Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
dirtbag
climber
|
|
"As for Federal priorities, I say;
National security (including the borders)
National infrastructure (roads, schools, energy regulation, food regulation)
Economic regulation (not ownership, not meddling, just monitoring and keeping things honest)
The devil, of course, is in the details of these issues...lemme think... "
Cool, good start. Might not be exactly my priorities, but you are thinking what you'd like to see happen. Now as you say, the devil is in the details.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
I'd like to hear what folks think "Conservatism" is. We've become confused over the years of Bush administration rule.
1. I've heard conservatives are fiscally conservative but over the past 30 years the GOP presidents have had larger deficits so how much is fiscal conservatism alive still? How does being fiscally responsible square with our system where money is created by creating debt and growth is required to keep our monetary system afloat in a huge international system?
2. I've heard conservatives believe in freedom and keeping government out of our business but the only thing I've seen them do is try to keep government out of our "money making business" How doe any of this square with wiretapping citizens without warrant, spying on non-violent peace groups, eliminating Habeas corpus and such?
3. What is freedom?
4. How much morality should be enforced by law?
5. What is the relationship between religion and government.
6. Some conservatives used to be non-interventionist and somewhat isolation oriented. How much should we be the world's policeman? When do we spend lives and money to do war and war-lite?
7. Are the checks and balances of government important or do we need a super powerful president who can ignore subpoenas and ignore laws?
8. What balance of debt versus taxes should finance whatever budget we decide on?
9. How does conservatism deal with the environment? Can market forces be trusted if we see situations where real harm is being done?
10. What do conservative social programs look like? If we eliminate certain social programs, what do we do about the fallout? (say we ditch medical or welfare but then desperate people turn to crime or die on the streets? Do we build poor houses?)
11. How much is it just about "just don't tax me much and I don't care about the rest?"
There is so much difference between a Dick Cheney, a Palin, McCain, a Dobson or a Limbaugh that the word has become somewhat meaningless. Help me understand what YOU mean by it?
Peace
Karl
|
|
Paul Martzen
Trad climber
Fresno
|
|
I think that America is a very conservative country. The last 8 years have not been a conservative period, in my mind, even though the people in charge called themselves conservative. I think that one reason Obama was elected is because he is clearly the more conservative choice. In actions and demeanor he appears to me, much more conservative than McCain and especially more than Palin. His words are carefully considered. He does not get riled up easily.
We talk as if liberalism and conservatism are diametrically opposed. I think that is just because two opposing teams have taken those labels as their banners, just like the SF 49'ers and the Oakland Raiders. The terms are just labels that have nothing to do with the actual teams.
Liberalism is the idea that humans can solve their problems through rational processes and that each individual human has rights and deserves respect. It also embraces the idea that we never know for sure what is coming in the future, so it pays to be open minded and have a wide range of skills to have a chance of dealing with the unexpected. Liberalism accepts that change is inevitable, that we need a wide range of skills to deal with it.
Conservatism in my mind is the idea that change is not always for the best and that too much change all at once is impossible to understand and even more change all at once is impossible to survive. If you have too much change at once, you can not tell what caused the change and you can not tell what effects the change will have. Conservatives prefer changes to be slow and manageable, ie steady economic growth.
I do not think that much political discourse fits in either of those two definitions, so I use other descriptions, such as: lying, fear, fear mongering, greed, anger, obfuscation,....
Personally, I hope that we can refine governments to operate more rationally and more scientifically. Meaning that we come up with better ways to develop our laws and ways to better assess whether our laws actually accomplish what we want them to. A healthy democracy should somehow be able to groom rational and intelligent leaders, but it should also be able to survive mediocre and poor leaders. That Bush has been able to do so much damage (edit: to our treasury, Iraq, Afghanistan and our prestige) is a reflection on us and our system as much as on him.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Interesting post, Paul.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
dog catcher, man, dog catcher.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Whatever Lois. This thread is about "Conservatism" and how to restore it. Personally, I'd love to see conservatism reform itself sanely so when the pendulum swings back, it won't be some corrupt and nasty destructive hell like we've been through with Bush.
peace
Karl
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 6, 2008 - 12:32pm PT
|
Hmmm, Karl raises good questions. I'm busy now though so I'll be back later with my own thoughts on those questions.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
Agreed karl. Real conservatism (fiscal and governmental), as I've stated before, is an important counterweight to liberalism.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Exceptionally fine post there Paul.
IMO Bush was able to do as much damage as he did because the power of the executive has gone beyond the limits as outlined by our Constitution. And by public acceptance of the idea that some laws may be enforced and others not.
If something is required by law, to the best of our ability, it needs to be enforced. On the flip side if we can not enforce something, it should never be made a law.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
"Can I count on your support if I run for congress or POTUS"
no on the congress question and a big no on POTUS.
That's President Of The Underwear Society right?
I just can't support the "tighty whitey party" panty line! I'm somewhat sympathetic with the "victoria secret society" but mostly pal around with terrorist "commandos!"
;-)
Karl
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
"OK fine. But how smart can you be if you believe the earth is 6000 years old or that embryo who are going to get unfrozen and die anyway are "snowflake babies"? "
Like Palin.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Ooh! That was a zinger.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
It seems to me that the majority of the divisiveness and negativity that has become associated with the GOP has occurred in the last 30-40 years, since the Repugs decided to merge the interests of the religious right into their agenda as a means of strengthening their constituency. Many of the Dem vs. Rep issues that get the most press (and generate the most personal attacks and panty-twists on ST) are ones that are socially-related: religion & government/schools, abortion, gay marriage, etc. As I understand it, it was not long ago that the SE US was a strongly Democratic area, due to Dem's emphasis on labor issues. The GOP chose to take advantage of the strong religious base that is present there, and merged the religious agenda with the Conservative agenda simply as a means of increasing their voting base. The Reagan era really took advantage of this 'new' version of the Republican party (Falwell, Gingrich, etc.) to gain it's power and establish it's legacy.
It's been that way for 3 or 4 decades now, and most people tend to regard the GOP as being primarily religious-right- especially those people whose political awareness and activity began in those years. At this point, this alliance has worn thin, and it seems that the country is tired of the divisiveness that occurs with all of the social wedge issues.
As devastating as this election may have been for the GOP, I hope it creates the impetus to go back and rediscover and establish itself in it's true values: fiscal conservatism, individual liberty (and other elements I'm not educated enough about the GOP to articulate). In these basic values they are likely to find much common ground with the populace, and if they can find a way to communicate them in a rational, intelligent manner that avoids divisiveness and smear, they would probably find themselves in a very different place than they are right now.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Lois, you are a big supporter of that 6000 yo earth believer from Alaska, not me.
Of course, there is much evidence for a much broader ignorance of other issues, but that is discussed elsewhere.
But in the end, the 6000 yo earth thing didn't diminish your enthusiasm for her or Huckabee, even though you don't share those views.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 6, 2008 - 01:25pm PT
|
You can't get qualified men (or women) to run for office if you ALSO have a mandate that they hold assinine ideas. That is why you get Bush and McCain and whatever. If you eliminate all the smart ones because they don't ascribe to stupid ideas then what do you expect will happen.
Lois, I'm not advocating that ALL candidates have to pledge allegiance to a specific doctrine. I'm saying that as a party, we need people that would focus on true conservative values. As a party we can voice opposition (votes, etc..) to people who's plans don't come close enough to our values.
As I noted earlier, Bobby Jindal, Gov of Louisiana, is a near perfect candidate with regards to true conservatism.
Fatty, you'd get my vote for senator. Who are you planning to challenge, Boxer or Feinstein?
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
"As a party we can voice opposition (votes, etc..) to people who's plans don't come close enough to our values."
This is an interesting topic to discuss, and I would get a whole lot more out of it if the personal slams could be left aside.
'...our values.' THAT is the real question here- what ARE the true, core values of conservatism? If one sets aside the religious right/social issue & the neo-con agendas, what is at the core of conservatism? Does anyone remember or know? I bet there are a lot of values there that would find strong support in America right now.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Lois, I'm just quoting what you said earlier.
But I disagree about the 6000 yo belief not eliminating anyone. Anyone who believes that and ignores science and learning for myths is not, in this age, qualified to be president.
There's a lot more to Palin's igorance than just that, though.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
Roy Blunt just stepped down as Minority Whip. It's looking like Eric Cantor might be his replacement. If Cantor is true to his reputation this is exactly the OPPOSITE of what the GOP needs to be doing. If they pick him and another like him for Minority Leader it will be a sharp turn towards the right, and towards the kind of alienating, dismissive rhetoric that lost them this election. In the long run that probably means good things for the GOP, since it will eventually run itself completely into the ground and have to be born anew. It means a rough few years ahead until they get there though.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
The new Republican Party will eventually be led by the individuals who work with and give counsel to the new President, whether in the form of support or principled opposition. We should see that shaping up soon though their eventual test will be by election.
The people filibustering on the floor will, hopefully, have a tough time of it. I fully expect however, whatever they do
they will be allowed to have access to meeting rooms.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!