Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Paul Martzen
Trad climber
Fresno
|
|
What are the common values of different conservatives?
Say conservative:
ancient Athenians
ancient Spartans
ancient Persians
ancient Egyptians
Romans
conservative:
Muslims
Jews
Christians
Hindus
What about the conservatives in the old Soviet Union
or conservatives in Red China
What do conservatives in North Korea think are core conservative values?
What does it mean to be a conservative rock climber or a conservative skier?
Conservative has a meaning. It does not mean capitalism or free enterprise. It does not mean republican.
The true conservative is the person who:
Thinks about the long term consequences of actions.
At the kegger party is still sober enough to drive the others.
In the lifeboat, measures out the food available and says "this is how much we can eat today if we want to live for two weeks."
Was warning the Bush administration that invading Iraq might be a huge, expensive mess.
Is thinking that if we drill in ANWAR now we won't have that oil in 200 years when it might be a 100 times more needed and more valuable.
Is thinking it is a bad economic investment if we cut down all the 200 year old tree in order to build houses that will only last 70 or 80 years.
Is thinking that it is pretty crazy to take such a valuable resource as oil, that took millions of years to form, (or if one believes in abiogenisis, millions of years to collect) and we may be burning most of it up in 150 to 200 years.
JEleazarian wrote a list of items about conservatives. Some of your statements I really disagree with though I like most of your sentiments.
To say that the republicans lost because they are indistinguishable from the Democrats is silly, in my opinion. If that were the case the vote would have been a random 50/50. I think for the time being, the Republicans have shown that they are the less reasonable, less rational and less conservative party.
You also wrote that conservatives stand for Freedom of Speech, and equality of all humans. These are by definition liberal ideas. They are only conservative ideas in the sense that they have been around so long in liberal societies that they are no longer controversial in those societies.
wikipedia has excellent and informative discussions and history of both liberalism and conservatism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservativism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
All the economic ideas claimed by conservatives these day, such as capitalism, freedom of the press, free speech, individual liberty, individual worth based on accomplishments are all liberal ideas. They only became conservative ideas after they were around long enough to become part of our tradition. Even if they are now also conservative ideas, they still remain liberal ideas.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
Paul-
Yeah, I did some wiki-research today, and read those articles- they are a pretty good primer on the historical definitions of liberalism, conservatism, and republicanism.
If I remember correctly, an important fact is that Republicanism was one of the original ideologies during the founding of the country, and at that time the corollary party were the Federalists. Eventually, the Federalists faded away, and the Republican Party renamed itself the Democratic-Republican party, which eventually split again into the parties we know today.
This is interesting, because if you read the core values of the original Republican ideology (later the Rep-Dem party), they are based in the same values: individual sovereignty & freedom, and a disdain for corruption in the leadership. No doubt, these are values that both parties still share (even if they don't achieve them).
You are correct- conservatism is not solely a Republican trait- historically, there has also been Liberal conservatism, and Conservative liberalism (and Libertarian conservatism, and Cultural conservatism, and Religious conservatism, and...). It is only in recent years that it has become associated with the Reps.
It is interesting to realize just how politicized these words have become, and how they are flung at the opposing party as some kind of jibe, when in fact, both parties truly share core values.
By the way, the roots of conservatism are way deeper than contemporaries like Goldwater or Adam Smith- try Marcus Porcius Cato ('Cato the Younger'):
|
|
Paul Martzen
Trad climber
Fresno
|
|
hey John,
My sympathies to your arms. I don't play, but I sing and very much appreciate the efforts of the accompanist. Where were you playing?
Your point about Democrats excessively attacking corporations has merit, I think. But the tendency to demonize almost anybody seems to be rampant in our political process and in political discussions. Each group picks an acceptable scapegoat on whom to vent. Totally non productive in my opinion, but it seems like it brings people together temporarily against their common enemy. It also lends credence to the idea that we seek out ways to vent anger, we look for targets to be angry at. A better political system will have to find a way to deal with this tendency.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Okay John. It still feels to me that you are bashing dems, but if you say you aren't then I will accept that.
As far as what I demonize about corporations. I demonize them when they strip forests and don't follow sustainable practices such as when Maaxam bought Pacific Lumber company and proceeded to strip it of its assets by over cutting and destroying a lumber company that had followed sustainable practices for over 150 years, ultimately destroying the company and putting many many people out of work all in the name of fast profits while protecting the CEO from lawsuits under corporate law.
I demonize corporations that pay their CEOs extreme wages while undercutting their employees. Too many examples to cite.
I demonize them when they use their massive size to drive out the small competitors and are only reigned in once they have destroyed everything in sight. Walmart comes to mind and so does microsoft.
I demonize them when they use their massive size to cheat and hide their profits by using offshore accounts or hide their loses thus driving up their stocks then taking massive profits from stock sales which ends up bankrupting the company and leaving their employees broke as exampled by Enron.
I demonize them when they rob from their employees retirement accounts, take short term profits and then need bailing out by the government because they are so big that if we let them fail, then it could destroy our economy as evidenced by the auto and banking industry.
I don't know how to fix this but I do Know that the deregulation called for by Republicans over and over for the last 40 years has helped them do these things.
Do I favor making laws so restrictive that no business can survive? Most definitely not and I have sat in on city council meetings as rules were discussed to try and help small local businesses.
I hope that some day we can figure out a way to help small businesses thrive. I have even considered the idea of doing away with the laws that allow the formation of corporations and go back to partnerships. Partnership laws tend to favor small businesses.
I don't know which party does these things better. I don't care because I try to vote for the best candidate in each race and not follow strict party lines. But for the last 20 years the republicans have gone back on their words more the the dems and so I have tended to vote democrat.
As I said earlier. In history no republican president has ever offered a balanced budget.
The republicans had a history of protecting the environment, but they have gone back on that once again in the name of profit and deregulation. I would prefer to give our children a clean planet. Not a polluted one simply because someone wanted bigger profits then they could have achieved by using sustainable practices.
I don't think that is too much to ask.
Edit: I concur with Paul, I don't play the piano but I use to sing and I always appreciated the hard work of the accompanist.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Really nice posts Paul and Apogee. Thank you.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
"You also wrote that conservatives stand for Freedom of Speech, and equality of all humans. These are by definition liberal ideas. They are only conservative ideas in the sense that they have been around so long in liberal societies that they are no longer controversial in those societies."
Very interesting point and part of a great post.
Great post as well Moosie.
Corporations are not by definition bad but when an entity has the rights of a person but not the liabilities of a person (can't go to jail) and is, by law, obligated to pursue selfish advantage and interest over the common good, then that power is easily abused.
having worked in a management role in a corporation myself, I've witnessed how group-think and corporate culture can lead even good people to jump on a bandwagon to exploit. Keeping a critical eye on corporate action is an important check in our system which benefits greatly from checks and balances.
Think about it. Say Joe Blow came out with a new idea that couldn't be protected by a patent that totally cured a disease or solved an environmental problem that some mega-corporation was making most of their money "treating" How many of you would have faith that they would do nothing to suppress that information? It's a theoretical assumption (I hope) but smaller versions of this dynamic are at play every day (drug companies don't seek cures, they seeks chronic treatments you have to take for life)
peace
Karl
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Right this very moment the Supreme Court is being asked by the Bush administration( which runs the FDA) to rule that the drug companies CANNOT BE SUED for any drug caused damage
as long as the FDA has ruled the drug is safe.
This places the drug companies beyond the reach of people who are damaged by their products.
Can I sue the government?
Is the FDA perfect?
It appears not. The FDA just said bisphenol A is no problem. Then another panel in the FDA said the ruling came down without looking at all the data.
Do you suppose the FDA could ever become a captive of big Pharma?
The FDA also says I as a producer of beef cannot test my beef for mad cow. That is the government's job. And then government then stopped all testing and reduced the number of inspectors in packing plants.
Generally corporations have one and only one objective. To make a profit.
Today's american corporations follow a modification of this:
1. Make the maximum possible profit
2. maximum possible profit - for the CEO
The CEO appoints the directors who are supposed to protect the shareholders. So we get $400,000,000 bonuses going to CEO's as their shareholders go broke.
3. this quarter. Forget next quarter.
Paul I like your reasoning. Tell me I have no reason to criticize corporations. Please.
Oh and yes. Roberts and Alito have said they are in favor of giving complete legal immunity to Big Pharma. The rest of the court has not decided.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Thanks, Paul and John, for the good words on accompanists. Paul, I sing with Fresno Choral Artists. an auditioned chamber chorale of about 30, although we're augmented to about 50 for Messiah by adding the Clovis High chamber chorale. We try to do something with high school singers for one concert every year. The Messiah concert is at 4:00 p.m. December 14, at the Shrine of St. Therese, to continue the tradition of the shameless plug.
I like your point, Paul, about demonizing. I was guilty of that in my Point 4, for which I apologize. I should have pointed to the excesses and points of disagreement, as John M. did in his reply on corporations. Demonizing seems to me to be a staple of populism, which fits poorly with conservatism.
John M, thanks for the manner and clarity in which you laid out your position. Of course, we still disagree on much of what you said, but that leads to an exchange of ideas, not hatred. I'd start some of that exchange now, but I need to get to work.
I thank all of the contributors, and espectially bluering,for starting and maintaining this outstanding, if OT, thread.
John
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
jstan,
The issue before the Supreme Court is whether a drug company can be sued if its label was approved by the FDA, and the patient used the drug in a way that the label specifically warned against. The hospital and doctor used the procedure warned against in the FDA-approved warning label. The question is whether the plaintiff, who lost her arm as a result, can sue the drug manufacturer, who followed FDA rules. While reasonable minds can differ, I side with the manufacturer. Sometimes the nearest deep pocket should not be the one paying for the injury.
I had a case like that about 30 years ago, in which a solvent manufacturer was required by the Feds to label its product as flammable. An electronic forklift operator drove his forklift up to an open vat of the stuff, and it exploded. His widow sued the manufacturer for labeling the solvent "flammable" rather than "explosive." Needless to say, the trial ended in a verdict for the widow. The court of appeal properly reversed, ruling you cannot sue a manufacturer for doing what the federal regulators require you to do. It was unfortunate, but the manufacturer was no more at fault than the widow. That's why we buy insurance, because we can't sue the government for its regulatory mistakes. Maybe that's why we conservatives want limited government.
John
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Thanks JE. I hear what you are saying.
From what I read the problem is this drug when administered by the "push" technique does lead to the loss sustained. This was known to all. The legal argument has come down to the warning label being written correctly. Faced with the gain/risk of this drug you have to ask why the FDA considered a warning label was adequate. A warning label was not the correct resolution.
I think the new thing that has now come into the equation is a major loss of the FDA's credibility. So a Supreme Court ruling against liability will make this entire area unsupportable.
You come away believing we are dealing very simply with conflict of interest. Our citizens are not being served.
|
|
Binks
Social climber
|
|
I just read an article on CNN claiming that some conservatives feel they lost because they feel that they were "too moderate". They feel that the overturn of gay marriage shows that "true conservatism" is still strong.
"Pointing to measures in California, Florida and Arizona barring same-sex marriage that passed Tuesday, Perkins said President-elect Barack Obama's election did not mean the country had embraced liberal social views.
"There was clearly no mandate to shift the country to the left on social issues," Perkins said. "What Tuesday was, was a fact that people wanted change, and it's a rejection of a moderate view."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/07/conservatives.election/index.html
I was speechless. GOP -still pushing onward with the great goals of bigotry, discrimination and reinforcement of societal division.
As long as these whackos control the direction of the GOP, I will fight tooth and nail against Republicans.
Another thing I can't stand about the GOP is it's anti-intellectualism. It's celebration of ineptitude and stupidity (Bush, Palin). I don't care if conservatism is somehow philosophically viable when it's actual results are horrible. "Judge me on my philosophy and not the results I produce says the modern conservative".
For all the talk of the Democrats being against corporations, it sure seems to me that corporations of all sorts thrived and prospered under Clinton. It will be the same under Obama, once we emerge from the crisis we are in now.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
Binks-
Yes this is the idea being pushed hard by Rush/Sean and the other right wing radio hatemongers. It's political suicide. America's eyes are open to the extremism that has an icy grip on the Republican party and if they continue on the path they have been on these last 16 years they will simply ensure a long, long Democratic majority.
The answer, though, is NOT to "fight tooth and nail against Repubs" but to build solid bridges with the moderates that are left and affect real, moderate common sense change. We need to open up dialogues with real Republicans so that they can see "wow...democrats and liberals aren't what these radio show wingnuts say they are." We need to start working together not tearing other apart. That is what Obama's candidacy was all about, regardless of what Fatty has been trying to mischaracterize it as.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
SO!!!!!!
We have found a positive in Prop 8!
And agreed HD. Obama will find those old Republicans. And either build them into a loyal and rational opposition or bring them into the Democratic Party.
He has already said he needs their counsel and support.
Those who believe in the Nixon/Rove spider web party model will go on. That is the only thing they know.
|
|
Binks
Social climber
|
|
"The answer, though, is NOT to "fight tooth and nail against Repubs" but to build solid bridges with the moderates that are left and affect real, moderate common sense change."
I agree, no more bridges to nowhere. It's the politics of division that I will fight against, and those are still being embraced by the GOP "base". It upsets me when I look at the mess we are in and I read articles that the primary focus of the GOP is still on gay marriage. That they think this kind of focus is the way forward. The GOP base is comprised of a huge percentage of single issue voters.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
Agreed. We know we can successfully defend against them though. 2008 is not 2004. People are much quicker to see the truth now.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Fascinating - I used to be a director of a local but quite well-known chamber choir. I didn't sing, but helped in other ways. Though I guess we don't all sing from the same song book. :-)
I'm afraid that what the Republicans may now need is a repeat drubbing, so that the lesson sinks in. Few thinkers would disagree that the party is an unwieldy coalition at best, held together by power, or that it has lost its credibility, or any energy. The ideas that it was peddling have largely lost any force they had, and the party is bereft of new, forward-thinking ideas. But a lot of the Republican rank and file may not see it that way, until convinced again at the polls.
It may take someone with substantial heft in the Republican party to simply get up and say the emperor has no clothes. Such as those Republicans who endorsed Obama, such as Powell. That would at least get some real issues on the table.
It seems possible that the Republicans will degenerate into a civil war, as the various factions squabble for control of what's left. Big corporations v social 'values' v religious right v rural working class v traditional conservatives could be quite messy.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Now here's a political challenge for you restorers of conservatism.
Conservatism is seen as a cause for aging white people. The identities of voters and splits between dems and repubs bear this out.
You are appealing to a demographic that in the long term, cannot win national contests because white people will no longer be the majority in a few decades. And, this problem is compounded by the recent surge in voter registration among the young, who are tending to register as Dems. Party affiliation sometimes change as people age, but studies show that folks generally stick with the parties they choose early on.
What are you guys going to do about the demographic problems? How will you broaden your appeal?
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
It does appear that there is a shift in demographics, and that at least in this election, there was an infusion of younger voters who tend to lean Democratic. My guess would be that younger voters tend to be attracted to open-mindedness and less dogmatic attitude, which is more likely to be found in the current Democratic party.
Much of the closed-mindness and dogma in the current Republican party comes from the religious right- if this influence and presence was tempered, and more of the R's identity and policies were based on core values such as fiscal responsibility, there would be plenty of younger voters who could get on board with this. Any loss of votes that might occur on the extreme right would likely be more than offset by the gains from the youth vote.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Dirt, The Republicans have shown no willingness to appeal to any group that is not right of center. They cannot, will not, change their bullheaded intolerance regarding social issues because that would mean that they were "wrong". Democrats are now seen as the party to trust on national security and fiscal responsiblities (Iraq and massive deficit increase for six solid years from 2000 to 2006 with Repups in charge of all three branches of government). They got nothing to sell anymore, they appeal to an ever shrinking voting bloc. They lose big time to the rapidly growing latino voters, women, and very importantly the younger voters, who will now strongly tend to vote Democratic for the rest of their lives. Church is out for generations.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!