Is it possible to go back to old school conservatism?

[Slartibartfast]

Ok. So I am looking at the news, we have the tea partiers who are pissed off, for what they believe are good reasons, about the lack of true conservative values and leadership in government.

One complain I hear is that once a person gets elected and go to Washington, they begin to compromise and become too liberal (Whats interesting though is many liberals feel that their guys are too conservative). The idea is that these politicians should continue to espouse true conservative values such as small government, lower taxes, strong national defense, etc.

My question is, is that even possible or it is simply a fact of life that being in a leadership position necessarily moderates a person?

 

[Ikari]

I think it is completely possible to go back to old school conservatism. I do not think that will be possible through the GOP. The party is a false party now, known and measured to betray their constituents and their ideology when convenient. To return to old school conservatism, you'll need an old school conservatism party. There's no traditional conservatism left in the GOP.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I think it is completely possible to go back to old school conservatism. I do not think that will be possible through the GOP. The party is a false party now, known and measured to betray their constituents and their ideology when convenient. To return to old school conservatism, you'll need an old school conservatism party. There's no traditional conservatism left in the GOP.

Is that a function of the GOP representing its constituency, which contains both conservatives and moderates, or is due to some other factor?

 

[Ikari]

Is that a function of the GOP representing its constituency, which contains both conservatives and moderates, or is due to some other factor?

It's due to the Republocrats isolating themselves from the People. They don't (either party actually) serve The People. They serve Wall Street and the banks; their buddies in high places. It's not something innate to conservatism, it's something innate to government and power.

 

[Alvin T. Grey]

My question is, is that even possible or it is simply a fact of life that being in a leadership position necessarily moderates a person?

Of course it does. You have to represent the people that didn't vote for you also. Now you can campaign on overturning Roe V Wade and putting the 10 commandments back in the courthouse or stopping the war and kissing polar bears, but the harsh reality of lie is, that stuff won't work in real life.

Sure you might loose some single issue voters, but you loose a whole lot more moderates (aka real people.) It's what made Clinton such a good politition and Bush such a bad one.
Clinto was able to triangulate twords the populist. Bush didn't give a toss and alienated millions. Hence the first black teenage President in US History.

 

[Ikari]

It's what made Clinton such a good politition and Bush such a bad one.

So bombing a country into the stone age is ok so long as you don't commit troops? You see, there wasn't much difference between Clinton and Bush, or Bush and Obama. Different sides of the same coin; but they all serve the same master.

 

[PeteEU]

No since there is more money and power in the status quo. Say one thing and do the opposite when in power.

 

[earthworm]

Possible, its would take quite the sell, I think people are smarter than that.
But define "old school conservatism".

 

[Slartibartfast]

Possible, its would take quite the sell, I think people are smarter than that.
But define "old school conservatism".

In this thread, I am defining it as the thing that the tea partiers are protesting for. Small government, small entitlement programs such as medicare (or nonexistent), low taxes, etc. Mostly the fiscal side and not the social side.

 

[earthworm]

So bombing a country into the stone age is ok so long as you don't commit troops? You see, there wasn't much difference between Clinton and Bush, or Bush and Obama. Different sides of the same coin; but they all serve the same master.

And that master is ?
money?
man?
I do agree, these politicians are much the same, but I think Obama is more "man" orientated than Bush.
No sense in bombing a country to where they already are..(Islamic controlled nations)...:rofl

 

[Ikari]

And that master is ?
money?
man?
I do agree, these politicians are much the same, but I think Obama is more "man" orientated than Bush.
No sense in bombing a country to where they already are..(Islamic controlled nations)...:rofl

The aristocracy essentially. It's Wall Street and the Banks that the government serves. The special interests which give them money, their friends in high places. It's clear this is who they serve. I mean, look at this depression that hit. It was going on for quite awhile, and most people knew about it. The working class were being beaten down years before the financial collapse. But where was government? Doing anything? Nope. It wasn't until the financial sector fell apart, when Wall Street was threatened, when banks could fail, when AIG found it made more contract that it could support, etc. That's when government got involved. Not when the common man was hurting, but when their buddies over at Wall Street could lose a few bucks. And the solution? Take our money and give it to them.

No sentient being can say that the government is currently beholden entirely to the People. We still have some swing for now, but if we don't watch it and fight to get back control; we'll eventually lose that too.

 

[earthworm]

In this thread, I am defining it as the thing that the tea partiers are protesting for. Small government, small entitlement programs such as medicare (or nonexistent), low taxes, etc. Mostly the fiscal side and not the social side.

I wonder how many "tea baggers" lived thru the Depression Era, or even have the ability to read history and learn something..
They can revert to the 1600s or 1900s if they wish, I prefer today, mostly.
And yet, they do have some good points.
Change may be occurring too fast. I do not know...
The fiscal side:
Social Security
I doubt very seriously that I could have done as well as FICA(social security); in fact as volatile as the markets are, I might be close to bankrupt as opposed to a monthly income of $1,800.
Maybe these tea baggers could do better, or think that they can.
Health Care
I remember a quote from BlueCross/BlueShield Cobra program of $600 monthly..
This was back in the 80s!
Completely unaffordable, so we did without and missed nary a beat.
Health care should be socialized as it is in Canada, Europe and other developed/advanced nations..
We are getting there in slow and painful steps.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Ok. So I am looking at the news, we have the tea partiers who are pissed off, for what they believe are good reasons, about the lack of true conservative values and leadership in government.

One complain I hear is that once a person gets elected and go to Washington, they begin to compromise and become too liberal (Whats interesting though is many liberals feel that their guys are too conservative). The idea is that these politicians should continue to espouse true conservative values such as small government, lower taxes, strong national defense, etc.

My question is, is that even possible or it is simply a fact of life that being in a leadership position necessarily moderates a person?

It's plausible but probably not possible now.

It mostly sits with what people say they want vs. what they actually want.

A lot of the supposed old school conservatives want to keep their entitlements, they just don't want anyone else to have any because they don't want to pay for it.

 

[Zyphlin]

I think its possible, the problem is we are a culture of extremes at times. Small government, limited government involvement, fiscal responsability somehow turns into no government, no regulation, no spending, no programs, etc by the extremists on the right and those on the left trying to say that the right has lied to people.

Also, because so much of politics now is simply getting elected since there are no real term limits it is far to easy for any politician to start thinking what's likely to get me elected again rather than what's going to be best for the country or what do my constituents want.

I think a moderating of ones goals or stances is needed. Not moderation of the ideological lean, but of the extent and speed one attempts to meet it. You don't have to conquer Rome in a day. You can shrink say, the department of education, incrimentally rather than trying to cut it all together at once. The former likely has a chance to work, and you can use that as a springboard to continue on. The later is likely to never happen, so you waste your time and get push back.

The very nature of entitlement programs makes it difficult as well. People, by their nature, do not like to give up something they view as "free". Its why things like the Health Care bill bother me more than the war. Do I like every facet of the War? No. But that, even if elongated, is going to have an end. Entitlements don't. Entitlements continue on, and on, and on, and the expand, and expand, and expand. And to take them away...to take away something someone see's as "free"...to take something away that a person has decided they're going to rely upon because its easier...is a garaunteed way to make sure you have a vote go against you. And ultimately, the modern politicians "job" on both sides of the aisle these days is "get elected" first and foremost.

 

[Fiddytree]

I think the difference between political rhetoric versus political action is far too great for the divide to be reached at this point in time. It always sounds nice to say "small government", "low taxes", and so forth, but just what that means in execution and how people support that execution is far too difficult in today's political climate to be entirely consistent.

I believe far too many people enjoy the Welfare state in at least a large number of programs for them to go back to a, say, pre-New Deal viewpoint. That being said, the political dialog and action can make the swing back towards such a viewpoint if the consequences of the Welfare state were to become far too great for the American populace to deal with, but at this point it is a long shot.

 

[Kali]

No. This country will no longer stand for the racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. of the older party.

 

[Jucon]

It seems to me like hard core conservatives want a federal government that ONLY spends on military and law enforcement.

If I am wrong, feel free to correct my statement.

 

[faminedynasty]

Old school conservatives can be charming as they object to the hideous state that monopoly imperialism has put us in. However, they hold the naive and cute belief that we can somehow "go back" to a golden age of free competition. What they fail to recognize is that capitalism (as free competition) necessarily works its way into its antithesis--namely, monopoly.

 

[molten_dragon]

I doubt that it is going to happen, and I wouldn't support it if it did. The president represents the entire country, not just the people who voted for him. I think that necessitates a somewhat moderate viewpoint, rather than a hard-line liberal or conservative one.

 

[samsmart]

Ok. So I am looking at the news, we have the tea partiers who are pissed off, for what they believe are good reasons, about the lack of true conservative values and leadership in government.

One complain I hear is that once a person gets elected and go to Washington, they begin to compromise and become too liberal (Whats interesting though is many liberals feel that their guys are too conservative). The idea is that these politicians should continue to espouse true conservative values such as small government, lower taxes, strong national defense, etc.

My question is, is that even possible or it is simply a fact of life that being in a leadership position necessarily moderates a person?

I don't see this as a problem with conservatism, nor do I see it as a problem with the Republican Party - rather, I see it as a problem with our two-party system.

Our nation is made up of paleo-conservatives, neo-conservatives, libertarians, and Christian dominionists on the right-wing. However, only one faction controls the whole party at any one time. That means the GOP isn't representing the whole of conservatism but rather one faction "handles" the other factions in order to get their legislative agendas across.

Which is why we need to change our electoral system and use IRV to allow multiple parties to get elected. I say let paleo-cons form one party, neo-cons form another party, Christian dominionists form another party, and let them and the Libertarian Party put up their own candidates for election. Using IRV will show us which of their candidates is the most popular compromise candidate and we'll get over this "damn if you do, damn if you don't" mentality about compromise. While paleo-cons may not compromise on one issue, neo-cons may compromise on it, and there's no sense in punishing them for that. It'll also take care of this GOP attitude of "purifying" the party that's happening right now and allow a larger variety of conservative opinions to get heard and represented in Washington.

 

[UtahBill]

The era of old school conservatism had much higher taxes imposed on the people, but now the already rich want to be even richer even if it means destroying the economy that supports ALL of us.
You can only squeeze so much from the middle class, and pretty much nothing from the poor.
We need to get back to the era where wealth is earned, not stolen. Beats me why they can't see that it is better to have a thousand millionaires instead of one billionaire.
AND, getting rich should be done by adding value to the system, not just manipulating the finances of others.

 

[digsbe]

Not only is it possible, but America is in dire need of real conservative reform.

 

[samsmart]

Not only is it possible, but America is in dire need of real conservative reform.

Define "real conservatism."

 

[Toothpicvic]

Ok. So I am looking at the news, we have the tea partiers who are pissed off, for what they believe are good reasons, about the lack of true conservative values and leadership in government.

One complain I hear is that once a person gets elected and go to Washington, they begin to compromise and become too liberal (Whats interesting though is many liberals feel that their guys are too conservative). The idea is that these politicians should continue to espouse true conservative values such as small government, lower taxes, strong national defense, etc.

My question is, is that even possible or it is simply a fact of life that being in a leadership position necessarily moderates a person?

The Tea Party is just a right wing neoconservative group. They don't know anything about real conservatism.

Ron Paul would be my pick for the closest to "real conservative" politician. These neocons are NOT conservative in any traditional sense of the word. They're just right-wingers. There's a big difference.

 

[Cilogy]

Obama came in with liberal ideas, and though he still has executed many (stimulus bill), he has become such a weak-ass in pandering to both sides, trying to be a moderate.