Conservatives and War

[Damocles]

I'm not saying I disagree with you Damo, but I also feel social conservatism has a role and place in conservative philosophy, in fact, it is the bedrock of conservative philosophy. You may disagree, and that is your prerogative, but Barrack Obama is the first truly social liberal president we've ever elected. In most instances, regardless of whether it was a republican or democrat, the person we elected president was somewhat socially conservative, because we are predominately a socially conservative nation. Even Bill Clinton knew when it was wise to carry that Bible under his arm and attend church services... hell, Al Gore was singing in the black church choir! Tell me that wasn't an appeal to social conservatives!

I agree, social conservative issues do not need to be the cornerstone of the platform, but they do need to be included in the platform, and we shouldn't be ashamed of that. If Republicans can return to the Reagan-era ideals of smaller government, less government intrusion in our lives, and more personal responsibility, they will win elections without abandoning the social conservative issues. The LAST thing Republicans need to do, is MODERATE!

Which has been my point. Prioritize. The Social Values "conservatives" have led us down this road, it's time to wake up, realize we have gone off course and correct.

Yes, Social Conservatism has its place and there is no need to be ashamed of them, but there is no way we should elect another to run that doesn't centralize on what was successful and would have continued to be successful had we continued it. Imagine record "surplus" that actually happened rather than was just projected.... Imagine "no nation building wars"... 9/11 happened and Bush abandoned first the only conservative stances he was holding and started on the path to something new.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

at least you know why you lost power. Now, correct it.

what seems totally fucked up is both republicans and democrats are afraid of freedom, which is probably 3/4ths of the reason that they label Libertarians as pinheads or extremists.

If you can't fix your party and bring it back to what it was before, we'll happily assume the better parts of that political plank.

I label Libertarians pinheads, not because I disagree with their ideology, but because they are romantic ideologues. In a Perfect World, Libertarianism is great and would be the best way to go, but this is far from a Perfect World. Libertarians have NO CHANCE of winning the presidential elections in this country, and IF they did, would likely be completely ineffective at implementing any of their agenda, because the Congress would be full of adversaries working for their own political interests. It's a pipe dream to think the Libertarian party has any chance of winning anything other than a few state and local offices, and to just throw your vote away and allow Liberal Socialists to take power instead, is very pinheaded, in my opinion. I understand your reasoning, I get that it's a principles thing, but I still think it's pinheaded.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I label Libertarians pinheads, not because I disagree with their ideology, but because they are romantic ideologues. In a Perfect World, Libertarianism is great and would be the best way to go, but this is far from a Perfect World. Libertarians have NO CHANCE of winning the presidential elections in this country, and IF they did, would likely be completely ineffective at implementing any of their agenda, because the Congress would be full of adversaries working for their own political interests. It's a pipe dream to think the Libertarian party has any chance of winning anything other than a few state and local offices, and to just throw your vote away and allow Liberal Socialists to take power instead, is very pinheaded, in my opinion. I understand your reasoning, I get that it's a principles thing, but I still think it's pinheaded.

so my question to you would be, if you KNEW McCain was too centrist to win, did you vote libertarian? or did you just not vote?

you could even extend that to 'the next republican dandidate' in 2012.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Which has been my point. Prioritize. The Social Values "conservatives" have led us down this road, it's time to wake up, realize we have gone off course and correct.

Yes, Social Conservatism has its place and there is no need to be ashamed of them, but there is no way we should elect another to run that doesn't centralize on what was successful and would have continued to be successful had we continued it. Imagine record "surplus" that actually happened rather than was just projected.... Imagine "no nation building wars"... 9/11 happened and Bush abandoned first the only conservative stances he was holding and started on the path to something new.

I disagree that the Social Values conservatives have led us down any road! They have been attacked and castigated, ridiculed, scorned, and parodied on SNL, we've seen a full frontal assault on social conservatism from the left, and you are inclined to run and hide from the heat, I don't blame you! It has been pretty intense.

As for Bush, I believe the ONLY conservative values he had, were Social Conservative values, he certainly never seemed to have any Fiscal Conservative ones. And perhaps it's easy to interchange "The President" with "Social Values Conservatives" but Bush was one man, marching to his own drummer. No, we certainly don't need another Bush, we don't need a Social Conservative who doesn't understand Fiscal Conservatism. We need a Fiscal Conservative, who understands and respects Social Conservative values. That's all.

Someone who can articulate a clear concise Conservative message, an "all-encompassing" Conservative message, which includes an articulation of why Social Conservatism is important to the overall conservative message. McCain didn't even come close to doing this, I think many conservatives saw him as nothing more than a politician who would do or say whatever he needed to get elected, and that just didn't cut it with conservatives.

 

[Damocles]

I disagree that the Social Values conservatives have led us down any road! They have been attacked and castigated, ridiculed, scorned, and parodied on SNL, we've seen a full frontal assault on social conservatism from the left, and you are inclined to run and hide from the heat, I don't blame you! It has been pretty intense.

As for Bush, I believe the ONLY conservative values he had, were Social Conservative values, he certainly never seemed to have any Fiscal Conservative ones. And perhaps it's easy to interchange "The President" with "Social Values Conservatives" but Bush was one man, marching to his own drummer. No, we certainly don't need another Bush, we don't need a Social Conservative who doesn't understand Fiscal Conservatism. We need a Fiscal Conservative, who understands and respects Social Conservative values. That's all.

Someone who can articulate a clear concise Conservative message, an "all-encompassing" Conservative message, which includes an articulation of why Social Conservatism is important to the overall conservative message. McCain didn't even come close to doing this, I think many conservatives saw him as nothing more than a politician who would do or say whatever he needed to get elected, and that just didn't cut it with conservatives.

He ran on ideas that were conservative, and not socially so.

1. No nation-building wars.
2. Free markets.
3. Vouchers for schools.
4. Social Security reform.

Just to name a few...

All of which he failed to do and in fact worked opposite of. While he ran on those and got elected on them he led us (Social Conservative) down the exact path that I stated before.

First you say he was solely social conservative then say that they didn't lead us anywhere. You can't have it both ways. Articulate social conservatism as you wish, just don't elect people who focus only on those values or prioritize them above other conservative values to the point they'll compromise those over the social conservative ideals.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

so my question to you would be, if you KNEW McCain was too centrist to win, did you vote libertarian? or did you just not vote?

you could even extend that to 'the next republican dandidate' in 2012.

Since I was old enough to vote, I have always cast my vote for president. This past election, I really struggled with my decision, more than any other time in my life. I had actually decided to not cast a vote in the presidential race, until McCain picked Palin. For that reason alone, I voted for McCain.

Why would I vote for a loosing Libertarian ticket? Out of principle? Hell, I don't agree with everything the Libertarians do, so why would I do that? I knew I wasn't going to vote for the Communist Socialist Democrats, and a vote for McCain was a vote against Obama, so that's how I ultimately went, but it wasn't because I liked McCain or agreed with him on policy. I did like Palin, and not because she is attractive, but I really think her politics and ideology are akin to that of Reagan, and I liked that. I think the McCain handlers botched it with her, they picked her, then didn't allow her to articulate the message which could have turned it all around. Instead, they trotted her out on Charlie Gibson and Katie Courick and allowed the left-wing media to define her to the electorate, like a bunch of boneheads! The McCain campaign was about the most incompetent Republican campaign of my lifetime, even Bob Dole and Bush Sr. ran a better strategy.

 

[Onceler]

"I did like Palin"

A bit of an understatement, there...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

He ran on ideas that were conservative, and not socially so.

1. No nation-building wars.
2. Free markets, etc.

Both of which he failed to do and in fact worked opposite of. While he ran on those and got elected on them he led us (Social Conservative) down the exact path that I stated before.

First you say he was solely social conservative then say that they didn't lead us anywhere. You can't have it both ways. Articulate social conservatism as you wish, just don't elect people who focus only on those values or prioritize them above other conservative values to the point they'll compromise those over the social conservative ideals.

Bush wasn't completely void of fiscal conservative value, I didn't mean to imply that. He DID cut taxes, he DID promote free markets. But, by and large, he was a social conservative. The "Social Values Conservatives" didn't lead us anywhere, a socially conservative president did. It's unfair to blame "Social Values Conservatives" for all of what Bush policies gave us. He is one man, not the whole group.

Here is something I have observed, and it's really quite relevant to this issue. Those who are strong Social Conservatives, tend to also be liberal spenders. They allow their Social Conservatism to justify abandoning fiscal conservative principles, or at least override them. This was the case with Bush, No Child Left Behind, The Pill Bill... compassionate social conservative values at play, at the expense of fiscal conservatism. Even the issue of Iraq, was somewhat rooted in Bush's social conservative ideology. But this doesn't mean we should abandon social conservative issues, it means we need to find someone who understands the role of social conservatism, and why it accompanies (not overrides) fiscal conservatism. I think this is the secret to why Reagan was so successful, he understood it, he could articulate it, and it was resoundingly popular when he did.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Why would I vote for a loosing Libertarian ticket? Out of principle? Hell, I don't agree with everything the Libertarians do, so why would I do that?

but you didn't agree with everything that McCain stood for either, so you chose what you thought was the lesser of two evils. Basically, all you did was allow the authoritarian machine to continue to roll over us.

 

[DamnYankee]

Sorry, but I refuse to read threads which begin with a flat out lie.

NO ONE LIKES WAR DUMBASS!

I got slghtly further, to this, another lie: "War is not a last option, but a first priority for the Frum-Perle-Wolfowitz Axis of Aggression."

The fact is that war is simply a tool of diplomacy. Unless you're willing to have it ready you'll have a weak bargaining position with dictators and those who would like to do you harm. Only a fool would leave it off the table.

 

[Bfgrn]

Did I hear Sarah Palin???

Obama has both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament.
Charles Krauthammer

 

[Minister of Truth]

Socrtease, funny but that piece falls in-line with most of my impressions and assumptions about conservatives. I know so many who avoided the draft in one way or the other and yet supported the war (read illegal invasion) in Iraq. 'Love' may be a bit of exaggeration, but war (military buildups) is a part of their thinking, and for the religious right a part of Gawd's plan. Remember their magical hero Ronnie brought down Russian communism and all he did was buy weapons.

Okay, you seem to be confusing Vietnam (draft) with Iraq (no draft), but, whatever. You are correct that Reagan and Bush both viewed foreign policy from the realist perspective in which our interests could be secured through pressure, power-play, and basic Kissinger philosophy. I have yet to figure out how neocons reconcile the realism of Reagan and Bush with the neoconservatism of Wolfowitz and Bremer.

As a lefty socialist liberal, I support the draft as I feel citizens have a responsibility to the nation that provides them the wherewithal for an excellent life - which I have had partly because of the GI bill. It is duty rather than slavery. I part with the author on the caviler idea that individual freedom (whatever that may be to the person) leads to nirvana, anyone older that 12 knows that is BS.

In a free society, the people owe absolutely nothing to the government, let alone something as extreme as the draft. What you do is establish local customs (community values) where good behavior is honored and poor behavior is stigmatized. This is how it was done in the past.

As is well known here, I am also opposed to libertarian thought which I see as naive and selfish.

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts07232008.html

Look, we all saw your stupid Nutshell threads on FP.com, and to date, no single poster has been as severely or completely demolished in a series of debates as you were by the libertarians. And this says something considering that people like Dixie and toby were supposed to be there helping out your image considerably.

One thing about libertarians is that their views do not have anything to do with the nanny state, unless you consider liberty a nanny state concept.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

but you didn't agree with everything that McCain stood for either, so you chose what you thought was the lesser of two evils. Basically, all you did was allow the authoritarian machine to continue to roll over us.

No I chose one of two candidates which could possibly win, and voted on the basis of their VP pick. Basically, all Libertarian voters did, was elect Obama.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No I chose one of two candidates which could possibly win, and voted on the basis of their VP pick. Basically, all Libertarian voters did, was elect Obama.

so the libertarians should be the ones who vote for the lesser of two evils, and not their own candidates based on political philosophy. principles should only apply to republicans and democrats? thanks for the help.

 

[apple0154]

There seems to be some misconceptions about why the Republicans lost power. If we take a really pragmatic look at the events since Reagan, it is clear, the Republican party became weak during the Clinton reign, and never corrected course. Since 1996, we have seen the Republicans slide to the middle, often with a contingent hell-bent on "going along to get along" with democrats. John McCain is the poster child for this movement.

When I talk to REPUBLICANS who disliked Bush, it was NOT because Bush was too right wing, or too socially conservative, it was because Bush was not conservative enough! The Pill Bill, spending more than the previous two Democrat presidents, letting Ted Kennedy define the Education Bill, abandoning vouchers, not balancing the budget... not being a conservative! I think many saw McCain as yet another degree away from Conservatism... we moved a degree away with Bush Sr., and another degree away with Bush Jr. and McCain represented yet another departure from conservative principles.

Now it seems we have all these "Libertarian" pinheads, telling us why we lost! Look, republicans aren't libertarians, and they aren't liberals, they are conservatives. You guys have your party, you have your ideology, stop trying to cajole republicans into something that doesn't define who they are. It should be obvious, no elections are going to be won by standing in the middle of the road and trying to be half-ass conservative and half-ass liberal at the same time, it simply doesn't work in politics.

What the "pinheads" are telling the conservatives is if they don't get "with it" they will end up in obscurity. People in the 19th century also had their ideology.

From abortion to gay rights the conservatives keep growing further and further away from the general population. It can best be explained by saying the liberals represent the people whereas the conservatives insist on ruling the people.

You can't turn the clock back on freedom and expect people to vote for you.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

so the libertarians should be the ones who vote for the lesser of two evils, and not their own candidates based on political philosophy. principles should only apply to republicans and democrats? thanks for the help.

No, Libertarians should realize their ideology of principle over politics, comes at a political price for the whole country. We are a two party system, one of the two will win the next election, and the next, and the next. It's not going to suddenly shift and change, there is never going to be some mass exodus of Republicans over to the Libertarian party, it's just not likely to ever happen.

That said, you have to objectively look at the TWO candidates who have a chance to win, and decide which one you can best live with. No politician (even libertarian ones) are going to do everything they promise, and give us everything we want, that is a pipe dream. Libertarian issues and ideologies would be a hell of a lot closer to being realized, if Republicans are elected instead of Liberals, that's just a plain old fact of life. As it is, Libertarian philosophy is slipping even further away, as we are turned into a Socialist Communist nation by the Liberals. This is a consequence of Libertarians abandoning the only side which could have defeated the Liberals.

As I said, I understand WHY you did it, I just think it was a pinheaded thing to do!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What the "pinheads" are telling the conservatives is if they don't get "with it" they will end up in obscurity. People in the 19th century also had their ideology.

From abortion to gay rights the conservatives keep growing further and further away from the general population. It can best be explained by saying the liberals represent the people whereas the conservatives insist on ruling the people.

You can't turn the clock back on freedom and expect people to vote for you.

On Abortion, the nation is essentially split down the middle, but an overwhelming majority disfavors Partial-birth Abortion. On gay marriage, the vast majority of America is not in favor of it, including Barrack Obama and Joe Biden! What the fuck are you smoking???

 

[apple0154]

On Abortion, the nation is essentially split down the middle, but an overwhelming majority disfavors Partial-birth Abortion. On gay marriage, the vast majority of America is not in favor of it, including Barrack Obama and Joe Biden! What the fuck are you smoking???

I think it's you who can't see through the smoke. Gay marriage is going to happen and become accepted. Abortion is going to stay legal. Make a little note to yourself so you can refer to this as the years pass.

Here's something you need to remember. People will fight stronger for freedom than they will to prevent others from having freedom because it directly affects them.

Put in terms you can understand gay marriage affects gay people more than it does the straight folks so the straight folks won't fight as hard to prevent it as the gays will to legalize it.

Did you follow that?

That's the problem with the conservatives. They fight against change and there isn't a damn thing they can do about it.

The same applies to medical coverage. They fought so long against it that people don't give a damn where they stand on it. The Dems are going to implement it in one form or another.

Like Obama and Biden the majority may not agree with gay marriage but it doesn't really affect them just as it doesn't affect any other married person so while they may not be for it they are not going to fight against it.

Now do you understand?

 

[TuTu Monroe]

On Abortion, the nation is essentially split down the middle, but an overwhelming majority disfavors Partial-birth Abortion. On gay marriage, the vast majority of America is not in favor of it, including Barrack Obama and Joe Biden! What the fuck are you smoking???

The left screams about waterboarding and torture, but it's okay to put a drill in a babies head in late-term abortions? Sheesh!!!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I think it's you who can't see through the smoke. Gay marriage is going to happen and become accepted. Abortion is going to stay legal. Make a little note to yourself so you can refer to this as the years pass.

Here's something you need to remember. People will fight stronger for freedom than they will to prevent others from having freedom because it directly affects them.

Put in terms you can understand gay marriage affects gay people more than it does the straight folks so the straight folks won't fight as hard to prevent it as the gays will to legalize it.

Did you follow that?

That's the problem with the conservatives. They fight against change and there isn't a damn thing they can do about it.

The same applies to medical coverage. They fought so long against it that people don't give a damn where they stand on it. The Dems are going to implement it in one form or another.

Like Obama and Biden the majority may not agree with gay marriage but it doesn't really affect them just as it doesn't affect any other married person so while they may not be for it they are not going to fight against it.

Now do you understand?

Nope! You are now spinning away from your original idiotic point, and now admit I am right. The rest of your post is essentially saying... well, maybe it's not like I claimed now, but it will be someday!