• 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!

What is conserativism ? Are cons materialistic ?

Bullseye said:
I think you have that backwards. Being materialistic is being focused on having and acquiring material things - the elite nameplate car, the latest iPhone, the biggest house, or fastest computer.
Click to expand...

My definition demands caring about....having is not enough.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
My definition demands caring about....having is not enough.
Click to expand...

I don't know what kind of special relationships some people have with objects, but people care about their stuff.
 
trouble13 said:
I disagree with your definition of fiscal responsibility in that you didn't include growth and investment but overall you did a good job of describing my general philosophy

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I did the best I could without writing a book. Thanks.
 
Medusa said:
Cons shoul sell their ferrari if they want to be con :2razz:
Click to expand...

What if they don't have a Ferrari? What if they have a Ford? Do you want me to sell my Subaru?
 
<alt>doxygen said:
By the 1980's, he was. He quit the Republican party when Reagan snuggled up with the religious right. Goldwater had a point. The religious right parasite is poised to take over the GOP, even as they (the religious right) are being rejected by more youth each successive generation. Looks like a lose - lose to me. Hopefully, it is and a more sane party will emerge.
Click to expand...

I suppose you could say the Republican Party became fixated on religion to the expense of true conservatism. I don't think individual liberty or freedom has much to do with using government to force one's religious morals on them. Both Republicans and Democrats want to use the power of government to force their views upon the individual citizen, only they have different views.
 
ecofarm said:
I don't know what kind of special relationships some people have with objects, but people care about their stuff.
Click to expand...

Pay attention to what people do not what they say. People brag about their stuff, that does not mean that they care about it. We did not get to this disposable society by caring about stuff.
 
Perotista said:
I suppose you could say the Republican Party became fixated on religion to the expense of true conservatism. I don't think individual liberty or freedom has much to do with using government to force one's religious morals on them. Both Republicans and Democrats want to use the power of government to force their views upon the individual citizen, only they have different views.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. I think they thought they could make a Faustian bargain and never have to pay. They did the same thing with the Southern Strategy.

The disgusting thing the Republican Party has inadvertently become is manifested in Trump. Pure lust for wealth, ego food and power, and no actual moral compass whatsoever. Sadly, the dems have made their own idiotic bargains. And yes, they both represent a move to restrict liberty of some kind.

It's pretty disgusting.
 
Perotista said:
I consider myself a Goldwater conservative with some of Ross Perot thrown in. A more traditional conservative than today's neo-cons or religious conservatives. There are basically three main tenets to traditional conservatism.
Click to expand...
This should be fun!
Perotista said:
1. Fiscal Responsibility - basically meaning a balance budget or surplus. Taking in more than one spends. To get there if it means cutting spending, do it. if it means raising taxes, do it. More than likely it means doing both. Today's so called fiscal conservatives seem to believe in only low taxes, they aren't traditional conservatives by any means.
Click to expand...
Actually, raising taxes is a last resort, because in practice the negative economic impact of raising taxes for the short term boost to government revenues causes longer term economic harm which lowers revenue down range. A traditional conservative is thinking long term economic success, and raising taxes is a last resort.
Perotista said:
2. Small Government - Keeping government out of an individual citizen's private business and lives. This puts traditional conservatism at odds with religious conservatives in that traditional conservatives do not believe the government has the power to tell whom one can marry, let love decide. Government doesn't have the power to regulate a woman's body either, i.e. abortion. That should be up to the woman.
Click to expand...
So a real conservative is a libertarian.... right. Most conservatives were against changing the traditional definition of marriage while open to a civil union process that would have been marriage in all but name. While this is a compromise that ultimately never happened as the courts were used to force the matter, is wasn't about the Government having the power to tell whom one could marry and the side shot about love shows you aren't being intellectually honest about the matter. Abortion isn't a matter of regulating a woman's body, it's about protecting an innocent life. A traditional conservative is a champion of life.
Perotista said:
3. We believe this nation should go to war only when our national security is threatened. Then with only a declaration of war by the congress. Not a resolution from the UN or even congress, but a full fledged declaration of war as specified within the Constitution. That long term foreign alliances should be avoided as they are more apt to get us into a war of not our own making or choosing. Short term if fine if it enhances our national security as an example our alliance with Britain and the USSR to defeat the Nazi's. We believe NATO was find during the cold war and enhanced our security. But NATO accomplished its mission when the USSR broke apart and the Warsaw pack disbanded. So too should have NATO. Some folks call this isolation. Perhaps its a modified form, having alliances only when needed.
Click to expand...
Isolationism led to WWI. Just pointing that out.
Perotista said:
We also don't believe in being the policeman of the world either. There are many different factions of conservatism. Tradition is just one faction more akin to being a Classic Liberal which ideals today's progressives have abandoned.
Click to expand...
Yes and no, Yes we shouldn't be the world's policeman but we have to be ready and able to neutralize threats to America, by force if necessary. Some bad actors don't care about "leave us alone we'll leave you alone".
 
Last edited:
Hawkeye10 said:
The main reason conservatism is vanishing is that they insist that things are basically fine, they want to continue doing what we have doing with only incremental change while the Left is always agitating for vast improvements.

Things in America are most certainly not fine, even the most dim can see that now.

If only the D Party could give up their habit of blundering..

They would run the tables.
Click to expand...

Conservatism is about taking a snapshot of a moment in history and saying that was the perfect moment. If we can just get the right balance of legislation and enforcement we can live in that moment forever.
Liberalism is about saying if a moment isn't perfect for everyone, it isn't perfect for anyone. Liberals say we haven't found that perfect moment yet.

Conservative- "I liked it the way it was before."
Liberal- "It'll be better than it is now."
 
Grand Mal said:
Conservatism is about taking a snapshot of a moment in history and saying that was the perfect moment. If we can just get the right balance of legislation and enforcement we can live in that moment forever.
Liberalism is about saying if a moment isn't perfect for everyone, it isn't perfect for anyone. Liberals say we haven't found that perfect moment yet.

Conservative- "I liked it the way it was before."
Liberal- "It'll be better than it is now."
Click to expand...

Not true in the least.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Pay attention to what people do not what they say. People brag about their stuff, that does not mean that they care about it. We did not get to this disposable society by caring about stuff.
Click to expand...

Materialism is not treasuring objects, it's deriving self worth from them. Materialism is about the person, not the materials and it doesn't matter how they treat them. You've missed the concept entirely and, in doing so, have turned it on its head; you're backwards.
 
Last edited:
Xelor said:
I don't think one can credibly lump conservatives as your title and OP would imply. (I think the same applies to liberals.) It'd be nice if one could, but one cannot and expect to be taken seriously by individuals having, shall we say, intellectual gravitas.


If you truly care to understand conservatives, I suggest understanding conservatism:
Click to expand...

Looks like some interesting stuff in there, thanks.

Marking this for later...
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Yes, I agree. I think they thought they could make a Faustian bargain and never have to pay. They did the same thing with the Southern Strategy.

The disgusting thing the Republican Party has inadvertently become is manifested in Trump. Pure lust for wealth, ego food and power, and no actual moral compass whatsoever. Sadly, the dems have made their own idiotic bargains. And yes, they both represent a move to restrict liberty of some kind.

It's pretty disgusting.
Click to expand...

That's the truth. Neither represent middle America anymore and that is shown clearing by both major party's shrinking numbers and the rise in Independents. As late as 2006 if Pew Research is to be believed, Independents made up only 30% of the total electorate. Independents climbed to 40% of the electorate by 2014 and if Gallup's latest figures are correct, independents now make up 45%. Of course that is with a margin of error of plus or minus three points. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if independents cross the 50% mark in a few years.

It does seem to me, our two major parties now only represent the hard extreme right and the hard extreme left.
 
Perotista said:
I consider myself a Goldwater conservative with some of Ross Perot thrown in. A more traditional conservative than today's neo-cons or religious conservatives. There are basically three main tenets to traditional conservatism.

1. Fiscal Responsibility - basically meaning a balance budget or surplus. Taking in more than one spends. To get there if it means cutting spending, do it. if it means raising taxes, do it. More than likely it means doing both. Today's so called fiscal conservatives seem to believe in only low taxes, they aren't traditional conservatives by any means.

2. Small Government - Keeping government out of an individual citizen's private business and lives. This puts traditional conservatism at odds with religious conservatives in that traditional conservatives do not believe the government has the power to tell whom one can marry, let love decide. Government doesn't have the power to regulate a woman's body either, i.e. abortion. That should be up to the woman.

3. We believe this nation should go to war only when our national security is threatened. Then with only a declaration of war by the congress. Not a resolution from the UN or even congress, but a full fledged declaration of war as specified within the Constitution. That long term foreign alliances should be avoided as they are more apt to get us into a war of not our own making or choosing. Short term if fine if it enhances our national security as an example our alliance with Britain and the USSR to defeat the Nazi's. We believe NATO was find during the cold war and enhanced our security. But NATO accomplished its mission when the USSR broke apart and the Warsaw pack disbanded. So too should have NATO. Some folks call this isolation. Perhaps its a modified form, having alliances only when needed.

We also don't believe in being the policeman of the world either. There are many different factions of conservatism. Tradition is just one faction more akin to being a Classic Liberal which ideals today's progressives have abandoned.
Click to expand...

Re #2: As a liberal, I too want Uncle Sam out of my bedroom and off my body as well.
It's no one else's business who I love as long as they are of legal age and of consenting attitude.
My freedom of expression is also important. As long as I am not threatening the safety, rights and welfare of others, I should be able to say, read and think whatever I want. And I honestly do believe that these are liberal values, so perhaps we have some common ground.
Of course, I am not what most think of as a "politically correct" liberal.
I subscribe to Bill Maher's famous quote: "Political correctness is the elevation of sensitivity over truth."
Where PC is concerned, I subscribe to the OLD SCHOOL political correctness, known as "good manners" and civility.
DP calls these things "DBAJ".
(Don't Be A Jerk)

Re #3: Regarding war, I am in total agreement on the notion of only going to war by official constitutional Congressional Declarations of War and none other. If that's a conservative value, then I believe in that conservative value.
As for alliances however, I am perhaps a wee bit more generous, but I strongly believe in establishing close cultural and diplomatic connections as a criteria first.

Re #1: I tend to believe that government is sometimes good for helping the American people do what an individual alone cannot always do. Uncle Sam is good for doing the "heavy lifting" on things like interstate highways, infrastructure, electrifying the hinterlands, rolling out safety programs, preventing disease epidemics, meeting disaster preparedness requirements and supporting such projects as will elevate the living standard for all Americans.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Re #2: As a liberal, I too want Uncle Sam out of my bedroom and off my body as well.
It's no one else's business who I love as long as they are of legal age and of consenting attitude.
My freedom of expression is also important. As long as I am not threatening the safety, rights and welfare of others, I should be able to say, read and think whatever I want. And I honestly do believe that these are liberal values, so perhaps we have some common ground.
Of course, I am not what most think of as a "politically correct" liberal.
I subscribe to Bill Maher's famous quote: "Political correctness is the elevation of sensitivity over truth."
Where PC is concerned, I subscribe to the OLD SCHOOL political correctness, known as "good manners" and civility.
DP calls these things "DBAJ".
(Don't Be A Jerk)

Re #3: Regarding war, I am in total agreement on the notion of only going to war by official constitutional Congressional Declarations of War and none other. If that's a conservative value, then I believe in that conservative value.
As for alliances however, I am perhaps a wee bit more generous, but I strongly believe in establishing close cultural and diplomatic connections as a criteria first.

Re #1: I tend to believe that government is sometimes good for helping the American people do what an individual alone cannot always do. Uncle Sam is good for doing the "heavy lifting" on things like interstate highways, infrastructure, electrifying the hinterlands, rolling out safety programs, preventing disease epidemics, meeting disaster preparedness requirements and supporting such projects as will elevate the living standard for all Americans.
Click to expand...

I never heard of Bill Maher's quote. Perhaps because I never watched him. I do agree with it however. There's a lot in which Classic Liberalism and Traditional conservatism have in common. Perhaps traditional Conservatism was born from Classic Liberalism or as Classic Liberalism turned into liberalism and then further into progressivism, Classic Liberalism became traditional conservatism. Who knows?

There's nothing wrong with and we should develop close cultural and diplomatic relations with as many countries as possible. Diplomatic niceties are a two way street however. There are countries where we can have good relationships and others where we can't. It all depends on the attitudes of both nations.

A lot of people automatically think we're against social security and we're not. People pay their way there for a return once they reach retirement age. There are things that the federal government does best and there are other things that should be left to the states. The president I grew up with started the interstate highway system. The old General did it so it would be easier to move troops and supplies from one coast to the other. He had made the trip I believe in the 1930's and discovered how hard it was. I do think however think a lot of the federal agencies go over board with regulations. I think the Constitution spells it out nicely what powers the central government has in Article I along with what the central government can't do and what the states can't do. All the rest is left to the states and or the people. The problem is that the 10 amendment has basically become meaningless.

Call it the division of responsibilities. Each individual has their responsibilities, each state their and the federal government theirs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom