'm most greatly influenced by Maxine Waters. Whenever she's on tv the one thing I know for sure is whatever she is I can't be. And she's been around forever.
 
Limbaugh and Adams
 
I'm most greatly influenced by Maxine Waters. Whenever she's on tv the one thing I know for sure is whatever she is I can't be. And she's been around forever.

This is actually a much better answer than my earlier one. Ever since I can remember, I've agreed with probably as many Democratic policies as I have Republican. It's honestly just been my experience with Democratic politicians, faculty and friends that has really driven home the point that I want nothing to do with that party. The ideals? Not so bad.
 
Hmm . . . on that list, I'm not seeing John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau . . .
 
This is actually a much better answer than my earlier one. Ever since I can remember, I've agreed with probably as many Democratic policies as I have Republican. It's honestly just been my experience with Democratic politicians, faculty and friends that has really driven home the point that I want nothing to do with that party. The ideals? Not so bad.

Yeah it's more a case of fleeing certain types vs any hardcore embracing of conservatism.
 
Hmm . . . on that list, I'm not seeing John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau . . .

There is a ten answer limit to polls, hence the other option.

Anyway the first four are not strictly Conservative thinkers, well maybe Smith in some ways, allow they could be called rightwing in some ways of looking at thing. The latter two would be hard to be to call even rightwing.
 
Well, that's the problem, isn't it? There's no consistent definition of "conservative" or even "right-wing." (Except when liberals use it to describe whoever the bad guy in any situation is, like the "conservative" and "right-wing" Communists who staged a brief coup against Gorbachev in 1991.)

I choose them because they're individualists and limited-government types, which is what conservatism is to me -- the Anglo-Scottish Enlightenment. That's what "conversatism" is in the American sense. Not the same in the European sense, certainly.
 
Well, that's the problem, isn't it? There's no consistent definition of "conservative" or even "right-wing." (Except when liberals use it to describe whoever the bad guy in any situation is, like the "conservative" and "right-wing" Communists who staged a brief coup against Gorbachev in 1991.)

I choose them because they're individualists and limited-government types, which is what conservatism is to me -- the Anglo-Scottish Enlightenment. That's what "conversatism" is in the American sense. Not the same in the European sense, certainly.

Well Conservatism can be summed up in the Burkean sense if not too precisely. It differs between the Continental European and the Anglo-American sense, with the latter being more influenced by classical liberalism, but they both have a core of ideas and I don't think even the Anglo-American sense could be said to be individualist particularly in the vein of Thoreau. The social nature of man and the importance of intermediate associations has always been a key plank of Conservatism.
 
Actually, one of the criticisms liberals over here like to make against conservatives is that they're supposedly "every man for himself."

American conservatives like individualism. Most would find themselves quite at home reading "Self-Reliance."
 
Actually, one of the criticisms liberals over here like to make against conservatives is that they're supposedly "every man for himself."

American conservatives like individualism. Most would find themselves quite at home reading "Self-Reliance."

American and British Conservatism have their differences but they are still similar enough to be categorised as Anglo-American Conservatism. And despite the influence of classical liberalism and some modest individualism Anglo-American Conservatism can certainly not be said to be individualist.

Conservatism revolves around the social and associational nature of man to a great degree. One of the eternal ideas in Conservatism is the need for stable, hierarchical social relationships and associations and the effect that atomistic individualism can have on said social relationships, particularly in strengthening the political state through weakening men and removing the functions of those vital organisations like family, community and church which stand between the individual and the state. Self-reliance means little to a Conservative who always remembers how much men need social associations, social belief systems and "the great bank of the capital of the wisdom of ages and nations" that is tradition because individually he is weak with his limited individual faculties and reason.

The individualism of Thoreau and Emerson, despite how much I like it and have been influenced by it, cannot be said to be very Conservative at all. It is classicalo liberal to the core, revolving around men who are self-sufficient and autonomous and who have little need for social relationships, tradition and the like.
 
Last edited:
I don’t listen to the listed, I rather think. Sometimes I listen to liberals and get a lot more info about liberals then I get from the listed, - each time when they open their mouth liberals and democrats demonstrate their hatred a lot more convincing than Rush when he opens his mouth to demonstrate their hatred.

But on other hand I am not a conservative, I am known as a neocon – the name liberals use to scare children with when children try to act as children and refuse to act as democrats.
 
Conservatism revolves around the social and associational nature of man to a great degree. One of the eternal ideas in Conservatism is the need for stable, hierarchical social relationships and associations and the effect that atomistic individualism can have on said social relationships, particularly in strengthening the political state through weakening men and removing the functions of those vital organisations like family, community and church which stand between the individual and the state. Self-reliance means little to a Conservative who always remembers how much men need social associations, social belief systems and "the great bank of the capital of the wisdom of ages and nations" that is tradition because individually he is weak with his limited individual faculties and reason.

The individualism of Thoreau and Emerson, despite how much I like it and have been influenced by it, cannot be said to be very Conservative at all. It is classicalo liberal to the core, revolving around men who are self-sufficient and autonomous and who have little need for social relationships, tradition and the like.

You may be describing British conservatism, but that's not the core of American conservatism. At best, it describes facets of the Neo-Conservative movement, and I use that in its true form, not the bastardization of it proffered by rabid opponents of Bush. Neo-Conservatives are former Marxists who never lost their affinity for big government.

But that's not what the core of American conservatism is. The core of American conservatism is classical liberalism. I mean, I attend the meetings and read the literature. I know what we think.
 
You may be describing British conservatism, but that's not the core of American conservatism. At best, it describes facets of the Neo-Conservative movement, and I use that in its true form, not the bastardization of it proffered by rabid opponents of Bush. Neo-Conservatives are former Marxists who never lost their affinity for big government.

But that's not what the core of American conservatism is. The core of American conservatism is classical liberalism. I mean, I attend the meetings and read the literature. I know what we think.

No the core of American Conservatism is Conservatism in the Burkean sense(ignoring the fact there are several strands in American Conservatism as different from each other as some are from Anglican Conservatism). Like Angican Conservatism it is influenced by Classical liberalism but it isn't classical liberalism and in no sense can any Conservatism be considered simply individualist, you are completely wrong here. There is no way around that, you have basically outlined a "Conservatism" that cares little for tradition or social institutions and values, that is nonsense, there is no meaningful sense such a way of looking at society and individuals ciuld be called Conservative.

Have you read works by major American Conservative authors like John Adams, John Randolph of Roanoke, Russell Kirk, Robert Nisbet etc?

Exactly what neoconservatism and Marxism have to do with this I don't know. I think you are confusing anything that is not individualist in the classical liberal sense with Marxist style Collectivism. That is nonsense and makrs you out as being what Americans call libertarian rather than Conservative. No Conservative is an individualist in the way you use the term.
 
you have basically outlined a "Conservatism" that cares little for tradition or social institutions and values

How?


Exactly what neoconservatism and Marxism have to do with this I don't know.

They are a brand of American conservative less enamored with individualism.


I think you are confusing anything that is not individualist in the classical liberal sense with Marxist style Collectivism.

Again, how? Just because I called the Neo-Conservatives former Marxists? They are.


That is nonsense and makrs you out as being what Americans call libertarian rather than Conservative. No Conservative is an individualist in the way you use the term.

In what "way" do I "use the term"?
 
I guess it would be paine on the origin and design of government that originally got me interested in political science. prior to reading that I had not really stopped to think about the theoretical aspect of it if you know what I mean.
Paine made for a good template I would say, but I have to agree in part with Wessexman that he was a start at most, the founding fathers, namely Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, et. al. influenced my political philosophy, Hannity and Limbaugh are people I tend to agree with on many issues, but they came around after my take on conservatism was already formed, I would have to say Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and the Heritage foundation also helped to shape some of my overall views as well.
 
Because the idea of individuals and society which you called Conservaitve is one of autonomous, self-sufficing, rational individual with little place for associations and institutions and society itself.




They are a brand of American conservative less enamored with individualism.
I don't think they are "less enamored" but no Conservative can be an individualist in the way Thoreau is or even Mill. Next you'll be suggesting Max Stirner is a Conservative.




Again, how? Just because I called the Neo-Conservatives former Marxists? They are.
Some are. The implication that all non-individualists are linked to Marxists is silly.


In what "way" do I "use the term"?
The classical liberal way and a rather extreme way at that. One which revolves around autonomous and self-reliant individuals with institutions and society being ephemeral, regulatory at best and sprouting only from the rational actions of individuals. There is little Conservative about such a viewpoint even in any American sense whether that be of New England Conservatives like John Adams, Antebellum Southern Conservatives like John Randolph of Roanoke, Bourbon Democrats, Conservative revivalists like Weaver, Kirk and Nisbet, the New right like Buckley or the Neo- and Paleo- cons.

I did notice you didn't really respond to most of my post and just picked a few lines that suited it best, btw.
 
Last edited:
Another brilliant conservative, I ran across him during a Rush Limbaugh vacation, but tend to agree with him quite a bit as well, again though, my views were formed at a young age, and the current conservatives are those that I feel are more of a representation of my beliefs rather than founders of such.
 
Because the idea of individuals and society which you called Conservaitve is one of autonomous, self-sufficing, rational individual with little place for associations and institutions and society itself.

How does classical liberalism preclude the idea of a sense of (voluntary) social responsibility?


I don't think they are "less enamored" but no Conservative can be an individualist in the way Thoreau is or even Mill.

In the British sense, no.


Some are. The implication that all non-individualists are linked to Marxists is silly.

It IS silly. And I never said they were. Not all non-individualists are Neo-Conservatives. As we've gone through this twice, I'm starting to think you're deliberately misrepresenting what I say.


I did notice you didn't really respond to most of my post and just picked a few lines that suited it best, btw.

And you keep accusing me of saying things I didn't say.
 
How does classical liberalism preclude the idea of a sense of (voluntary) social responsibility?
The extreme sense you use certainly often does and a lot of classical liberal doesn't have a lot of time for it either.




In the British sense, no.
And the American senses.

I notice you did not attempt to respond to my arguments. Which American sense of Conservatism is actually the extreme individualism you talk of?

You are not talking of any American Conservatism, you don't seem to know much about that, but classical liberalism and often an extreme kind like Thoreau's at that.


It IS silly. And I never said they were. Not all non-individualists are Neo-Conservatives. As we've gone through this twice, I'm starting to think you're deliberately misrepresenting what I say.
Why bring up neocons or Marxists then.

And you keep accusing me of saying things I didn't say.
It is called implications. It is an important concept in literary criticism. You must have brought these terms for a reason.
 
I don't care for any of them, left or right wing however the right wing nuts are at least entertaining.

Occasionally I find that I agree with some of these guys, but the whole commercial aspect of political talk shows (ie: 3 minutes of talk then 5 minutes of commercials) is too painful. Add to that the sometimes less-than-genuine approach these guys take, it's hard to buy what they're selling.
 
Back
Top Bottom