Who said that gays have to be Democrats?

[TX-Beau]

Not the conservatives that you would like them to be, but they are conservatives as they are understood today. Social conservatism means resistance to change in social policies, such as treatment of LGBTs under the law for example.

You beat me to it, and you were nicer about it.

Frankly, all this redefinition argument and whatnot smells like a desperate attempt on the part of conservatives on this board to justify away what they don't want to admit.

 

[Kulindahr]

Not the conservatives that you would like them to be, but they are conservatives as they are understood today. Social conservatism means resistance to change in social policies, such as treatment of LGBTs under the law for example.

But they're not even consistent about that, so they're only pretend conservatives -- more accurately, most are reactionaries, wanting not to conserve, but to roll back (like to the dictatorial Puritan regimes before the Revolution).

You beat me to it, and you were nicer about it.

Frankly, all this redefinition argument and whatnot smells like a desperate attempt on the part of conservatives on this board to justify away what they don't want to admit.

No, it's an attempt to have language mean what it says. I'm no conservative, except maybe in the Goldwater tradition, I just want words to be used precisely. Letting people redefine terms as they please is rather Orwellian.

The truth does not require admission.

All prisoners are innocent. Just ask them, even people who are prisoners of their own ideology.

All what prisoners are innocent? That certainly doesn't apply to jail, or to prison, where one of the great topics of conversation is what each person did, and how -- that's why prison is referred to as "Crime University".

It definitely applies to Congress, but they're prisoners of the corporations who bought their offices.

 

[JB3]

You beat me to it, and you were nicer about it.

Frankly, all this redefinition argument and whatnot smells like a desperate attempt on the part of conservatives on this board to justify away what they don't want to admit.

No one is redefining anything. There is a set definition for what a conservative is and most republicans and 'conservatives' these days don't fit within it.

 

[JB3]

But they're not even consistent about that, so they're only pretend conservatives -- more accurately, most are reactionaries, wanting not to conserve, but to roll back (like to the dictatorial Puritan regimes before the Revolution).



No, it's an attempt to have language mean what it says. I'm no conservative, except maybe in the Goldwater tradition, I just want words to be used precisely. Letting people redefine terms as they please is rather Orwellian.



All what prisoners are innocent? That certainly doesn't apply to jail, or to prison, where one of the great topics of conversation is what each person did, and how -- that's why prison is referred to as "Crime University".

It definitely applies to Congress, but they're prisoners of the corporations who bought their offices.

Unfortunately I don't really expect people that are so far from understanding what it actually means to be a conservative to be able to understand why most of the current 'conservatives' that are out there (especially in the republican party) are anything but. You've summed it up quite nicely, however.

 

[palemale]

Let me put it in a way that you can understand:
MOST REPUBLICANS ARE NOT CONSERVATIVES

CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES DO EXIST, AND FEW OF THE CURRENT 'CONSERVATIVES' ACTUALLY POSSESS THEM

MOST [STRIKE]REPUBLICANS[/STRIKE] COMMUNISTS ARE NOT [STRIKE]CONSERVATIVES[/STRIKE]MARXISTS

[STRIKE]CONSERVATIVE[/STRIKE] MARXIST PRINCIPLES DO EXIST, AND FEW OF THE CURRENT '[STRIKE]CONSERVATIVES[/STRIKE]' MARXISTS ACTUALLY POSSESS THEM

Droid, most members of the communist party in the Soviet Union under Stalin called themselves Marxists. Did the fact that the communist party in the Soviet Union didn't adhere to true Marxism or Communism matter at all to the victims of Stalin?

In the United States, politicians who call themselves conservative are anti-gay bigots, or remain members of a political party that advocates anti-gay bigotry. If you wish to align yourself politically with a movement that advocates anti-gay bigotry, and elect to office members of a party that advances anti-gay bigoted policies, be my guest. Just be honest with yourself and everyone else that that is what you are doing.

 

[Centexfarmer]

MOST [strike]REPUBLICANS[/strike] COMMUNISTS ARE NOT [strike]CONSERVATIVES[/strike]MARXISTS[/b]

[strike]CONSERVATIVE[/strike] MARXIST PRINCIPLES DO EXIST, AND FEW OF THE CURRENT '[strike]CONSERVATIVES[/strike]' MARXISTS ACTUALLY POSSESS THEM

Droid, most members of the communist party in the Soviet Union under Stalin called themselves Marxists. Did the fact that the communist party in the Soviet Union didn't adhere to true Marxism or Communism matter at all to the victims of Stalin?

In the United States, politicians who call themselves conservative are anti-gay bigots, or remain members of a political party that advocates anti-gay bigotry. If you wish to align yourself politically with a movement that advocates anti-gay bigotry, and elect to office members of a party that advances anti-gay bigoted policies, be my guest. Just be honest with yourself and everyone else that that is what you are doing.

Perhaps in his defense, he might actually share with us somewhere/anywhere in his posts how he defines what a TRUE conservative is.

I swear it's like trying to play 40 questions with this guy before he'll just spell it our for us, instead of his being defensive all the time and kicking us in our teeth as if we should already KNOW what it is that he's talking about.

I agree that "conservatives" get a bad rap, what with the Rush Limbaughs' and Glen Becks' usurping that term in the same manner that "Christians" bastardize the Bible to support their own un-liberated minds view of the teaching of Christ to further foment hate and violence.

So either he's a true believer, or he hasn't developed a way to properly articulate himself.

 

[JB3]

Perhaps in his defense, he might actually share with us somewhere/anywhere in his posts how he defines what a TRUE conservative is.

I swear it's like trying to play 40 questions with this guy before he'll just spell it our for us, instead of his being defensive all the time and kicking us in our teeth as if we should already KNOW what it is that he's talking about.

I agree that "conservatives" get a bad rap, what with the Rush Limbaughs' and Glen Becks' usurping that term in the same manner that "Christians" bastardize the Bible to support their own un-liberated minds view of the teaching of Christ to further foment hate and violence.

So either he's a true believer, or he hasn't developed a way to properly articulate himself.

Well, in short, a conservative is everything that a progressive is not. (that alone disqualifies the majority of the current 'conservatives' in the republican party)

Contrary to what some believe (including some of the more vocal members on here), Conservatives are not opposed to change. Rather, they are very careful with change. This is, no doubt, a reaction to the post-war period during which the conservative movement took hold; so many changes, many of them ill-advised and poorly conceived, occurred that conservatives advocated a slower approach that involved actual thought and reason instead of pure experimentation. (see Walter Lippmann's, who was a progressive, book 'The Good Society' for an example of that criticism) Instead of rushing into massive change, conservatives would very much prefer a measured approach (that is not reactionary, as with the current crop) that evaluates those changes for what they are in whether or not they're truly necessary.

Fiscally, the conservative position should already be apparent, so I won't go into them here.

In terms of the government, conservatives believe that less is more. They abhor the massive bureaucracy and the treating of its duties as administration. (again, see the Good Society) Progressives believe that the best way for the government to function is through 'impartial' and 'unbiased' bureaucrats and administrators, while conservatives believe that no such person exists. While it is a nice thought that someone can be impartial enough to administer to the needs of the people equally and justly, conservatives (and I believe rightly so) criticize that as a pie-in-the-sky construct of an experimental mind that has no basis in reality. (and history would tend to agree with them) Progressives tend to view government as a machine, with its various parts working like clock-work with robotic administrators and bureaucrats carrying out their work; Conservatives view government as something consisting of living breathing people that are not infallible, and as something that should not grow to be some massive edifice that no longer represents the common man.

In regards to social law, Conservatives seek something resembling moral neutrality in the law. It should make no moral judgements with regards to things like homosexuality, same-sex marriage, abortion, etc. That is to say, the justification for certain laws, and indeed the laws themselves, should not be or make reference to 'because its morally wrong' because that would identify one morality as being superior to another. Indeed, many conservatives that formed the readings linked to below strongly disagree with the movement to identify marriage as between a man and woman, etc., because such laws are not morally neutral; they utilize a morality wholly unrelated to the rights of man, instead preferring one related to religion or some other source that no laws should subscribe to. One of the sources I read even went so far as to say that marriage is a legal institution and not one attached to any morality, so any law attempting to do link it to a morality would be unjustifiable.

Conservatives also abhor ideologues. One of my favorite quotes on that front comes from Russell Kirk and goes something like 'The conservative mind and the ideologue's mind stand at opposite poles'. A conservative views an ideologue as an atheist views a devout believer; they cross a line between simply believing in the tenets of their ideology to viewing it as something akin to religion. My political beliefs do not guide all my actions just as my religion doesn't. My political beliefs are a part of me instead of all of me. There's much more to be said on that matter, but unfortunately I'm a little rusty on that particular aspect.


The long definition will require some light reading:

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Intellectual-Movement-America/dp/188292620X"]Amazon.com: The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America (9781882926206): George H. Nash: Books[/ame]

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Russell-Kirk-Selected-Essays/dp/1933859024"]Amazon.com: The Essential Russell Kirk: Selected Essays (9781933859026): Russell Kirk: Books[/ame]

Both of those will help you understand what genuine conservatism is, and why the current crop fails all of the tests. The Nash is especially interesting, since it lays out in bare terms what brought about the conservative movement in America, how it compared to competing movements at the time, and how it matured compared to its progressive counterparts.

 

[JB3]

In the United States, politicians who call themselves conservative are anti-gay bigots, or remain members of a political party that advocates anti-gay bigotry. If you wish to align yourself politically with a movement that advocates anti-gay bigotry, and elect to office members of a party that advances anti-gay bigoted policies, be my guest. Just be honest with yourself and everyone else that that is what you are doing.

Have you actually been paying any attention at all? Those people can call themselves whatever they want, but they're sure as hell not conservatives.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's not what you will hear in court

That's because court is about winning, not about justice. The D.A. doesn't look for truth, he looks for anything he can find to convict a person -- in fact many DAs encourage the police to arrest as many people as possible for anything imaginable, just to give them big numbers to try to get convictions on. And the defense attorney doesn't care about truth, he cares about getting his client off, because that's what makes him look like a successful attorney.

Actually in prison you'll here even innocent people talk about the crimes they were convicted for, because anyone who says he's innocent gets treated like dirt.

So what you hear in court is what the defendants want the world to believe, and what you hear in prison is that the criminal community thinks is kool.

 

[Krakenbwool]

I just have a hard time understanding why Republicans want so much government control over our personal lives, when they claim to be all about "reducing government."

 

[JB3]

I just have a hard time understanding why Republicans want so much government control over our personal lives, when they claim to be all about "reducing government."

Because they're not actually conservatives.

 

[opinterph]

There are a set of principles that guide what conservatives are and are not, and FEW to NONE of the current 'conservatives' actually have them.

The Essential Russell Kirk: Selected Essays

And here is a link to Ten Conservative Principles (by Russell Kirk):

http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html​

 

[Kulindahr]

In the United States, politicians who call themselves conservative are anti-gay bigots, or remain members of a political party that advocates anti-gay bigotry. If you wish to align yourself politically with a movement that advocates anti-gay bigotry, and elect to office members of a party that advances anti-gay bigoted policies, be my guest. Just be honest with yourself and everyone else that that is what you are doing.

I agree that "conservatives" get a bad rap, what with the Rush Limbaughs' and Glen Becks' usurping that term in the same manner that "Christians" bastardize the Bible to support their own un-liberated minds view of the teaching of Christ to further foment hate and violence.

So either he's a true believer, or he hasn't developed a way to properly articulate himself.

I think you hit on a gem here.

I'm going to assume that everyone's heard the term "Intelligent Design" (ID). I'm going to describe what happened to the term "conservative" by comparing it to ID.

Back in the day, I fell in with some Intelligent Design folks. There were Deists, Buddhists, a Hindu, and some Christians. What we all had in common was the conviction that the preponderance of the evidence of science indicated a Designer behind it all. Holy books were rarely mentioned.
Then about the time that "Creation Science" was becoming a big deal in the news for the first time, more Christians started moving in. They brought Bibles, and the them the Bible was on par with the scientific evidence, for arguing that there was a Creator. Attempts to tell them that what they were doing was not ID fell on deaf ears. So the ID "community" came to have two communities: the original, science-oriented crew, and the "interlopers".
Then came the period when courts started tossing out textbooks based on "Creation Science". The ignorant fundy (not smarter than a fifth grader) crowd had heard this term "intelligent design" from their folks who'd already hooked up with ID, and they grabbed at it: there was intellectual substance, real science, and it sounded good for public consumption. In short order, the original meaning of the term was shoved aside, and replaced with the substance of "Creation Science", which was really Creationism playing dress-up....

So with "conservatism": it was invaded by people who sort-of kind-of belonged, then deliberately hijacked by people with something entirely different in mind.

Droid is talking the original meaning; others are referring to what Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh present. And as with Intelligent Design, it's important to be able to distinguish.

 

[JB3]

And here is a link to Ten Conservative Principles (by Russell Kirk):

http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html​

Ah, thank you for posting that! Those are just a tiny taste of what is in the rest of the book.

While I am certain that some of you with more progressive inclinations will disagree with the substance of what he is saying, Kirk is among the most eloquent of the conservative writers. Despite that though, he's pretty easy to understand and doesn't couch what he is saying in obtuse language and hard to understand turns-of-phrase.

 

[Kulindahr]

Are you still really unaware of the No True Scotsman fallacy?

It doesn't apply when the definition is from a source other than the person arguing from it.

 

[Alabaster]

I'm just going to bypass any then-and-now semantics and just go after the argument itself. Once upon a time, great men in this country literally brawled in Congress over ideology-driven legislation. Andrew Jackson dueled and shot people and was shot himself, many times, over his political ideals. Today, even in this "discussion" thread, people are arguing pundit-driven talking points as if political philosophy and ideology meant dick-whatsoever to all but a handful of today's politicians. I think what you all fail to realize, though, is that there is no definitive political party in existence in Washington, DC and most of the country itself. Congressmen and women pander to their electoral majority, period, whether it's pandering fiscal responsibility, "values" ("Christian" or otherwise), government interference in the lives of the individual citizen, tax law, corporate de/regulation and/or political access and power, ethics, and civic/social responsibility. Until you're out there beating the streets to enlighten the average "American" livestock - or running for office yourself on these divine principals that died with the founding fathers - you're all just in an intellectual pissing contest. Maybe that gets you off, I dunno...it's exciting, and for somebody like me, it even gets a little sexy at times.

To say that the United States of America was founded a Christian nation is absolutely laughable. The Separation of Church and State does *not* leave room for argumentative loopholes. Even so, Jesus was a Liberal in practice and philosophy, and even now, prominent theologians are debunking previously unquestionable homosexual indictments within the Sodom/Gomorra teachings. To say that the bible condemns homosexuality (um, see David and Jonathon...) might be "accurate" in that particular texts within various versions of the bible bend the translation to do so, but, in accordance with said Separation of Church and State, bible-based legislation is, by default, inapplicable and detrimental to our political process. Is there anyone here that would honestly argue that morality and religion are mutually inclusive, or that without religion 100% of the population would stray from kindness and decency? Prejudice and bigotry exist within and without the religious community. That alone provides the justifiable truth that religion does not guarantee morality.

Regarding Liberalism and Conservatism - capital L, capital C - the former is a forward-looking philosophy which stresses equality and a socially optimistic point of view (as above, Jesus...). The latter is a change-resistant philosophy hinged upon a socially pessimistic view, in that mankind is by its very nature untrustworthy, and that the more people you have in power, the more untrustworthy and intrusive your government will become.

With regard to the arguments of "then and now": apply those to today's political environment. Democrats all over DC are falling prey to their own corruption, graft, and personal gain, while Republicans - almost to the official - have made radical and sweeping changes to their political doctrine and even to the constitution itself, including instances such as illegal wiretapping, subpoenaing confidential medical records, restricting minority rights and freedoms across the board, and generally fighting the notion of Checks and Balances at every turn so long as there's an (R) following the individual's name on C-SPAN.

And guys, the reason they get away with it is because we're too busy taking a piss and flexing our oh-so-eloquent egos.

I vote Democrat and I consider myself a Liberal because I agree with the majority of the principals set forth therein respectively. Do I attack an individual's rights to a political opinion? No. Legislation is compromise; that's how it's meant to be.

Until we can compromise, what singular chance in hell do we have to expect our government to do the same?

 

[JB3]

To say that the United States of America was founded a Christian nation is absolutely laughable. The Separation of Church and State does *not* leave room for argumentative loopholes. Even so, Jesus was a Liberal in practice and philosophy, and even now, prominent theologians are debunking previously unquestionable homosexual indictments within the Sodom/Gomorra teachings.

I agree with most of your substance here, save for separation of church and state. Such a thing did not exist at the founding, and the founders would be dismayed at the extent that one sentence has been misconstrued and warped in the way it has been.

To say that the bible condemns homosexuality (um, see David and Jonathon...) might be "accurate" in that particular texts within various versions of the bible bend the translation to do so, but, in accordance with said Separation of Church and State, bible-based legislation is, by default, inapplicable and detrimental to our political process. Is there anyone here that would honestly argue that morality and religion are mutually inclusive, or that without religion 100% of the population would stray from kindness and decency? Prejudice and bigotry exist within and without the religious community. That alone provides the justifiable truth that religion does not guarantee morality.

That's exactly the argument that traditional conservatives would make. Religion, while a useful tool for some things, ultimately does not belong in the crafting of legislation

Regarding Liberalism and Conservatism - capital L, capital C - the former is a forward-looking philosophy which stresses equality and a socially optimistic point of view (as above, Jesus...). The latter is a change-resistant philosophy hinged upon a socially pessimistic view, in that mankind is by its very nature untrustworthy, and that the more people you have in power, the more untrustworthy and intrusive your government will become.

That's not an accurate representation of conservatism. Read the Kirk link Opinterph posted above. Conservatism is no more change-resistant than Progressivism. The difference is that conservatives take a more measured and prudent approach.

Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old.

The second bit you're sort of correct about, but the language you're using is very negative. Conservatives believe that man is flawed, and that the Progressive ideal of the utopia (often termed 'good society' or some form of it) is not achievable. They don't believe man is untrustworthy, but they do believe that man will seek power if given the chance and that there is no such thing as a benevolent man that has all the power. And in all fairness, when the government HAS had all the power they could seek, they have misused and abused it, so the Conservative viewpoint on that is most certainly correct.

Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order. A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty.

Progressives seek to create that which cannot be; a utopia in which everyone is provided with everything, and society is perfect. Conservatives recognize that such a thing can never exist, and instead seek the best that can be made from our situation.

Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent—or else expire of boredom. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. But if the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are neglected, then the anarchic impulse in humankind breaks loose: “the ceremony of innocence is drowned.” The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell.

(all of those italicized quotes are taken from the link Opinterph posted above)

 

[Kulindahr]

.... Jesus was a Liberal in practice and philosophy

He was more a Libertarian than anything. He definitely was not a Liberal in today's sense of the term, shoving off the responsibility for loving one's neighbor onto government, and expecting government to do more for us that most people then expected of God.

, and even now, prominent theologians are debunking previously unquestionable homosexual indictments within the Sodom/Gomorra teachings.

That the Sodom and Gomorrah account isn't talking about homosexuality has been known for well over a thousand years.

To say that the bible condemns homosexuality (um, see David and Jonathon...)

That situation has no more to do with homosexuality than does Sodom and Gomorrah.

Regarding Liberalism and Conservatism - capital L, capital C - the former is a forward-looking philosophy which stresses equality and a socially optimistic point of view (as above, Jesus...). The latter is a change-resistant philosophy hinged upon a socially pessimistic view, in that mankind is by its very nature untrustworthy, and that the more people you have in power, the more untrustworthy and intrusive your government will become.

Today's liberalism rests on a socially pessimistic view, namely that except for a small elite, no citizen is really competent to make significant choices, and thus needs to be regulated and denied freedoms left and right, basically treating everyone like little children who need to be taken care of and never, ever actually allowed to stand up and be a responsible individual.
Conservatism rests on the principle that charging ahead without serious consideration of the consequences is irresponsible. In that, it lends itself to the same authoritarian inclinations liberals have shown for the last generation or more.

Both have pessimistic views of humanity, and both are avenues to statism.

With regard to the arguments of "then and now": apply those to today's political environment. Democrats all over DC are falling prey to their own corruption, graft, and personal gain, while Republicans - almost to the official - have made radical and sweeping changes to their political doctrine and even to the constitution itself, including instances such as illegal wiretapping, subpoenaing confidential medical records, restricting minority rights and freedoms across the board, and generally fighting the notion of Checks and Balances at every turn so long as there's an (R) following the individual's name on C-SPAN.

And guys, the reason they get away with it is because we're too busy taking a piss and flexing our oh-so-eloquent egos.

The reason they get away with it is because Americans pretty much engage in idolatry over the "two party system", being firmly convinced we have to vote for one or the other of the "Re-Elect Us Party" (REUP).

 

[Alabaster]

^^"The difference is that conservatives take a more measured and prudent approach."

Hmm, actually...no. Unless we're back to the then-and-now business, in which case, it's way past my bedtime.

You've found a political philosopher with a lovely grasp of the language. But as far as applying what he's written to anything that's happening in the government, I'm sorry, but he's just another pundit with some more catchy talking points.

Shutting down the Senate over an extension for unemployment benefits is neither measured nor prudent given the current economic situation. And that's just the most recent example.

It's impressive rhetoric, don't get me wrong, but you keep quoting this one source as a foundation for argument.

We can talk philosophy all you want, but the entire point of my post above was the fact that the IS NO philosophy left in Congress. Just because one admirably adept essayist puts Conservatism under Rembrandt's light doesn't give you a rung-up on the ladder of political discourse over anyone with dissenting opinions.

My point was quite the contrary - as I said, we can talk philosophy until the world ends - but discussion in and of itself in an impotent endeavor, unless your intention is merely to debunk the majority of political opinion here. So quote Kirk all you like, but the system under which we're living is still as it is. I wish rhetoric were the antidote, but we're far past that.

All due respect, of course, but it's not applicable and a bit OT regarding my post as a whole. Perhaps I was a bit blunt in describing the two philosophies, but I was working under the assumption that anyone willing to put forth an opinion here would be knowledgeable enough in both areas of discourse. Was I wrong?

 

[JB3]

^^"The difference is that conservatives take a more measured and prudent approach."

Hmm, actually...no. Unless we're back to the then-and-now business, in which case, it's way past my bedtime.

You've found a political philosopher with a lovely grasp of the language. But as far as applying what he's written to anything that's happening in the government, I'm sorry, but he's just another pundit with some more catchy talking points.

Shutting down the Senate over an extension for unemployment benefits is neither measured nor prudent given the current economic situation. And that's just the most recent example.

It's impressive rhetoric, don't get me wrong, but you keep quoting this one source as a foundation for argument.

We can talk philosophy all you want, but the entire point of my post above was the fact that the IS NO philosophy left in Congress. Just because one admirably adept essayist puts Conservatism under Rembrandt's light doesn't give you a rung-up on the ladder of political discourse over anyone with dissenting opinions.

My point was quite the contrary - as I said, we can talk philosophy until the world ends - but discussion in and of itself in an impotent endeavor, unless your intention is merely to debunk the majority of political opinion here. So quote Kirk all you like, but the system under which we're living is still as it is. I wish rhetoric were the antidote, but we're far past that.

All due respect, of course, but it's not applicable and a bit OT regarding my post as a whole. Perhaps I was a bit blunt in describing the two philosophies, but I was working under the assumption that anyone willing to put forth an opinion here would be knowledgeable enough in both areas of discourse. Was I wrong?

Well you've sort of missed the entire last page of discussion. We're not talking about the here and now; we're talking about how the current crop of republicans that call themselves conservatives are anything but. You can cite Bunning all you want, but you're just proving my point that he is not a conservative in the traditional, accepted sense. The reason I cite Kirk and others is because of that point, which you seem to have missed.

And I'm well-versed in the flip-side of the political philosophy coin as well, but that's not what was being discussed here. Your post however, doesn't really show an understanding of where the two ideologies are at odds, otherwise you wouldn't have made the sweeping (and inaccurate) claims about conservatism that you did. While I stand up for conservatism because that is where I identify myself, I could just as easily take a similar stance on the side of progressivism. Trust me, I've read enough of Hegel, Dewey, Wilson, and other progressives to provide a similar argument for the progressive side as well. I have yet to see a similar defense taken up on behalf of progressivism by other members here, which leads me to believe they are either not familiar enough with their own ideology, or they don't have the knowledge to defend it. Until they do, I have no problem saying that I do have a rung-up on the discourse here because no one has yet provided a similar response from the progressive side.

Part of my point is that, were republicans or another party to go back to those ideals laid out by Kirk and others (and I'm more than willing to acknowledge that they're ideals in regards to the current 'conservatives' since they're so far away from them), I think they would find themselves quickly accepted by the public at large. Rhetoric can be an antidote, especially in light of the situation we're in right now. The public is yearning for a return to these types of ideals instead of the ideological mine field that we currently have.

But again, that's not actually what was being discussed here. What we were discussing was whether the crop of republicans out there actually were conservative. (and the involvement of Kirk was a direct response to another member asking what conservatism was) The information that's been posted shows very clearly that they are not.

So in essence, while your points are interesting, they're really missing the whole point of this discussion in the first place. We're not talking about how the current crop of republicans represent conservative values; in fact, I'm arguing exactly the opposite fact. (and have been since early on in this thread) My response was not so much off-topic, as it was responding to a diversion from the discussion that you created. So as I've responded earlier in this thread and elsewhere:

Republicans =/= conservatives