Liberal Republicans lick their wounds
The future of conservatism is bright.
All those liberal Republicans who were arguing that the GOP needed to “rebrand” itself and move leftward are now crying in their coffee. Arlen Specter is feeling lonely.
Break out the world’s smallest violin. I’m verklempt.
At a Tuesday reception for moderate Republicans, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter hushed the cocktail chatter when he began ticking off a long list of like- minded lawmakers who no longer hold office.
“Today, we’re in a phone booth,” Specter said.
To conservatives at the Republican National Convention this week, John McCain’s choice of running mate Sarah Palin represented recognition of their clout. For remnants of the party’s once-powerful Eastern Establishment, the Minnesota meeting signified a lost opportunity to prod their party toward the political center.
McCain’s selection of the anti-abortion, socially conservative Alaska governor, after he considered naming an abortion-rights backer such as former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge or independent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, leaves pro-choice Republicans at odds with both the presidential ticket and the party’s platform.
“There was shock” over Palin’s selection, said Jennifer Stockman, co-chairwoman of Republican Majority for Choice. “We were looking for someone who would be transformative and take control of the party away from the social conservatives.”
You lose.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Malkin, wrong again…. | NeoConstant
- The Jawa Report
- The TIW Blog » Blog Archive
- Are you sure it’s Arlen that loses? « Cowardly political musings…
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: GOP, Sarah Palin
Pundit & Pundette
» States in dire straits
Sister Toldjah
» Josh Marshall: Sarah Palin is “probably mentally unstable”Sister Toldjah
» A resolution honoring Michael Jackson? Are you kidding me?Stop The ACLU
» Radical Obama: Anti-American MilitarismRiehl World View
» Pali-mania Strikes The Right Blogosphere!
Shut up. You’re a bore at Town Hall and you’re a bore here.
On September 4th, 2008 at 7:24 pm, Irish Rose said:
Okay, but be more specific. There are all sorts of different ways to define it and practice it.
Compassionate conservatism as practiced, for instance, by George W. Bush, who co-opted the term, is really “politically expedient collectivism”.
For instance, passing a medicare drug benefit package ostensibly to help old people buy drugs, but really to further the cause of the collective (which always wants more power in order to destroy freedom).
Then there is the psychological passionate conservatism, which is basically a protection against mean-spirited attacks from the collective hive-mind (liberals, for instance), and doesn’t really mean anything.
There are other definitions too.
So can you be more specific? You are pro-abortion? Pro-illegal-immigration? Pro-big-spending? What?
On September 4th, 2008 at 7:47 pm, conservativesRus said:
Again, and I’d really like a good definition of this… what exactly is a “liberal Republican”?
I could be wrong… but Michelle I believe, does not make the distinction between liberal and moderate (I’m willing to admit that I could be wrong). That’s why I think that it’s important to make the distinction, for the sake of accuracy.
To many on the right, moderates ARE liberals… and it’s why as a moderate I’ve been hounded with that label here. But it’s inaccurate to state that they are one and the same.
The classic definition of moderate, from Wiki:
Those who lean towards the “alternate definition” instead of the classic definition (Michelle and many of her registrants) are the ones who like to throw around the label “RINO”.
I tend towards the classic definition of “moderate”, myself.
On September 4th, 2008 at 8:00 pm, FilmLadd said:
None of the above.
Here are a few things that I do support:
1. streamline, redefine and restructure (not eliminate) social programs that are designed to help the poor, sick and elderly during difficult times
2. treatment programs that support the victims of crime, instead of the criminals
3. Healthcare reform that gives the poor and the working poor, better access to a well-rounded healthcare plan that actually includes PREVENTATIVE healthcare
I support equality in the workplace, and I’m an advocate of environmental stewardship.
I think that we have a big problem is this country with illegal immigration that has to be addressed, and I believe in the rule of law. But like John McCain I’m not willing to completely disregard the humanity of the individual, either.
Just a few examples.
Looks like the “Its my Party Too” crowd is getting the shaft from one of their founding members.
McCain’s choice of Palin is proof he really does want to be POTUS even if he has to attract Conservatives to do it.
So if you believe in the rule of law, like you claim you do, then when Sheriff Joe actually arrests and deports illegal aliens here in Phoenix do you support his actions in enforcing the law? They’re fed, transported, and read their rights. Sounds humane to me, how say you?
We the People of the United States of America have the right to have our borders and our laws respected and enforced.
Citizens of other countries illegally in our country have no right to demand anything from our government. They most certainly have the right to petition the governments of their home countries for change if they are unhappy with their home country. If they want to be Americans, we have a path to citizenship, more generous than any other nation, and it starts in their home country.
We need to insist on the equal protection, application and enforcement of the law or devolve into anarchy. Our Republic only functions if everyone follows the same rules. We should not change the laws to accomodate those breaking them.
If America annouces to the world “We can’t stop you, so come on in” with another amnesty, the deluge will be overwhelming. If 3,000 a day didn’t get your attention, then wait until it’s 10,000 a day. We cannot sustain this influx and survive as a nation. We must speak up and speak to each other about this and not let false claims of racism or bigotry be used to intimidate us into silent assent. America is not Congress’ to give away. America belongs to We the People. Speak to your neighbors, speak to your coworkers, but please speak up to your Congressmen and Senators. It’s O.K. for us to enforce our laws, no really, it is.
Someone please tell Sen. McCain.
If he stays on the side of illegal aliens and their employers, he will lose.
It seems Senator Lieberman is going to bestripped of his committee assignments in the next Senate session.
Since when did this turn into a Vice-Presidential election? Why are we wasting a perfectly good candidate like Palin by having her board the GOP Titanic?
There is only one agenda on the plate in November: the one-world-without-borders agenda. We are all going to be living in GoreWorld because both parties are pushing THE SAME EXACT AGENDA!!
What were we fighting for in 2006 and 2007 when we were fighting MCCAIN over his obnoxious attempt to stuff amnesty down our throats? Were you guys lying then or are you lying now?
The only difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats make no bones about their agenda and they fight hammer and tong even when things look hopeless. Republicans surrender even when they are winning!
So what do you whiny liberal RINOs want anyway? A pretty face and shiny objects and all principles are tossed aside?
Go ahead and trash me. You’ve got nothing but insults and name-calling to go with anyway. You are all phonies and liars.
It was the likes of Arlen Specter and Lindsey Graham and McCain who convinced me to switch party registration from republican to independent. I’m still hoping for Conservative party to pop up.
I disagree. I consider myself fiscally conservative and socially libertarian, because I believe in small government in ALL areas outside of the mandate to provide for the common defense of the nation. It’s a gross generalization, but I put it this way: Democrats want to control my wallet, Republicans want to control my zipper. I believe I should control and be responsible for both.
I’m not crying for the lib repubs one iota..too much effort
Speaking of, I wonder how Bobby Jindal’s feeling. This was supposed to be his national introduction. I definitely feel for him.
And if Juan McCain wanted to keep up some momentum, he could’ve invited Sarah Steelman to speak. She’s the treasurer (of Oklahoma?) that Glenn Beck brought to everyone’s attention for her MAJOR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY when she talked about “the people’s money” and how she wouldn’t write checks to cover GOP foibles. The RNC is now backing the Dem candidate even though Steelman is running. What is it with these Sarahs? Does that name mean “integrity” or what?
I have seen many comments saying it is impossible to be a liberal or moderate Republican.
If a moderate Republican has tolerance or acceptance of homosexuality, are they no longer welcome in the party?
If a moderate Republican believes it is between God and the person who chooses to abort, and is not their business, are they no longer welcome in the party?
Is the Republican Party the party of Inclusion, as I always believed it to be? Or, is it the the party of believe as I do, or go away?
IrishRose: You consider that a Moderate position? I consider that Conservative. If that truly is Moderate, then I would also be classified as a Moderate, as I agree with you on those issues.
I’m fairly certain that I’m ‘harder’ on immigration than you are, at least in the short run, but long run some conditions could be ameliorated.
Let’s use a fairly useful analogy. Chesterton writes that the family is the microcosm of society. With that, think of someone who enters your house with your knowledge but not your position. How do you respond? You could, of course, throw them out. That is well within your rights. You could also treat them as a guest, and ask them to relax and stay a while. I would hazard a guess that your hospitality will be dependent on their behavior. If they drink your tea, and engage in conversation, you probably would tolerate them, at least for a while. However, if they assault you, or start tearing up your house, at the least you’d ask them to leave, wouldn’t you?
So the society should react in the same way. Immigrants knock on the door to this country, and ask to come in and stay, hopefully for a while. Illegal immigrants at best show up unannounced, at worst B&E.
Now, legally, B&E is not a crime if someone does it to survive, and does only what is needed to survive. If a starving man breaks into your house and steals a loaf of your bread to eat, a case can be made in his defense. However, if this man takes your jewelry, that is not excusable.
The United States has a long history of welcoming refugees and other people with nowhere else to go. It goes back to the original point behind the colonies created here. But when you look at many of the people imposing on our hospitality and abusing it (and this is saying nothing of the murderous thugs who violate our borders and murder, pillage, and rape our citizens), you must realize that there comes a point when there is too much.
On September 4th, 2008 at 8:32 pm, Irish Rose said:
Okay, I get where you are coming from then. You are infected by collectivism but are not too far gone yet.
Let me ask you these questions in all earnestness, and please examine the question as deeply as you can before answering. If you examine them sincerely you may find your worldview changing.
1) Do you believe that humankind exists to serve the state, or the state to serve humankind?
2) Who is the state?
3) Does the state have the right to take anything - property, life, freedom - from any individual for the good of the many (as the state defines it)?
4) What is money?
Hey, Meat, are you from PA? I am but live in VA and still follow the “career” of Arlen the Specter, thwarting conservatism at every turn. You’d think that someone who beat cancer would have more respect for life than that bunch of pro-aborts he seems to identify with.
FilmLadd: Collectivism is not a disease, though you may think it one. It is an alternative to conservative political philosophy. Please, you do yourself a disservice when you make this kind of comment.
If I may answer your questions for myself:
1) A society exists to serve its members, or a portion thereof. The political governance of that society can be described with terms detailing the means of power (e.g., elected officials) and the ends of power (i.e., who benefits from that power). In theory, the ends of power in any society is to provide for its members, and therein lies the answer to your question. Most ‘forms of government’ refer to the means of power.
2) Could you please be more specific? This normally refers to that part of society that has power to impact the society, as a whole, in a political way. The purest form would be an absolute autocracy, exemplified by L’etat, c’est mois. The most dispersed form would be a complete democracy, where the state and society are synonymous.
3) Again, this depends on the form of society and state. In a totalitarian state, the state has every right to take everything from the individual, for any reason. Generally speaking, the state has the rights given to it (or that it takes) by/from the society. E.g., in the US currently the state has the right to take away the freedom of any individual convicted by due process of law.
4) Money is a tool for simplifying market transactions. As such, it is an economic tool and not a political one.
Someone mentioned they believe compassion to be behind Juan’s (pro) illegal immigration stance. I think it’s pandering to big business.
What do you think about the kidnappings going on in Atlanta courtesy of God’s Hispanic children? That’s an endearing trait they brought from Mexico and a way for easy money. It’s on par with those nice young hombres in MS-13 gangs.
No matter who gets elected, we’ll flood the switchboards again and go to DC with pitchforks if they try to pull that “crapita” again. I’ve had enough.
The people at Specter’s get-together are part of the problem, they are why the GOP has lost its bearings and abandoned its principles.
Sandy: That’s possible. Immigration issues are certainly his weakest link to his base.
Impossible. Social libertarianism, aka social liberalism, is not compatible with small government. Look at NYC or LA as examples.
There are no counter-examples. To be socially liberal is to be liberal, period.
I see that the arch-left winger Irish Rose, who was last seen demanding that her account be disabled, is back polluting this site.
Lefties have no moral character.
None of our illegal aliens fall into this category.
Flenser: I beg to differ. Generally, when someone says they are socially libertarian (which I am not), they refer to issues such as legalizing drugs and prostitution, which in many ways would actually decrease the size of government.
I can easily see the theoretical social libertarian, and in individuals theory can become reality. Now, you may be entirely correct that on a practical, large-scale level, that it is impossible. That is a slightly different argument, however.
That depends. Inclusion of what? Nazism? Communism? Sharia? Fascism?
I suspect that there are plenty of things which you don’t believe the “inclusive” party should include. Does that make you an intolerant bigot?
Flenser: I perfectly agree that the current issues surrounding immigration (no borders, amnesty, etc.) have nothing in common with the scenario I mentioned that you quote. However, in order to effectively counter the ‘melting pot’ meme from the Left, it’s needed.
IOW, it’s the ‘family microcosm’ analog to sheltering refugees from, e.g., Cuba after Castro took over. I put it in for completeness, not for any sort of rhetorical use.
That’s a very selective slice of the libertarian position.
The reality is that the libertarian social position is essentally the same as the liberal one. And the further reality is that the liberal social view costs money and requires a large state. Both directly, and by fostering a certain view of the nature of man, the state, and the relationship between them.
That is why America is much more “socially libertarian” today then it once was, and why the rise is “social libertarianism” has been accompanied by a colossal expansion is the size and scope of the state.
Most of the modern so-called libertarian movement is best described as “big government libertarianism”. It’s the reigning ideology of America.
Flenser: Fair enough. That is what I identify with the social libertarian position, as, from what I understand, the core idea of libertarian principle is ‘give the state the bare minimum power over the people that you can get away with’. Therefore, ‘big government libertarianism’ is rather oxymoronic. If that is your position, I agree with it.
Normally, I hear libertarians described in soundbytes as ‘economically conservative, socially liberal’, and extract from that the idea that those social concepts that are considered liberal _that do not contradict the libertarian core issue_ are embraced by the party.
I would ask for clarification from IrishRose on the topic.
If you would like to take this to the ridiculous, go ahead.
But, the questions pertained to whether the Republican Conservatives would be willing to accept there are Republican Moderates who are as important to this party.
Or, would the Republican Conservatives like to try to win this November without the support of the moderates?
K2: Practically speaking, every person should evaluate the parties on their platforms. Give each issue a weight (and only the individual can do this), see which party is on your side, give them a check next to that issue, add up all the weights for each party, and make your decision.
Realize, though, that for purposes of description, in this country ‘conservative’ ~= ‘Republican’. Therefore, ‘Conservative Republican’ is considered redundant. ‘Moderate Republican’ is not. As such, the ‘base’ of the party is Conservative, and the base should receive proportionally more representation. After all, if ‘moderate’ policies dominated the Republican party, the platform should change to reflect that, as the platform is voted-upon, correct?
Irish Rose -
“I could be wrong… but Michelle I believe, does not make the distinction between liberal and moderate … That’s why I think that it’s important to make the distinction, for the sake of accuracy.
“To many on the right, moderates ARE liberals… and it’s why as a moderate I’ve been hounded with that label here. But it’s inaccurate to state that they are one and the same.”
___________________________________
As my brother the liberal once corrected me, quite correctly, the definition of our philosophy of government is “liberal Democracy”, strictly speaking. So the entire spectrum of political thought in this country is represented by degrees of liberalism.
“The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female/liberal party guests - we did.”
I don’t really remember where I was going with this, so in conclusion let me just say Obama is a fairy and a twit, and the closer you position yourself to him on any given issue, the more likely it is that you’ll see the pirates of the far right running a black flag up the main mast and slitting throats.
Palin/Jindal ‘16
Thank you,and it is exactly why I have been a member of the Republican party since 1971!
Flenser took the last line of my prior post and applied an response which did not address my observation.
Prior comment If a moderate Republican has tolerance or acceptance of homosexuality, are they no longer welcome in the party?
If a moderate Republican believes it is between God and the person who chooses to abort, and is not their business, are they no longer welcome in the party?
My point being, many comments were made suggesting if a person were tolerant to these positions, there were not true Republicans.
I’m not taking anything to the ridiculous. I’m pointing out that your claptrap about “inclusion” is just that - claptrap. You’d like nothing better than to dump conservatives into a bottomless pit. Don’t try to tell me that I’m supposed to love you in return.
What exactly are you crying about anyway? You got what you wanted. That RINO’s RINO, that corporate whore, John McCain is the GOP nominee. What, you’d have prefered Specter instead?
Well, I’ll do what I can to alter that. You have no business in my party, or my country.
Well, duh!
What, if anything, do you believe in?
flenser, you could not be more wrong….
McCain was NOT my choice! Are you surprised?
It turned out he did win the party nomination. I did not intend to turn my back on my party over certain differences between McCain and me.
I see the need to nominate conservative justices to the Supreme Court.
I see no benefit of Socialism or in Obama’s case, Communism.
I see no benefit in looking to the Government to correct my problems.
I abhor government waste and entitlement programs.
Is this conservative enough for you?
I’d say that that is the conservative idea. Libertarianism is much more of a big government philosophy.
If you want small government, then you need a certain type of people. Self-reliant, self-sufficient, tough-minded, independent. In a word, conservative.
The type of people libertarianism enourages are the exact opposite. There’s a reason why the real life libertarians are always effete college educated males in the big cities, rather than rugged individualists living in a shack in the woods.
flenser,
sadly, you are what gives the Republican Party a bad name!
You are, as I said, intolerant…..
You are the ‘believe as I do or, go away’
Have you ever thought, that perhaps I would prefer you leave MY party! Exactly, when did you become a member?
Not for me, no. I’d need to hear much more before I’d regard you as conservative.
Let me guess - Giuliani?
Wrong….and why would you guess Giuliani?
As I already illustrated, but as you were perhaps too dense to understand, that charge is nonsensical. I’m no more “intolerant’ than you are, perhaps a good deal less so.
To be a conservative is to be able to remember the good sense of the word “disciminating”.
Flenser: Why the vitriol? The Republican Party is no more ‘yours’ than it is K2’s. Unless you have a controlling interest I do not know about, of course.
As I stated above, voting is an individual issue, not a party issue. Each person must decide for themselves how they will vote, and anyone who tries to change this infringes on the franchise.
Generally speaking, ‘moderate Republicans’ describe themselves thusly out of convenience. It translates to ‘I check off most of the Republican items, but not all.’ Are they ‘Republicans’ in the sense that they toe the party line 100%? Of course they’re not, and I don’t think they themselves would try to characterize themselves that way.
In this vein, a RINO is someone who adopts the title of Republican as subterfuge to advance a liberal agenda. There is an obvious continuum here.
And finally… ‘your country’? As I recall, the United States was founded on the principle that the individual is free to believe what he wishes, and that right shall not be infringed except by due process of law (and, in this case, not even then).
Disagree with the position, but you cannot disagree with the right of a person to have that position. Not and believe in the United States of America.
flenser, seriously?
Your prior comment to me was not indicative of intolerance? You said:
There are no points of commonality between McWhore and me. I guess that’s because I’m a conservative.
There is a remote chance that I’ll vote for him, in the hope that he’ll drop dead the day after being sworn in.
Flenser: Perhaps I have Libertarianism confused with something else. But from what I’ve read, it certainly espouses minimalist states.
BTW, I happen to be ‘an effete college male’… and a Republican since achieving my majority 13 years ago. I do not look down on blue collar America, so I would ask for the same courtesy to be extended to me.
God, you’re a fool. You think and talk exactly as liberals do.
flenser,
well, good luck with your stance.
Sorry to not be welcome in ‘your country’.
Or, perhaps not sorry.
out for now….enjoy your evening.
Flenser: Surely you must recognize that a two-party system like we have in America offers little granularity in voter perception? As such, such shortcuts as ‘Moderate Republican’ will arise of their own accord. This is exacerbated by the ‘Republican = Conservative, Democrat = Liberal’ identification in the US.
K2 has already agreed that he does not agree 100% with the Republican platform. However, I was not aware of that being a requirement to join the party. Certainly, we must be vigilant to stop people from calling themselves Republicans while being nothing of the sort, but the polarization you are espousing can be dangerous.
I know what it “espouses”. I also know that its means and ends are not in accordance with one another.
If you REALLY want small government, then you want “the people” to have a certain type of character, the type they used to have when last we had small government.
That type of character is not remotely described by the word “libertarian”. In fact, libertarianism encourages the creation of exactly the type of people who love the state. So says history.
Of course, the “looking down on” has to do with your peculiar and destuctive belief, and not your social status. Libertarians are only a subset of the college educated.
What libertariians are not, not ever, are rugged individualists.
Ulthwithian, what do you make of K2’s blubbering about “tolerance”? Is that not lifted entirely from the liberal playbook?
I don’t accept your proposition that K2 is anything of “the sort”.
Unfortunately, Flenser, you and I (and apparently others) do not seem to have the same definitions for these terms. May I ask for your definitions (in terms that are useful for discussion) of ‘conservative’, ‘libertarian’, and ‘liberal’? Here are mine:
1) Conservative - Economic Conservative (e.g., pro-Free market), Social Conservative (e.g., pro-life)
2) Libertarian - Economic Conservative (e.g., very pro-Free market), Social Liberal (e.g., pro-choice, pro-legalization of drugs)
3) Liberal - Economic Liberal (e.g., Nanny State), Social Liberal (e.g., pro-choice)
Something in this vein would be helpful to promote discussion.
Flenser: I would say that K2 is ’something’ of a Republican, as should be obvious from my previous comments. He may not be 100% Republican (which can only be verified by the platform, since we are discussing, at this point, Party and not actual philosophy), but I would hazard a guess that it isn’t 0%, and is more than likely >50%, as he does use the word Republican to describe himself. However, I would have to check with him vs. the party platform.
However, regarding ‘tolerance’… you said that he has ‘no business being in your country’. I will assume that you refer to the USA. If he is a citizen of his country, he has not just the business but the _right_ to be in this country. The issue regarding the party is slightly different, but that part of your response was over the line, at least.
‘Tolerance’ can be an evil word, used to justify any number of atrocities. However, _verify_ that the word is being used in such a way before you vilify someone for it. I think your response was… premature.
I was under the impression that I had given you those definitions already.
The true small government philosophy is conservativism. It is the only one which actually results in smaller government.
Libertarianism is in error. It’s claimed goals of smaller government cannot be met (and have not been met, and will not be met)by the policy prescriptions it seeks to advance.
If you want small government then it is neccessary for “we the people” to possess a certain type of character. Libertarianism does not get you there. Conservatism does.
Start with the character neccessary in the typical citizen, and work from there. You won’t arrive at any silly “harm principle”.
Given that he says he has been a Republican since 1971, that seems hard to dispute.
I’m saying he is not a conservative, which also seems hard to dispute. Heck, he says so himself.
So all that is left is the question “Is the GOP a conservative party?”
If it is, he does not belong in it. If it is not, I don’t belong in it. QED.
There was a time when a hallmark of the right was that it engaged in this sort of “crunchy” thinking.
Personally, I would prefer to either work from a pure philosophical perspective (which Libertarianism does) _or_ from a perspective that starts with the character already present in the typical citizen.
I do not agree with Libertarians on many social issues (abortion is certainly a huge one, but note that many Libertarians disagree with that part of the party platform), but their arguments can be persuasive.
Conservatism really is a gestalt of the people. I certainly agree with you there. If I may, though, I’d like to draw a parallel issue between these.
Libertarianism starts from a theoretical political principle. Its theoretical arguments are very strong, because of this. However, as you point out, it can (does not necessarily!) fall down when it comes to practical application.
However, Conservatism has a similar problem. If you start with the ‘character necessary in the typical citizen’, as opposed to the ‘character present’ in the typical citizen, you are dealing with a hypothetical/theoretical situation, and not a practical one. Therefore, when you cross over to the practical realm, a similar disconnect can occur.
I feel you are overly dismissive of (at least) libertarian views, but I realize that this could be because you have already analyzed the views in depth and, after that analysis, rejected it. THat is fine. I am simply trying to reconstruct the analysis, and calling the harm principle ’silly’ does not help in that reconstruction. Why is it silly? Could you explain that point?
Flenser: The argument is valid, but not necessarily correct. A party does not necessarily equal a philosophy. In America, the two-party system has unfortunately led to the cognitive equivalence of party and philosophy.
Let us construct the logic here.
1) If X is a conservative, then X is a Republican.
2) X is a Republican.
You cannot logically state ‘X is not a conservative.’ This is only true if statement 1) is stated
1) X is a conservative if and only if X is a Republican.
This equates Conservatives and Republicans. I do not believe this must be the case. They are actually different things.
The Republicans are a party. They have a stated platform. Membership is not restricted to a strict adherence to that platform. Since membership is self-electory, a certain bona fide is assumed.
Conservatism, however, is a political philosophy. It has its own ‘platform’. This does not necessarily match the platform of the Republican party.
Thus, the extent to which the Republican party is a ‘Conservative party’ is the extent to which the Republican platform matches the tenets of the Conservative political philosophy. If this does not exactly match, then the Republican party is not _strictly_ a Conservative party, and thus the logic fails. Thus, one can be a Republican and not be a Conservative.
I’m trying to dig up a link to something - stay tuned …
Unfortunately, it is past 1AM and I do have a class tomorrow, so I must to sleep. I would like to continue this discussion, so I will check this thread tomorrow.
Here we go.
This is a book by Frank Chodorov, a WW2 era libertarian thinker. In chapter one he discusses the question of character. Here’s an excerpt;
And, by contrast;
The practical problem is to “create” (for lack of a better word) the “right” sort of citizens.
It is my argument that what is called “social conservatism” does a better job of creating that sort of citizen than does anything else which has been discovered.
Liberals are quite aware of this and much of their social engineering is dedicated to to defeat of social conservatism for just that reason. If you want a liberal society then you need a sheep-like mass of people conditioned to depend on it.
To condense a very long story, it is silly because no society can function or even come into existence if the principle is followed. It’s similar in some respects to “To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities”. The idea sounds nice, but it’s silly and impractical.
If you are studying libertarianism, you may have noticed that almost none of the people often cited as libertarians were believers in the principle. That includes Friedman, Hayek, Rand, etc. Of course, many of the people libertarians cite as being libertarians did not pin that label on themselves. (Rand, Hayek, etc.)
Sorry, I came late to this party.
Perhaps I have always misunderstood what the term “base” always meant. To me the ‘base’ is the group of individuals who will always vote a straight-line party ticket. They would have no reason to ever look at the ballot because they are always going to vote for the party, no matter the stance of the party itself.
AHHHH Hit submit instead of Preview again!!!! To be continued…..
I on the other hand while Conservative in nature, (and as I described on another posting) have liberal tendencies. That does not mean I will ever vote Democrat nor does it mean I will vote Republican in all situations. Most everyone is missing that there are also Independent candidates AND everyone does have the right to NOT vote. (But if you do not vote then you lose the right to complain about things until the next election - so be it)
I do not vote based on a popularity contest. This isn’t High School and its not the Homecoming Court. If you want me to vote for YOU(or your candidate) then you had better represent ME.
And by “ME” that may also mean “for the good of the country”.
And my job is to know what “YOU” stand for and then to vote accordingly.
Think of me as the sitting on the scales of Lady Justice. The Dem base is one plate and the GOP base is the other plate. I sit in the middle towards one side. Prove to me you have earned my vote and I will vote with the Base. If not then I will vote to the center on a case by case basis AND I do NOT have to vote on EVERY BALLOT LINE either. This isnt the SATs where you get points for filling in every line.
Please feel free to correct my misinterpretation of ‘the Base’
LOL HA! I just got it… no pun intended. Its obviously too
lateearly for me to be doing this. I’m hitting the rack - please talk amongst yourselves…On September 4th, 2008 at 10:01 pm, Ulthwithian said:
When hive-mind wants to look intelligent, it intentionally misunderstands analogies (collectivism = disease) with a serious description.
I suppose you would then consider feudalism or monarchy as merely another “alternative” to conservative political philosophy?
By all means.
Wrong. I didn’t ask about society. I asked if Irish Rose believed mankind exists to serve the state or vice-versa.
Wrong again. I didn’t ask about society. Hive-mind has problem understanding simple question and tries to make complex so it will look smart!
Buzz. I did not ask about society, hive-mind.
Ahhh, and there it is, hive-mind revealed in all its ultimate evil. Why, hive-mind, did you leap to say money is not a political tool? I didn’t mention anything about money being a political tool in my question.
Poor hive mind. Always reveals itself when it doesn’t mean to.
Money is a contract between two free-willed human beings. When you buy something you are telling that person, “Here is the labor of my brow that I give you freely for your goods or services.”
It is the greatest technological invention of mankind. As with any technological invention (guns, nuclear power, etc.) money can be used for good or evil, because money is ultimately a highly portable concentration of a man or woman’s time, labor, wisdom, ability.
As such it can be and often IS a political tool.
If one CONFISCATES money through the STATE for purposes other than those that are directly REQUIRED for a STATE TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENS, then the STATE is practicing…
Drum roll please.
…SLAVERY.
And hive-mind is the slave master.
Oh, and another thing Ulthwithian. And this I address to the person, not the hive-mind that has infected it:
Attempting to enslave someone through words and pettifoggery is just as disgusting, despicable, and evil as through the chain and whip.
Go try to enslave someone else. I’m not buying.
To address FilmLadd:
First, I am a conservative. As such, your labels are mislaid. To take your responses in somewhat opposite order…
‘Money’ is not a contract. A _price_ is a contract. Money is the medium by which the price is negotiated. I said that money is not a political tool because it has no place in this discussion. I was under the impression that we were discussing politics, not economics.
BTW, the above definition comes straight from classically liberal (i.e., free market) economics. The price of a good or service is where the supply curve meets the demand curve. Money is simply the medium.
If you wish, I can answer them directly.
1) A state exists to serve its members. And yes, if we are discussing philosophies, feudalism and monarchy are simply other philosophies, as is collectivism. A representative democracy is generally considered superior to any of the others mentioned (and I certainly consider it so), but you cannot deny that they exist.
2) The state is that construct that is brought into being by those it serves to perform the functions that the individuals cannot perform themselves. (As I said before.) In an absolutist monarchy, for example, the state is a single individual. In a pure democracy (ancient Greek city-states), the state was equal to the entire citizenry. In a representative democracy such as the US, the state would be federal/state/local governments that are voted into office to care for such things as the common defense.
3) What rights the states have is entirely dependent on what rights it was granted upon its creation. If you wish to examine the United States, then the state has limited powers to do what you ask, normally in cases of conviction of persons under criminal law by due process of law. Again, as I stated before.
I’ve already mentioned the whole money thing. I might suggest you reread an introductory Economics text.
And I perfectly agree that redistribution of wealth that goes beyond the powers granted to the state violates the contract between the state and those that created it. That is a very basic Libertarian principle, and if you have read almost anything else here that I’ve said on the subject, you would have realized that I am in perfect agreement with you.
Certainly, but my concern lies in the approach to do this. You certainly have an image of the ‘right sort of citizen’. This is good. However, do you look at what each citizen has, and stamp them into the ‘right sort’, or do you believe in a longer, less… abrupt shift?
I would think that each political philosophy would tend to create the sort of citizen that believed its tenets. It would otherwise be self-defeating.
Quite so. This is a very good statement, and one I fully agree with.
Well, I’m against ordering people around at gun-point. But lets be honest - there is a degree of coercion involved in any society, and in any political theory.
You would think so, but the evidence of the Republican party suggests that it just ain’t so. The evidence of the libertarian movement suggests that it just ain’t so. A lot of people seem to have no conception of the relationship between ends and means.
The goal of the GOP leadership seems to be the creation of some sort of “classical liberal” economic man. That can’t end well.
Here’s an excerpt from “The Conscience of a Conservative”.
Todays libertarians look a lot like Goldwaters liberals.
Ulthwithian:
We might be in general philosophical agreement. Hard to say. Let’s try this on for size:
Money: the exchange medium through which two free individuals agree to perform / accept labor or goods.
State: An organization of people that enforces its will through force of arms over people living within a given geographic area.
This definition of State is simple in nature, encompassing all ends of the spectrum, from Khazikstan to the U.S.
Can we agree on these two simple and brief definitions?
No it is not. Barter is not a “medium” of exchange. It is the act of exchange. But it is a very poor act of exchange in a civilization since it may be difficult to trade half a cow for a car, for example. Hence why currency (exchange medium such as gold/silver/fiat) was invented.
There is a place for liberal Republicans like Specter - it’s called the Socialist Democrat party. Dont let the door hit you on the way out guys.
On September 5th, 2008 at 12:56 pm, Weary Citizen said:
What Weary Citizen said. Well written.