• 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"

We don't really have much in the way of competing ideologies between Democrats and Republicans. Both favor heavy use of military intervention. Both favor massive benefits to private business at the expense of social well being. Both favor heightened security at the cost of personal liberty and privacy. Both favor increased government power. If real conservatives wants less government control over our everyday lives, then there haven't been any in a long time.

On the flip side... I honestly couldn't articulate what a real liberal wants. I know that equality is one. No discrimination and no institutionalized poverty. That's about the only thing I can be sure that liberalism universally embraces. And there is no one at all on the national political scene who makes that a top priority. I don't think we really have liberal or conservative political leaders anymore. I think we have a ruling class whose platform is to keep their class in power and very little else.
 
Billy the Kid said:
The current crop of liberal/progressive are not JFK Democrats either, IMO. So both sides have evolved over the years.
Click to expand...
i was hoping for such an answer :)

you are right , but also liberalism is suitable for any change and progression in accordance with its own nature. on the other hand there may be some democrats who still dont know how to be liberal enough .and especially in turkey, these concepts refer to different things. republicanism means to be loyal to the secular constituent principles of the state whereas democrats usually try to change many of these principles..akp and tayyip erdoğan seems democrat,and even liberal although he hates all democratic values ,this is why i dislike the word 'democrat':2razz:
 
IndepCentristMA said:
Most of the comments you'll read on this post will be inaccurate descriptions of people's personal takes on the subject.

If you're interested in the ideology of the political spectrum, wikipedia has a great comprehensive page on the subject, and different studies and models on how to graph it.

Political spectrum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, there is a different in terms of what the terms actually mean, and what political hacks and their ignorant followers wish to portray.

A "true conservative" is a person who resembles the ficticious heroes of the past who were able to swashbuckle the Democrats, and make big names for themselves. Thus, a "true conservative" at the moment is a guy who resembles Bush in 2000 and 2004, and Reagan in 1980 and 1984. Reagan was Bush's idol and he did look up to and try to be him. Now Santorum is trying to do the same. For him a "true conservative" is Reagan. The trouble is, Santorum is nothing like Reagan, and if anything he is attempting to be Reagan in 76 (who didn't win). Santorum, while claiming he is trying to get Reagan Democrats to vote Republican in this race, is more than likely just a Reagan Democrat himself, and running in the wrong party.

The most "conservative" of the candidates is Ron Paul.

However, the mainstream Republican today isn't in that sense a "conservative". The majority of the Republicans are moderately conservative. The majority of conservatives aren't even Republicans these days.

But, when you enter the Bible Belt, you can get votes by attacking an oponent who isn't a strict fundamentalist christian as being not conservative enough, to not represent who you are. Thus, anyone who doesn't attack that guy is also not a fundamentalist Christian, and should be shunned from society. It's a dangerous tactic, though, since you can win a small scale, but not a large scale election that way, since most urban areas have people smart enough to see the stupidity in this logic, and don't subsribe to it. Since the majority of the US population is in urban areas, when Republicans chose their battleground as the rural religious nuts vs the city slickers, they lose.
Click to expand...

Well Wikipedia is a fine place to find things, but there are other places like Yahoo news .
This little bit of news might interest you.
Headline; "Ron Paul courts Organized Religion in Campaign for votes.":peace
 
CriticalThought said:
I think it is more like..

Liberal = Fear of consequences of not changing
Conservative = Fear of consequences of changing

Reactionary is just a more extreme fear of the consequences of change, to the point of dreaming up consequences to change that clearly did not occur. For example, with same sex marriage, there are some extreme conservatives who argue that same sex marriage will lead to an immediate collapse of the moral fabric of society, even when it is clear that has not occurred in nations that have had same sex marriage for over a decade.

However, I think all conservatives are prone to "rolling back" change when they can if they feel it has occurred too fast. Obamacare is a good example. Most conservative would love to immediately repeal it even though doing so at this point in its implementation would cause the very kind of havoc they are afraid that it will cause if it is not repealed.
Click to expand...

Both parties have played the fear card, lets at least attempt to be realistic.:peace
 
Paschendale said:
We don't really have much in the way of competing ideologies between Democrats and Republicans. Both favor heavy use of military intervention. Both favor massive benefits to private business at the expense of social well being. Both favor heightened security at the cost of personal liberty and privacy. Both favor increased government power. If real conservatives wants less government control over our everyday lives, then there haven't been any in a long time.

On the flip side... I honestly couldn't articulate what a real liberal wants. I know that equality is one. No discrimination and no institutionalized poverty. That's about the only thing I can be sure that liberalism universally embraces. And there is no one at all on the national political scene who makes that a top priority. I don't think we really have liberal or conservative political leaders anymore. I think we have a ruling class whose platform is to keep their class in power and very little else.
Click to expand...

You just might be on to something there.
Perhaps it is time for a third party to gain power and about those term limits....lol:peace
 
Billy the Kid said:
The current crop of liberal/progressive are not JFK Democrats either, IMO. So both sides have evolved over the years.
Click to expand...

I think I know why.
Perhaps when things got bad and stop working they wanted to try something different..
Although sometimes change is good , sometimes change can be bad.:peace
 
TheNextEra said:
Right, except for instances of profanity on television, ban on gay marriage amendment, ban on flag burning. These are things conservatives have fought for. How is that less government control?
Click to expand...

Don't forget the military. If there is one giant symbol for evil coercive government power, it's the military. Yet many conservatives somehow don't see it as part of "big government".

That's extremely hypocritical to say the least. "Small government" is nothing but a hypocritical catch phrase in most cases.
 

In the end


There can only be one true one

true conservative!
 
Fear makes a true conservative. Fear of change, fear of Commies, fear of homosexuals, fear of Govt. and taxes. You name it they are afraid of it. It's pretty sad.
 
iguanaman said:
Fear makes a true conservative. Fear of change, fear of Commies, fear of homosexuals, fear of Govt. and taxes. You name it they are afraid of it. It's pretty sad.
Click to expand...

Spiders too ?
 
iguanaman said:
Fear makes a true conservative. Fear of change, fear of Commies, fear of homosexuals, fear of Govt. and taxes. You name it they are afraid of it. It's pretty sad.
Click to expand...

Got any data to back that up? Or is this just your learned opinion?
 
German guy said:
Don't forget the military. If there is one giant symbol for evil coercive government power, it's the military. Yet many conservatives somehow don't see it as part of "big government".

That's extremely hypocritical to say the least. "Small government" is nothing but a hypocritical catch phrase in most cases.
Click to expand...

Being pro-military =/= being pro-BIG-military or pro-protracted-war. Being pro-military is not warmongering.

Pro-military means being willing to send troops into harms way when it actually is necessary, without hesitation. Being pro-military means giving troops the equipment and support they need, and keeping over-burdensome and unnecessarily policies out of their way so they can do the job quickly and efficiently and get out.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Fear makes a true conservative. Fear of change, fear of Commies, fear of homosexuals, fear of Govt. and taxes. You name it they are afraid of it. It's pretty sad.
Click to expand...

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

****
The 'status-quo' we Conservative seek to preserve is the status-quo which established our Constitution and Bill of Rights. We seek to preserve those fundamental freedoms.
 
Jerry said:
Being pro-military =/= being pro-BIG-military or pro-protracted-war. Being pro-military is not warmongering.

Pro-military means being willing to send troops into harms way when it actually is necessary, without hesitation. Being pro-military means giving troops the equipment and support they need, and keeping over-burdensome and unnecessarily policies out of their way so they can do the job quickly and efficiently and get out.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not taking sides here, for or against a large military (although opinions often differ about what is big enough).

I was just pointing out the hypocricy of people who claim to be "small government", yet somehow don't consider the military part of the government. That's a cognitive dissonance. Either you are in favor of small government, then you must be in favor of a small military too. Or you are in favor of a bigger military, but then you aren't in favor of "small government".

American military expenditures are excessive. The Iraq mission alone has costed approximately 1.3 trillion so far, IIRC. And the US spend more on its military than all other nations on this planet combined (no joke! That's actually true). Chances are, there would be no debt crisis now without these expenses. If they are/were necessary after all, though, is a different question. I'm sure there are good arguments in favor of that spending. I just consider it hypocritical that this topic hardly ever comes up when government expenses are discussed.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
Right, except for instances of profanity on television, ban on gay marriage amendment, ban on flag burning. These are things conservatives have fought for. How is that less government control?
Click to expand...

Gay marriage amendment? Flag burning amendment? How much have we really fought for that....what like once?
 
American said:
No, because that would mean ignore the fact that you're a hack.
Click to expand...

pot-kettle-black.jpg
 
Moderator's Warning:
Guys, come on. Talk about the topic and not each other...
 
German guy said:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not taking sides here, for or against a large military (although opinions often differ about what is big enough).

I was just pointing out the hypocricy of people who claim to be "small government", yet somehow don't consider the military part of the government. That's a cognitive dissonance. Either you are in favor of small government, then you must be in favor of a small military too. Or you are in favor of a bigger military, but then you aren't in favor of "small government".

American military expenditures are excessive. The Iraq mission alone has costed approximately 1.3 trillion so far, IIRC. And the US spend more on its military than all other nations on this planet combined (no joke! That's actually true). Chances are, there would be no debt crisis now without these expenses. If they are/were necessary after all, though, is a different question. I'm sure there are good arguments in favor of that spending. I just consider it hypocritical that this topic hardly ever comes up when government expenses are discussed.
Click to expand...

I agree with the military spending in America being to high. We should cut some of the 'earmarked" stuff our elected folks put in the budget. They believe it will get them re-elected because they are bringing jobs to their particular area of the country. The military often get military equipment they didn't ask for because of this. It would be beneficial to all voters if those earmarks had to disclose who is responsible for this expenditure. It would at least shed a light on who/where/what/why this money needs to be spent.
 
Last edited:
Billy the Kid said:
I agree with the military spending in America being to high. We should cut some of the 'earmarked" stuff our elected folks put in the budget. They believe it will get them re-elected because they are bringing jobs to their particular area of the country. The military often get military equipment they didn't ask for because of this. It would be beneficial to all voters if those earmarks had to disclose who is responsible for this expenditure. It would at least shed a light on who/where/what/why this money needs to be spent.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, Democrats pushed for and passed earmark disclosure rules when they took back the Congress in '07. Congress Passes Sweeping Lobbying and Ethics Reforms | OMB Watch
 
Billy the Kid said:
I agree with the military spending in America being to high. We should cut some of the 'earmarked" stuff our elected folks put in the budget. They believe it will get them re-elected because they are bringing jobs to their particular area of the country. The military often get military equipment they didn't ask for because of this. It would be beneficial to all voters if those earmarks had to disclose who is responsible for this expenditure. It would at least shed a light on who/where/what/why this money needs to be spent.
Click to expand...

Funny thing is, I never heard complains about this kind of "military socialism", although the military often serves a similar goal in structurally weak regions (ensuring jobs, infrastructure and so on) paid with tax dollars, as civil, non-military subsidy programs play in "socialist" European countries. ;)

(And yes, I agree with you.)
 
A true conservative is anybody who makes it a point to show all the ways every other conservative is not conservative enough. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom