What Is a Conservative?

[JB3]

JB3 comes to the table with the historical and more dubiously an official explanation of sorts, which after all, is only one of many in a sea of opinions. The definition of a conservative in the US has changed dramatically since the 60s.

And this is exactly why you quite simply don't know what you're talking about. We're not talking about 'one of many in a sea of opinions'. There is a documented body of writings about what American conservatism is and is not. The definition you are trying to put forth, that its meaning has changed, exposes the fact that you just don't know enough to be making such a judgement.

The second sentence in your quote exposes just how deep your misunderstanding and misconceptions run. The term hasn't changed. What being a conservative is hasn't changed. Again, the fact that you think that it has exposes your severe lack of knowledge and understanding. You want it to have changed. You want it to fit into your idea of what a conservative is. But it doesn't.

 

[JB3]

Really Kulindahr?

Sheep?

I'm disappointed in you. That's a nonsensical analogy that is above and beyond even hyperbole. The word 'sheep' is not a political concept that will change with time as do political terms. You must surely know that. If however the terms for sheep and dogs somehow spontaneously switched, that would be their semantic meaning wouldn't it? What would be the point of trying to refer to historical terms as "true?"

Conservatives themselves have changed the meaning of the word for themselves, not liberals or the media. Conservatives today believe in invading countries and instituting religious principles over individual rights. I don't give a high God damn what American conservatism meant 50 years ago. What a Democrat meant back then was radically different too. These are just facts of American life you and JB3 have to get over already.

You're just making shit up now. Its actually sort of sad. What you claim as facts are nothing of the sort.

 

[Kulindahr]

Really Kulindahr?

Sheep?

I'm disappointed in you. That's a nonsensical analogy that is above and beyond even hyperbole. The word 'sheep' is not a political concept that will change with time as do political terms. You must surely know that. If however the terms for sheep and dogs somehow spontaneously switched, that would be their semantic meaning wouldn't it? What would be the point of trying to refer to historical terms as "true?"

Conservatives themselves have changed the meaning of the word for themselves, not liberals or the media. Conservatives today believe in invading countries and instituting religious principles over individual rights. I don't give a high God damn what American conservatism meant 50 years ago. What a Democrat meant back then was radically different too. These are just facts of American life you and JB3 have to get over already.

It's a nonsensical analogy to try to point out your nonsensical position.

Let's take the word "Roman". Who changed the meaning of that word? The answer is that no one did: it merely took on a different meaning, but the old one did not go away. You're trying to argue that there really isn't any meaning to words, they're just sounds that represent whatever concepts happen to go with them at some point in time.

The word "conservative" has just as set a meaning as anything else in the scholarly world. What people have done with it makes no difference; the 'pristine' -- if you will -- definition remains.

If this were not so, every use of a word would have to be examined as to whether it's a lie: is someone using the word as everyone understands, or introducing a new meaning with false intent? In politics that would be especially the case -- so if you're right, we'd be well off to automatically assume that any politician who calls himself a conservative or a liberal or a humanist or whatever is in fact lying.

Though maybe it wouldn't matter if they're lying; your way, if they keep doing it long enough, maybe they can make that the (brief) actual meaning.

After all, the adage says that if you repeat it often enough, maybe people will believe you.

 

[JB3]

I don't argue with childish people. If you're not ready to debate the arguments on the merits then it's best to say nothing at all.

Ignore time for Bonzo.

I am ready. You refuse to actually discuss it and are instead clinging to a concept that does not apply.

 

[JB3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_conservatism





Which sounds strikingly similar to what I have stated previously.



Imagine that.




Among other things...

First, how about you go read the first-hand sources instead of trying to use Wikipedia.

Second, what you said and what you quote are two different things. I'm not surprised you can't understand that, however.

 

[Kulindahr]

Golly Jee..

look at all the types



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_conservatism#Types



I thought for a second by being pig piled that I might have been wrong.

Looks like I'm not.

No, you're just finding things that support the singular view you're taking -- so you're wrong together.

 

[BostonPirate]

I tend to think that conservatism has been defined by those that call themselves conservatives throughout the years in a wide variety of ways.

It has become a subjective term and right now it is far from what the conservatives of any other time or place have called it.

the modern "Conservative" movement within the USA has become quite radical

Trying to amend the constitution instead of uphold its basic values, trying to enforce a religion instead of standing up for the basic premises of separation of church and state...

just to name a few

Quite subjective and quite changing as time has passed.

 

[JB3]

I tend to think that conservatism has been defined by those that call themselves conservatives throughout the years in a wide variety of ways.

It has become a subjective term and right now it is far from what the conservatives of any other time or place have called it.

the modern "Conservative" movement within the USA has become quite radical

Trying to amend the constitution instead of uphold its basic values, trying to enforce a religion instead of standing up for the basic premises of separation of church and state...

just to name a few

Quite subjective and quite changing as time has passed.

See but it isn't. You're proving mine and Kulindahr's point. The meaning of the term hasn't changed. It has been co-opted and hijacked by people seeking legitimacy, not by anyone that's actually a conservative.

 

[BostonPirate]

See but it isn't. You're proving mine and Kulindahr's point. The meaning of the term hasn't changed. It has been co-opted and hijacked by people seeking legitimacy, not by anyone that's actually a conservative.

I had a Muslim friend that said that often about his faith. Conservatives argued with him all the time that he was wrong. But somehow the rules are different for them, I guess.

I understand what both sides of this arguement are saying, and I am saying that theory means didly squat.

what really counts is what the majority of people that self identify as conservative are doing and how they define it.

I believe the republican party is going through a purge right now because they believe they are not conservative enough and their answers are Ms Angle, Mr Paul, Ms Palin, And Mr Cheney.

Those are the people defining the movement and those are the people that are leading the crusade. I see no big struggle anywhere within that movement to deradicalize themselves.... Only a movement to further push out to the right.

 

[JB3]

I had a Muslim friend that said that often about his faith. Conservatives argued with him all the time that he was wrong. But somehow the rules are different for them, I guess.

I understand what both sides of this arguement are saying, and I am saying that theory means didly squat.

what really counts is what the majority of people that self identify as conservative are doing and how they define it.

I believe the republican party is going through a purge right now because they believe they are not conservative enough and their answers are Ms Angle, Mr Paul, Ms Palin, And Mr Cheney.

Those are the people defining the movement and those are the people that are leading the crusade. I see no big struggle anywhere within that movement to deradicalize themselves.... Only a movement to further push out to the right.

You don't see it, but that's because you're not looking in the right places. Most prominent conservative writers and academics distanced themselves long ago from the republicans and (now) the tea party people.

As I said in an earlier post, many of the conservatives are lying low until the pretenders self-destruct. Its exactly what they did during the 50s and 60s.

 

[Sausy]

You don't see it, but that's because you're not looking in the right places. Most prominent conservative writers and academics distanced themselves long ago from the republicans and (now) the tea party people.

As I said in an earlier post, many of the conservatives are lying low until the pretenders self-destruct. Its exactly what they did during the 50s and 60s.

The best thing for the country is if they didn't lay low but claimed back their party.They owe it to their party,their country,their cause.You're a lot more intellectually gifted than me,but from what I know of conservatism it is a movement first and foremost of temperance and caution,more a philosophy than a movement actually that was basically inspired in reaction to the excesses of the equivalent of the left during the French Revolution.

They can't lay low hoping for the radical right to self destruct,the damage they cause and still may cause is unacceptable.Barry Goldwater would be rejected as insufficiently conservative by many of those claiming the mantle of legitimacy today.

 

[JB3]

The best thing for the country is if they didn't lay low but claimed back their party.They owe it to their party,their country,their cause.You're a lot more intellectually gifted than me,but from what I know of conservatism it is a movement first and foremost of temperance and caution,more a philosophy than a movement actually that was basically inspired in reaction to the excesses of the equivalent of the left during the French Revolution.

You're quite right about your evaluation of the conservatives and what they're all about.

The problem right now is that the people that have hijacked the republicans are so loud-mouthed and have a bully pulpit (Glen Beck) that to try and go up against them just wouldn't be feasible. Depending on what is said at the rally, maybe americans will finally start to tire of the tea party shtick, and there'll be an opening.

 

[BostonPirate]

I have noticed that americans always turn to hate when they are afraid, and when that happens, someone is always there to make a buck and grab some power.

I have also noticed in the last few years that the republicans have been masters at this game.

Just this month, it has been queers, latinos, blacks, and muslims.

It was the same group ten years ago

it was the same group ten years before that.

Ronald reagan had his Welfare Queens, Bush the elder had Willie horton, Bush junior had the muslims, now we have all of the above.

The Republican party and the conservative movement is a ship without a captain or a rudder, and it is being guided by an angry mob fueled by fear trumped up by the conservative media.

There is no way for anyone to be heard over that rabble, within the party.

Cab drivers are being stabbed and america is building walls around itself.

The insanity is profound, and history will mark this era as such.

 

[Sausy]

You're quite right about your evaluation of the conservatives and what they're all about.

The problem right now is that the people that have hijacked the republicans are so loud-mouthed and have a bully pulpit (Glen Beck) that to try and go up against them just wouldn't be feasible. Depending on what is said at the rally, maybe americans will finally start to tire of the tea party shtick, and there'll be an opening.

Not optimistic it will happen in the near term,though I'm sure something egregious will come out of someone's yapper at the rally.When Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee have potentially serious opportunities in 2012 for the Republican presidential nomination,we are in a fucked up situation....and I'm saying this as a relatively conservative Democrat.

 

[JB3]

I have noticed that americans always turn to hate when they are afraid, and when that happens, someone is always there to make a buck and grab some power.

I have also noticed in the last few years that the republicans have been masters at this game.

Just this month, it has been queers, latinos, blacks, and muslims.

It was the same group ten years ago

it was the same group ten years before that.

Ronald reagan had his Welfare Queens, Bush the elder had Willie horton, Bush junior had the muslims, now we have all of the above.

The Republican party and the conservative movement is a ship without a captain or a rudder, and it is being guided by an angry mob fueled by fear trumped up by the conservative media.

There is no way for anyone to be heard over that rabble, within the party.

Cab drivers are being stabbed and america is building walls around itself.

The insanity is profound, and history will mark this era as such.

Again, the conservative movement and republican party are two different things. One has hijacked the name (and history) of the other. Conservatives are not a ship without a captain or a rudder. The republican party IS.

 

[BostonPirate]

Again, the conservative movement and republican party are two different things. One has hijacked the name (and history) of the other. Conservatives are not a ship without a captain or a rudder. The republican party IS.

I know the difference.

once again, I am one who dwells in the land of what is practical and real, and at present, the people defining the conservative movement are the republican party.

If this is a problem, I strongly suggest that you and other like minded individuals with a different view of conservatism start a party that is not infected with the insanity of the teabaggers and actually do something about it.

What I see practically... what I see realistically happening on any given moment is that Rush limbaugh defines the movement and anyone that disagrees with him either apologizes quickly or faces months of endless tirades and destructive slander. Beck and orallly are the same Ilk but they at least do not expect the movement members to bow and kiss the ring on their hands... YET that is.

Fox must also be disenfrachised from the conservative movement before it will be taken seriously.

 

[Kulindahr]

the modern "Conservative" movement within the USA has become quite radical

Those are the people defining the movement and those are the people that are leading the crusade. I see no big struggle anywhere within that movement to deradicalize themselves.... Only a movement to further push out to the right.

The proper term for this is "reactionary": they're reacting against change they don't like by trying to go back in time.

 

[Kulindahr]

The Republican party and the conservative movement is a ship without a captain or a rudder, and it is being guided by an angry mob fueled by fear trumped up by the conservative media.

Replace "movement" with "hijacking" and the second "conservative" with "reactionary" and you've got one serious gem of a statement.

There really is a conservative movement, but it's working rather quietly to build leadership with real education and thinking abilities. One mark of the difference is that they actually debate gay marriage, as opposed to screaming about it -- and many of them are right there with Olson.

 

[BostonPirate]

Replace "movement" with "hijacking" and the second "conservative" with "reactionary" and you've got one serious gem of a statement.

There really is a conservative movement, but it's working rather quietly to build leadership with real education and thinking abilities. One mark of the difference is that they actually debate gay marriage, as opposed to screaming about it -- and many of them are right there with Olson.

If you can name ten of them versus the millions out there that would disagree I hardly think it counts.

the moderate conservatives are all on the outs right now unfortunately.

 

[JB3]

I know the difference.

No, you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't be arguing what you are.