The Conservative Tradition

[Mason Michaels]

On the other hand how can liberals turn blind eyes when faced with the truth that Hillary broke the law several times ( not my statement but the FBI's) endangered national security ( again the FBI says it's true) lied to investigators (matter of record) and say well she was never charged or convicted but you ignore the same thing about Trump? Trump is no prize but neither is Hillary.

Big difference,Hillary is a private citizen off topic to this thread.
Trump is President.
Playing the Hillary card is two years,played out!

 

[Mason Michaels]

Hillary Clinton has been relentlessly investigated, on and off, since 1994 by partisan Republican committees.

No proof of criminality has ever been found and she had never been indicted for a crime.

That means either Hillary Clinton is the criminal mastermind of the century, somehow able to avoid detection during three decades of investigations.

Or, you are an utter fool who willfully engages in abject dishonesty.

Utter fool!

 

[Mason Michaels]

Many of the old time Conservatives, see the old times as, a kind of Leave It To Beaver dreamscape. They are delusional, as to what that means, for women, and minorities. They also don't realize that America isn't that country anymore. We don't make all this stuff, and have jobs everywhere. They have to compete with everyone in the job market now, and when their skills lack, they think they are victimized. Unfortunately, the grunt work where they shined, doesn't need them anymore, more often then not. They need someone to program, and fix operating, and computer systems.

Beaver wouldn't eat black pussy!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Again, I would point out that there is not nor really ever has been a true conservative political tradition in the United States.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Big difference,Hillary is a private citizen off topic to this thread.
Trump is President.
Playing the Hillary card is two years,played out!

No Hillary is and will be fair game simply because she is a politician who ran for president twice not to mention a former first lady. Keep whining it's comical.

 

[Kamala Trump]

its just because he's not a globalist humanity hater. it's just that simple.

 

[Mason Michaels]

No Hillary is and will be fair game simply because she is a politician who ran for president twice not to mention a former first lady. Keep whining it's comical.

Like the man said,you're a "utter fool".

 

[Cypress]

Again, I would point out that there is not nor really ever has been a true conservative political tradition in the United States.

I think you are right, in the sense that in recent history, what passes for "conservative" today are basically poorly educated dim wits filled with racial resentment and petty grievance against liberals. Its not a political philosophy - it is a state of perpetual grievance.

If you go back to Hamilton, the Federalists, et al. there is a vestige of traditional Anglo-Saxon conservatism in the American experience , which traces its roots back to the UK.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I think you are right, in the sense that in recent history, what passes for "conservative" today are basically poorly educated dim wits filled with racial resentment and petty grievance against liberals. Its not a political philosophy - it is a state of perpetual grievance.

If you go back to Hamilton, the Federalists, et al. there is a vestige of traditional Anglo-Saxon conservatism in the American experience , which traces its roots back to the UK.

And that was found predominantly in the antebellum South. As you pointed out what passes for political conservativism now is mostly either populism geared towards manipulating the social and racial resentments of the lower classes or a conflict
Between classical liberalism and neoliberalism.

These two type are what I call conservativism with a small c (the populist based conservativism) and conservativism with a Capital C (classical liberalism).

Though there are true conservatives in our nation who seem hell bent in turning our current oligarchy into a true aristocracy and their witless psychophants, the don’t have a central organized political philosophy.

 

[Cypress]

And that was found predominantly in the antebellum South. As you pointed out what passes for political conservativism now is mostly either populism geared towards manipulating the social and racial resentments of the lower classes or a conflict
Between classical liberalism and neoliberalism.

These two type are what I call conservativism with a small c (the populist based conservativism) and conservativism with a Capital C (classical liberalism).

Though there are true conservatives in our nation who seem hell bent in turning our current oligarchy into a true aristocracy and their witless psychophants, the don’t have a central organized political philosophy.

Nice work.

You would be surprised at how many rightwingers on this forum say they are voting for Trump just to make liberals sad.

That is a clear and concise demonstration that "conservatism" is really just a flaccid manifestation of petty grievances, and it is not a coherent and principled political philosophy.

You know the last time I actually heard message board wingnuts actually advocating for a policy in a passionate and genuine way? It was when they were hollering at me that invading Iraq was a great idea and was going to be an excellent adventure.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Nice work.

You would be surprised at how many rightwingers on this forum say they are voting for Trump just to make liberals sad.

That is a clear and concise demonstration that "conservatism" is really just a flaccid manifestation of petty grievances, and it is not a coherent and principled political philosophy.

You know the last time I actually heard message board wingnuts actually advocating for a policy in a passionate and genuine way? It was when they were hollering at me that invading Iraq was a great idea and was going to be an excellent adventure.

Oh I don't even want to be reminded of that. I was called treasonous far to many times for pointing out that the Neo-Cons policy of pre-emption was a radical departure from the American standard of "A clear and present danger" as the policy standard for when to use military force. Turned out that I was right but man I took a lot of shit.

I do remember a funny incident when I was in NYC at the height of the Iraq invasion when at a sports pub some loud mouth from South Carolina was loudly berating liberals about the opposition to the Iraq war and he real quickly found out he was in the wrong place to be popping off as several pissed off locals approached them and one told him that his brother in law was a fireman killed in the North Tower collapse and that they were pissed about Iraq and if he didn't shut up there was a high probability that he'd get his ass kicked.

The South Carolinian got the point and shut up. I understood how those guy felt. They were pissed that the ball on bringing Bin Laden at el to justice had been dropped and I mean seriously pissed. A southern conservative had to have a lot of balls to spout off at the mouth on that topic in NYC at that time. He was lucky he didn't get curb stomped.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Some of the teachers in the great courses are reactionaries . They have a bias towards that.

 

[dukkha]

For some, it's that he represents the last dying gasp of toxic masculinity. They cling to him because they don't like that things are changing.
For others, it's more of a trolling thing. Trump pisses off SJW cucks, and that's funny.

OMG.. PC as well!

 

[dukkha]

It was never Obamacare that turned the Republicans into a hate group- it was the fact that they never got over the fact that the Democrats elected a Black man to be their president that turned their party into a White Nationalist hate group.

I mean, they use the excuse of Obamacare as their reason to hate Obama, but not believable because Mitt Romney was going to introduce a National Healthcare Act of his own had he won, and many Republicans were wanting to vote for him in 2008.

So, the only reason why Donald Trump was elected, was because the Republicans wanted a candidate that represented their expressed hatred towards Obama- and Hillary!

All you have to be in this world is a liberal or Democrat- and the Republicans are going to hate you just for that alone.

Yes, the Republican party is the party of hate, haters, and hatefulness!

That is just the way it is in America today! Hateful! And most of it is Donald Trump's and his base's fault for voting for it and representing it out in the open for all to see!

So, the only reason why Donald Trump was elected, was because the Republicans wanted a candidate that represented their expressed hatred towards Obama- and Hillary!

uh huh. That's why Trump got more blue collar Dems then Hillary.

This thread is laughable

 

[dukkha]

I would argue that there is no true conservative political tradition in the US. I would argue that our current political divide is really between classical liberalism and neoliberalism.

Much of the political rancor and division we see isn’t really ideological but tribal in nature.

you forgot populism. Independent minds are not partisan. I'm completely un-interested in governing philosophy
to the point of disdain for those who decisions are guided by rote learning/philosophy.

i.e.( Dems are compassionate /Repubs are corporate etc) tax the rich feed the poor. all that noise.
~~

Issues are complex. you have to understand what you want out of a policy and then find a path to get it there.
What works in the real world.

That's the beauty of Trump's transactional foreign policy -it's 180 percent opposite of neocon/neo lib.
It's realpolitik -and it works because it's interest driven by all parties involved.

Domestic governing i do make 1 important exception.
Go in thinking government is probably not the best way to solve the problem,but if it's used -prepare for it to become bloated and ineffective.

Not thinking in terms of "limited government" that's just as bad a violation of federalism's construction
as the Dem's statism.

Put down the weed. get a cup of coffee and think it thru . nothing else will do.

 

[dukkha]

My investigations into this line of knowledge seem to confirm what I know about the conservative tradition through both intuition and experience.

Conservatism is a profoundly skeptical, cynical, negative, anti-utopian and pessimistic tradition.

Edmund Burke was apparently heavily influenced by Scottish philosopher David Hume. Hume was a noted skeptic, an anti-reformist, a person who stood against the grain of utopian optimism that dominated the intellectual traditions of the early modern era of the 17th and early 18th centuries.

yes.
Why are we governing that area of concern if we are not profoundly skeptical, cynical going in?

The problem with government is that it never stops when it fails.
the liberal instinct is to stimulate more government. Cons use that "anti -utopian" critique to nip it in the bud.

 

[Cypress]

yes.
Why are we governing that area of concern if we are not profoundly skeptical, cynical going in?

The problem with government is that it never stops when it fails.
the liberal instinct is to stimulate more government. Cons use that "anti -utopian" critique to nip it in the bud.

No, as an ideological philosophy it does not come down to pedestrian policy proposals like whether or not we should fund Medicare, parks, and public libraries.

As an ideological and philosophical issue, it comes down to how one views human nature. Conservatives are cynical, skeptical, and pessimistic about human nature itself. That is exactly why you see teabaggers on this board complain that we cannot have a social welfare state because the "darkies', the poor people, the disadvantaged communities cannot be trusted - they will take advantage of it because their very nature is to be "takers", to be shiftless deadbeats, to beomce lazy lay-abouts.

And that is exactly what is going on, the billions of times we have seen conservatives write a post that blacks only vote Democratic Party "to get free stuff".

 

[iolo]

when I was in my teens, we moved up to Shropshire. It was like going back a full two hundred years, gruesome but interesting. I met some real conservatives in those backwoods: they were, by and large, very stupid but decent enough people, of whom Mrs May is a late, not very successful copy. They were totally honest, they looked after their tenants, they would die for their country in obedient herds, and if you didn't tell them any unhappy truths, would never harm you. I cannot see how, in any way at all, American 'Conservatives' could be related to such people. All they believe in, surely, is a very nasty variant of Manchester Liberalism - and the best way out of Manchester was always to get very drunk and stay that way for as long as you could afford!

 

[Ross Dolan]

I have a this video class on my watch list, partly because I decided I need to learn how it is possible that conservatives could have turned into fan boys of a shockingly dim witted and incompetent Reality TV host. What is it about Trumpf that inspires them to spend countless hours of their lived defending him, and providing cover for him?

I do not use the term "conservative" in conversations here...and frankly, I do not care what the term "conservative" means to this professor or anyone else...nor do I care what it means to be a "conservative."

I USE THE TERM "AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES"...AND I CARE VERY MUCH ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS TO BE AN AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE.

It is my opinion that "what it means to be an American conservative" can be summed up by, "I've got mine, fuck you." Sometimes the American conservative position is expressed, "I've got mine, fuck everyone else."

Just sayin'!

 

[midcan5]

See this book on the conservative mindset.

"With engaging wit and subtle irony, Albert Hirschman maps the diffuse and treacherous world of reactionary rhetoric in which conservative public figures, thinkers, and polemicists have been arguing against progressive agendas and reforms for the past two hundred years.

"Hirschman draws his examples from three successive waves of reactive thought that arose in response to the liberal ideas of the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man, to democratization and the drive toward universal suffrage in the nineteenth century, and to the welfare state in our own century. In each case he identifies three principal arguments invariably used: (1) the perversity thesis, whereby any action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic order is alleged to result in the exact opposite of what was intended; (2) the futility thesis, which predicts that attempts at social transformation will produce no effects whatever—will simply be incapable of making a dent in the status quo; (3) the jeopardy thesis, holding that the cost of the proposed reform is unacceptable because it will endanger previous hard-won accomplishments. He illustrates these propositions by citing writers across the centuries from Alexis de Tocqueville to George Stigler, Herbert Spencer to Jay Forrester, Edmund Burke to Charles Murray. Finally, in a lightning turnabout, he shows that progressives are frequently apt to employ closely related rhetorical postures, which are as biased as their reactionary counterparts. For those who aspire to the genuine dialogue that characterizes a truly democratic society, Hirschman points out that both types of rhetoric function, in effect, as contraptions designed to make debate impossible. In the process, his book makes an original contribution to democratic thought."

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/154643.The_Rhetoric_of_Reaction


"Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them." Tony Judt 'Ill Fares the Land'