The epoch of conservatism

F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
In the beggining of the century there was the epoch of statism, radicalism, and nationalism - this lasted until the 40's. Communism was in vogue, nationalists parties took over many nations, and the free marketers were actually considered the idealists, the statists were thought of as the ones that were good for the economy.

I think the 40's-70's were the epoch of liberalism. It's really amazing to listen to some of the things they considered acceptable in the 70's and how ridiculous that seems today - I mean, imagine someone proposing a 65% tax on top earners to congress today. Proposterous. Even the leftyist of the left can't even find that palatable, and it was mainstream in the 70's.

Now, we're in the epoch of conservatism. Our great social progress movements are coming to a standstill. Even obvious things like gay marriage are getting brushed over by the radical Christian right that owns the nation. Social progress in other countries has stopped as well, and conservative parties are STILL winning everywhere, while all kinds of liberal and libertarian third parties are being drawn off the map in recent European elections. The Democratic party may be coming into play now, but modern Democrats are about as liberal as Reagan - and STILL considered extreme. Also take note, even though Thatcher is out of office in Britian, the modern labour party is actually a bit to the right of the old conservative party.

Does anyone see an end in site?
 
I tend to disagree. I see things moving in a very progressive direction. Some of the conservatives that you allude to as being elected in Europe & worldwide would be Northeastern Democrats in the U.S. Even Republicans in Congress have had to make concessions to progressive ideals in recent years.
 
Watermark said:
In the beggining of the century there was the epoch of statism, radicalism, and nationalism - this lasted until the 40's. Communism was in vogue, nationalists parties took over many nations, and the free marketers were actually considered the idealists, the statists were thought of as the ones that were good for the economy.

I think the 40's-70's were the epoch of liberalism. It's really amazing to listen to some of the things they considered acceptable in the 70's and how ridiculous that seems today - I mean, imagine someone proposing a 65% tax on top earners to congress today. Proposterous. Even the leftyist of the left can't even find that palatable, and it was mainstream in the 70's.

Now, we're in the epoch of conservatism. Our great social progress movements are coming to a standstill. Even obvious things like gay marriage are getting brushed over by the radical Christian right that owns the nation. Social progress in other countries has stopped as well, and conservative parties are STILL winning everywhere, while all kinds of liberal and libertarian third parties are being drawn off the map in recent European elections. The Democratic party may be coming into play now, but modern Democrats are about as liberal as Reagan - and STILL considered extreme. Also take note, even though Thatcher is out of office in Britian, the modern labour party is actually a bit to the right of the old conservative party.

Does anyone see an end in site?
Click to expand...


Liberalism won.

Even Reagan and Bush can't dare speak openly about eliminating most of the reforms of the new deal and the great society.
 
Cypress said:
Liberalism won.

Even Reagan and Bush can't dare speak openly about eliminating most of the reforms of the new deal and the great society.
Click to expand...

You claim liberalism won. What big new idea(s) or program(s) have liberals implemented since the '70's?
 
cawacko said:
You claim liberalism won. What big new idea(s) or program(s) have liberals implemented since the '70's?
Click to expand...

It's true...they weren't the ones who came up with that golden shower idea in the 80's.

Wasn't that the last "big idea" of either party? And wasn't that really an old idea, dressed up with some lipstick slapped on it, and called "new and improved"? the new and improved golden shower, folks you are not going to want to miss this, when it trickles it pours!
 
Cypress said:
Liberalism won.

Even Reagan and Bush can't dare speak openly about eliminating most of the reforms of the new deal and the great society.
Click to expand...
When the goal is to "slow" change, the idea that "liberalism won" becomes moot. Was the change slowed? Definitely.
 
Darla said:
It's true...they weren't the ones who came up with that golden shower idea in the 80's.

Wasn't that the last "big idea" of either party? And wasn't that really an old idea, dressed up with some lipstick slapped on it, and called "new and improved"? the new and improved golden shower, folks you are not going to want to miss this, when it trickles it pours!
Click to expand...

I agree with Watermark's first two paragraphs. The change came when Reagan and Thatcher were elected. For example, as he said marginal tax rates were 65% in the '70's. Today liberals are fighting to get them up to 37% and not having much success at that. Arguably Bill Clinton's greatest domestic initiative was the Welfare Reform Act, not exactly the top legislative item on the liberal agenda.

The tide changed from the '80's until today. Going forward I don't think either party is showing great leadership at the moment and how we go forward is up in the air.
 
cawacko said:
I agree with Watermark's first two paragraphs. The change came when Reagan and Thatcher were elected. For example, as he said marginal tax rates were 65% in the '70's. Today liberals are fighting to get them up to 37% and not having much success at that. Arguably Bill Clinton's greatest domestic initiative was the Welfare Reform Act, not exactly the top legislative item on the liberal agenda.

The tide changed from the '80's until today. Going forward I don't think either party is showing great leadership at the moment and how we go forward is up in the air.
Click to expand...


You're talking about tinkering around the margins. Hardly any elected conservatives ever publically talk about doing away with most of the New Deal and Great Society reforms.
 
cawacko said:
I agree with Watermark's first two paragraphs. The change came when Reagan and Thatcher were elected. For example, as he said marginal tax rates were 65% in the '70's. Today liberals are fighting to get them up to 37% and not having much success at that. Arguably Bill Clinton's greatest domestic initiative was the Welfare Reform Act, not exactly the top legislative item on the liberal agenda.

The tide changed from the '80's until today. Going forward I don't think either party is showing great leadership at the moment and how we go forward is up in the air.
Click to expand...

Liberalism has been on the defensive since the 80's yes. But, the only good thing bush has accomplished is; he has put conservatism on the defensive. And that is why you see cons begin to argue that bush is not really a conservative, that conservatism did not fail. And that is why people like Krugman are out here stating their cases for why yes, bush is a conservative and it is conservatism that has failed.

The pendulum always swings back.
 
Cypress said:
You're talking about tinkering around the margins. Hardly any elected conservatives ever publically talk about doing away with most of the New Deal and Great Society reforms.
Click to expand...

No, that part is very true. Liberalism never failed, and so much of it has become engrained in Americans, that they don't even know it's liberalism that brought it to them! It's been on the defensive, but it has not failed.

I want to see it go on the offensive, that's why I want an actual liberal as Democratic nominee. Not some BS damend "centrist' because Water is right about where that center line is today, and it's been moved to the right.
 
cawacko said:
I agree with Watermark's first two paragraphs. The change came when Reagan and Thatcher were elected. For example, as he said marginal tax rates were 65% in the '70's. Today liberals are fighting to get them up to 37% and not having much success at that. Arguably Bill Clinton's greatest domestic initiative was the Welfare Reform Act, not exactly the top legislative item on the liberal agenda.

The tide changed from the '80's until today. Going forward I don't think either party is showing great leadership at the moment and how we go forward is up in the air.
Click to expand...

"Higher taxes" is not a liberal or progressive ideal. As a progressive, I believe that my ideals can be advanced AND taxes can be kept at a reasonable level, not to exceed 33% of one's income. These ideas are not incompatible.

However, necessity has essentially given progressivism a "victory," at least in this stage in history. Few would argue that the conservative revolution embodied by Reagan & the Gingrich era is over. We are seeing both Republicans & Democrats talk with more urgency about the need to address areas like healthcare & alternative energy in a forward-thinking, inclusive way.

In general, progressives like me just have to be patient to the ebbs & flows of our political system. In the end, progressivism always prevails...
 
Darla said:
No, that part is very true. Liberalism never failed, and so much of it has become engrained in Americans, that they don't even know it's liberalism that brought it to them! It's been on the defensive, but it has not failed.

I want to see it go on the offensive, that's why I want an actual liberal as Democratic nominee. Not some BS damend "centrist' because Water is right about where that center line is today, and it's been moved to the right.
Click to expand...


Well said. Concur, totally.
 
Conservatism is killing the Dems/Socialists. That is, they have become conservative. Socialism has become conservative. It really always was, but it repackaged the ideas in a way that gave them a radical spin. Also, the classical liberals became stationary (blame the utilitarians), instead of continuing the fight for more freedom, and allowed the socialists to outflank them on the left. Now, as socialism has proven a failure, the left can no longer hold to the ideals. They are forced now to take conservative positions and attempt to resist change. They are now vulnerable to being outflanked by a true left or true liberal movement.

The classical liberals had no real reason to assume a conservative stance. The Dems/Socialists have no choice since their radical points are proven failures.

Social conservatism has always been pretty strong. Even among the socialists and Dems. It was really only during the 60s and 70s that that began to be challenged. We have now caught some backlash, but that is largely due to confusing social liberals with economic authoritarians and all the contradictions that come with that incoherent collection.

Carter and the Dems got blamed for an economic meltdown that if any one president should have been blamed for, then it was Nixon. Though, the left in general and their support of Keynesian economics are to blame as well.

But I think we are now starting to see some backlash against the social conservatives. Unfortunately, the Dems are still packaging that with idiotic economic ideas and so I don't see them enjoying the great ascendency they expect.
 
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16836

This is frightening - I can't even understand the logic that goes behind this, that people are so easily abused and manipulated, and this is why I say we're in an epoch of conservative ignorance:

New 2002 'State of the First Amendment' survey suggests many Americans see freedoms as obstacles in war on terror

Printer-friendly page

WASHINGTON — For the first time in the annual State of the First Amendment survey, almost half (49%) of those surveyed said the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees — a 10-percentage-point jump from 2001, which suggests new public concerns in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

The State of the First Amendment 2002 survey report was released today in a media briefing at the National Press Club.

“The stakes have risen for the First Amendment in the wake of September 11,” said Ken Paulson, executive director of the First Amendment Center. “The results of our 2002 survey suggest that many Americans view these fundamental freedoms as possible obstacles in the war on terrorism.” In 2001, 39% of those surveyed said the First Amendment went too far in the rights it guarantees.

“That’s not to suggest a monolithic response to these core First Amendment values. In truth, Americans are of multiple minds about the 45 words drafted by James Madison,” Paulson said. “While a majority says they respect the First Amendment, a significant percentage seems inclined to rewrite it.”

The annual State of the First Amendment survey, conducted since 1997 by the Center for Survey Research & Analysis at the University of Connecticut, examines public attitudes toward freedom of speech, press, religion and the rights of assembly and petition. The survey was done this year in partnership with American Journalism Review magazine, which published the full survey results in its September issue, available beginning today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top