DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on October 08, 2007, 11:30:09 AM
-
Same Old Party
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 8, 2007
There have been a number of articles recently that portray President Bush as someone who strayed from the path of true conservatism. Republicans, these articles say, need to return to their roots.
Well, I don?t know what true conservatism is, but while doing research for my forthcoming book I spent a lot of time studying the history of the American political movement that calls itself conservatism ? and Mr. Bush hasn?t strayed from the path at all. On the contrary, he?s the very model of a modern movement conservative.
For example, people claim to be shocked that Mr. Bush cut taxes while waging an expensive war. But Ronald Reagan also cut taxes while embarking on a huge military buildup.
People claim to be shocked by Mr. Bush?s general fiscal irresponsibility. But conservative intellectuals, by their own account, abandoned fiscal responsibility 30 years ago. Here?s how Irving Kristol, then the editor of The Public Interest, explained his embrace of supply-side economics in the 1970s: He had a ?rather cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit and other monetary or fiscal problems? because ?the task, as I saw it, was to create a new majority, which evidently would mean a conservative majority, which came to mean, in turn, a Republican majority ? so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government.?
People claim to be shocked by the way the Bush administration outsourced key government functions to private contractors yet refused to exert effective oversight over these contractors, a process exemplified by the failed reconstruction of Iraq and the Blackwater affair.
But back in 1993, Jonathan Cohn, writing in The American Prospect, explained that ?under Reagan and Bush, the ranks of public officials necessary to supervise contractors have been so thinned that the putative gains of contracting out have evaporated. Agencies have been left with the worst of both worlds ? demoralized and disorganized public officials and unaccountable private contractors.?
People claim to be shocked by the Bush administration?s general incompetence. But disinterest in good government has long been a principle of modern conservatism. In ?The Conscience of a Conservative,? published in 1960, Barry Goldwater wrote that ?I have little interest in streamlining government or making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size.?
People claim to be shocked that the Bush Justice Department, making a mockery of the Constitution, issued a secret opinion authorizing torture despite instructions by Congress and the courts that the practice should stop. But remember Iran-Contra? The Reagan administration secretly sold weapons to Iran, violating a legal embargo, and used the proceeds to support the Nicaraguan contras, defying an explicit Congressional ban on such support.
Oh, and if you think Iran-Contra was a rogue operation, rather than something done with the full knowledge and approval of people at the top ? who were then protected by a careful cover-up, including convenient presidential pardons ? I?ve got a letter from Niger you might want to buy.
People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration?s efforts to disenfranchise minority groups, under the pretense of combating voting fraud. But Reagan opposed the Voting Rights Act, and as late as 1980 he described it as ?humiliating to the South.?
People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration?s attempts ? which, for a time, were all too successful ? to intimidate the press. But this administration?s media tactics, and to a large extent the people implementing those tactics, come straight out of the Nixon administration. Dick Cheney wanted to search Seymour Hersh?s apartment, not last week, but in 1975. Roger Ailes, the president of Fox News, was Nixon?s media adviser.
People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration?s attempts to equate dissent with treason. But Goldwater ? who, like Reagan, has been reinvented as an icon of conservative purity but was a much less attractive figure in real life ? staunchly supported Joseph McCarthy, and was one of only 22 senators who voted against a motion censuring the demagogue.
Above all, people claim to be shocked by the Bush administration?s authoritarianism, its disdain for the rule of law. But a full half-century has passed since The National Review proclaimed that ?the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail,? and dismissed as irrelevant objections that might be raised after ?consulting a catalogue of the rights of American citizens, born Equal? ? presumably a reference to the document known as the Constitution of the United States.
Now, as they survey the wreckage of their cause, conservatives may ask themselves: ?Well, how did we get here?? They may tell themselves: ?This is not my beautiful Right.? They may ask themselves: ?My God, what have we done??
But their movement is the same as it ever was. And Mr. Bush is movement conservatism?s true, loyal heir.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/opinion/08krugman.html?ex=1349496000&en=ffaa699077e7335a&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
-
ROFLMAO
-
Come on Paul.....don't hold back, tell us how you really feel :D
-
Whether it is called "conservatism" or not is really immaterial.
President Bush and his administration has certainly led the right wing in this country, until perhaps 2006. I don't see a lot of inconsistencies with right wing thought.
-
Except for...ummm....increased Government bureacracy, increased Government spending on social programs, Steel Tarriffs, Bloated Pork Bills, Nation Building (which was supposedly a hallmark of the left), Advocation of amnesty for illegal immigrants, etc., etc., etc.
Yea, really has been the spearhead of Conservatism ::)
Outside of support for Tax relief for EVERYONE who pays taxes and Faith Based initiatives, you'd be hardpressed to find much of any support to Krugman's current illogical rant
-
The value of this piece illustrates just what is left of the structure of our nation.
If the White House is ever to be repainted (restored to the Center), it won't be by Republicans, including both those who are able to distance themselves from the Bush Neocon Machine and those who are not.
To fill the void by admitting the omitted--the Democratic Party--and thus to compliment these Republican Corporation Warlords with the rest of the very carefully controlled whole-pie entity--the author could have spent some adjectives on describing the Democratic Party: picture a huge edifice which looks tall and in tact from a distance, and then zoom in: what you now see is graveyard steel rendered through by rust by planned obsolescence and outsourcing (NAFTA, et al). It is that broad swath, and getting broader, to which Joe and Jane Public had almost no informed idea that the center would indeed fail to hold; no informed idead due to careful MSM omission, but was later revealed by spoonfuls from the MSM, gently covered in ribboned sniglets, and was somewhat affectionately, demurely referred to in summation as the "Rust Belt." It took Michael Moore to shoot the scene with the lens-cap off. The destruction of the middle class, and thus the Democratic Party, was a watercolored pastiche of sleeping rabbits, according to the media.
The Democratic Party, like its former base, is held together by wire, and only then to shoal up something dead in order to make people think it Still Is. The leading contenders for the Democratic nomination are Republican Light, none more so than Hillary, but then look at who is giving her the hand-boost over the fence--who says American political parties cannot be bi-partisan? There is no Norma Rae in Hillary, as there was none in sweet Bill.
What the Joes and Janes from Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, etc. learned is that tragedy and grief in America tends these days to stay local in America, while the rest of the country is kept audience with bouncing balls whose main intent is to entertain, rather than inform.
__________________________________________________
"Today America is no longer the inspirer and leader of the World revolution . . . by contrast, America is today the leader of the world-wide anti-revolutionary movements in defence of vested interests. She now stands for what Rome stood for." -- Arnold Toynebee
-
Except for...ummm....increased Government bureacracy, increased Government spending on social programs, Steel Tarriffs, Bloated Pork Bills, Nation Building (which was supposedly a hallmark of the left), Advocation of amnesty for illegal immigrants, etc., etc., etc.
Yea, really has been the spearhead of Conservatism ::)
Outside of support for Tax relief for EVERYONE who pays taxes and Faith Based initiatives, you'd be hardpressed to find much of any support to Krugman's current illogical rant
The right wing doesn't spend money? Bull.
The Fascists were experts at both building up nations and quickly setting up government bureaucracies (before anyone starts, I'm not saying that Bush is a Nazi - don't be daft). And if we look at the structure of how the Iraqi nation building has been handled, we can see that it has been mostly through private contractors, almost exclusively (at first) the purview of American business. Even the war itself has had private mercenary contractors on a scale not seen before.
Increased spending on social programs. True, but primarily on one social program, which went to the wealthiest subgroup in the United States and again was handled through private companies (health insurance companies).
Illegal immigration is not the single purview of any political ideology. In fact, Bush represents a segment of the right that has tried to make labour costs cheaper for quite some time. Texans (and yes there are exceptions), in general, have not viewed Mexican immigrants in the same way as the more radical view of Arizona and California Republicans.
President Bush has come into office in 2000 and 2004 as exactly what he was billed to be - the overwhelming choice amongst the right in America.
-
Krugmans main problem is he conflates neo-con foreign policy initiatives with paleo conservative fiscal doctrine. That is the equivalent of mixing blue dog dems with code pinkers.
It isn't that simple.
Bush is much more in the mode of Nixon than he is Goldwater or Reagan. He is a middle finder.
-
Bush is much more in the mode of Nixon than he is Goldwater or Reagan. He is a middle finder.
=============================================================
Oh come off it. "Middle finder" my left butt.
Juniorbush hasn't found one damned middle except perhaps the NCLB very earlky in his term. He is an extremist, and as incompetent and bumbling as they come.
Goldwater was a true Republican Conservative.
Reagan was an actor who played at appearing to be a conservative while he practiced borrow and squander at home and delude and provoke abroad.
It is to his credit as an actor that so many people co0ntinue to beleive he was in some way a conservative.
Juniorbush is an ignoramous trying his hand at acting the part that Reagan played.
As they say, history repeats itself, first as a tragedy, then as a farce. But in the case of Juniorbush, he is a second repetition of the Reagan farce, now just a bad sitcom.
The Republicans that had roots are all pretty much deceased. If they reappear, prepare for a zombie attack.
-
Juniorbush hasn't found one damned middle except perhaps the NCLB very earlky in his term.
Nonsense. He allowed stem cell research albeit without Federal Funding. Clinton didn't even do that.
Early on he had the steel tariffs. And then there is medicaid drug benefit.
In many ways Clinton was more conservative than Bush.
-
In many ways Clinton was more conservative than Bush.
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that. The only thing is that Clinton's foreign policy was far more forward-looking.
Both are definitely on the right.
-
The right wing doesn't spend money? Bull.
The fiscally Wreckless GOP, that spends like drunken Dems, are NOT the "right wing". The "Right Wing" are those CONDEMNING the GOP for their irresponsible spending
The Fascists were experts at both building up nations and quickly setting up government bureaucracies (before anyone starts, I'm not saying that Bush is a Nazi - don't be daft). And if we look at the structure of how the Iraqi nation building has been handled, we can see that it has been mostly through private contractors, almost exclusively (at first) the purview of American business.
And........? Nation Building is the calling card of the liberal agenda, NOT a conservative one
Increased spending on social programs. True, but primarily on one social program, which went to the wealthiest subgroup in the United States and again was handled through private companies (health insurance companies).
Try MOST everything, from education to healthcare to social services, to pretty much everything, has received increases in their budgets
Illegal immigration is not the single purview of any political ideology. In fact, Bush represents a segment of the right that has tried to make labour costs cheaper for quite some time.
You keep trying to keep fitting in corporate interests as analogus to conservative ideology. Conservatism is a strong advocate of private enterprise and capitalism, the hallmarks of freedom and individualism. That doesn't equate into the "Right wing" or Krugman's asanine commentary as to what consitututes current conservative ideology. Big busness does like cheap labor, no one is denying that. Just because Bush doesn't follow traditional conservative values and goals however, doesn't mean that Conservatism has been given a new definition all this time. Poll after poll, of not just Conservatives, but Americans, view illegal immigration as a bad thing, and that the Fed needs to do more to clamp down on it, including fencing and enforcement of current immigration laws. Yes, more polls are showing more support for amnesty for illegal already here, but that doesn't refute the point that Illegal immigration is NOT a supported cause by conservative ideology, yet Bush wants it
President Bush has come into office in 2000 and 2004 as exactly what he was billed to be - the overwhelming choice amongst the right in America.
You're close.....he campaigned on MANY items that were NOT conservative; bigger government, amnesty, more spending on social programs, etc. But given the choice between him and Gore/Kerry, he was "the overwhelming choice amongst the right in America". That doesn't even come close in trying to validate how Conservative his policy decisions are. As Bt (and many others at prior times have demonstrated) Bush is much more a moderate, with an overwehlming desire to run the middle, DESPITE the garbage by Krugman & like minds that he's this supposed Conservative 2nd coming of Reagan
-
OK.
We need to work on some definitions or this is going to go nowhere fast.
Conservatism comes from a Latin word meaning "to keep guard." It is the preservation of religious, cultural, and nationally defined beliefs and culture as a way to allow only gradual change and conserve traditional values.
Historically, there is a cultural (including religious) and fiscal element to conservatism that places it well within the right-wing of the political spectrum.
It has nothing to do with nation building, individualism, government spending, or immigration. Now, conservatism may have something to say on those points (based on traditional norms) but it is not defined by those issues.
For example, clearly Mexican immigration is a threat to conservative ideology. Why? Because these immigrants are South American Catholics, which means they tend to not be the theologically conservative type of American Catholics. They have a completely different culture. They speak a different language. They are far from affluent and threaten current class stabilities.
So yes, for conservatives they are certainly a definitive threat to religious, cultural, and nationally defined beliefs and culture.
Yet, that is a single issue. Overall, the question is whether or not President Bush fits the mold of a Conservative?
I think it is difficult to argue that he does not. Perhaps on a few issues, but where does he really defy his role as the conservator of traditional values? I'd have to hear a good argument for that.
-
Overall, the question is whether or not President Bush fits the mold of a Conservative?
I understood pretty well before the election in 2000 that Bush was not a conservative.
-
Overall, the question is whether or not President Bush fits the mold of a Conservative?
I understood pretty well before the election in 2000 that Bush was not a conservative.
Ditto
-
Overall, the question is whether or not President Bush fits the mold of a Conservative?
I understood pretty well before the election in 2000 that Bush was not a conservative.
In an overall historical definition, I think he fits in well.
Perhaps in ephemeral definitions of regional value, he does not. Though, such definitions may not be useful, as I'm sure your views disqualify you from being considered a conservative as well.
-
Overall, the question is whether or not President Bush fits the mold of a Conservative?
I understood pretty well before the election in 2000 that Bush was not a conservative.
In an overall historical definition, I think he fits in well. Perhaps in ephemeral definitions of regional value, he does not. Though, such definitions may not be useful, as I'm sure your views disqualify you from being considered a conservative as well.
And mine as well? So conservatives are not really conservatives any more because Bush is what Conservatism is supposed to be now, as espoused by the left?? oy
-
Though, such definitions may not be useful, as I'm sure your views disqualify you from being considered a conservative as well.
Never claimed to be. I advocate for fiscal conservatism in government, but I'm generally a libertarian.
-
In an overall historical definition, I think he fits in well. Perhaps in ephemeral definitions of regional value, he does not. Though, such definitions may not be useful, as I'm sure your views disqualify you from being considered a conservative as well.
And mine as well? So conservatives are not really conservatives any more because Bush is what Conservatism is supposed to be now, as espoused by the left?? oy
No. You fit the mold of an historical conservative much more than Ami.
-
In an overall historical definition, I think he fits in well. Perhaps in ephemeral definitions of regional value, he does not. Though, such definitions may not be useful, as I'm sure your views disqualify you from being considered a conservative as well.
And mine as well? So conservatives are not really conservatives any more because Bush is what Conservatism is supposed to be now, as espoused by the left?? oy
No. You fit the mold of an historical conservative much more than Ami.
Yet, I too knew Bush wasn't a conservative when he ran in 2000, near to the sense of what a historical Regan conservative is. Religious yes, conservative, not even close. yet, that gets discounted.....how again?
-
In an overall historical definition, I think he fits in well. Perhaps in ephemeral definitions of regional value, he does not. Though, such definitions may not be useful, as I'm sure your views disqualify you from being considered a conservative as well.
And mine as well? So conservatives are not really conservatives any more because Bush is what Conservatism is supposed to be now, as espoused by the left?? oy
No. You fit the mold of an historical conservative much more than Ami.
Yet, I too knew Bush wasn't a conservative when he ran in 2000, near to the sense of what a historical Regan conservative is. Religious yes, conservative, not even close. yet, that gets discounted.....how again?
"Reagan Conservative" is again just an ephemeral definition with regional value.
You fit the historical definition of conservative more than Ami because you care much more about guarding traditional American cultural beliefs and values, whereas Ami is not so concerned by those. For example, his views on religion and its value to society, sexual mores, and other such issues puts him very much at odds with conservatism and your beliefs as well.
You both may agree to some extent on fiscal policies, but that is the only extent to which I'd classify Ami as a conservative. In many ways he is much more of a radical as is Prince.
-
No. You fit the mold of an historical conservative much more than Ami.
Yet, I too knew Bush wasn't a conservative when he ran in 2000, near to the sense of what a historical Regan conservative is. Religious yes, conservative, not even close. yet, that gets discounted.....how again?
"Reagan Conservative" is again just an ephemeral definition with regional value.
"Regional Value"?? Try country wide value. Try historical value
You fit the historical definition of conservative more than Ami because you care much more about guarding traditional American cultural beliefs and values, whereas Ami is not so concerned by those. For example, his views on religion and its value to society, sexual mores, and other such issues puts him very much at odds with conservatism and your beliefs as well.
And.........................that has what to do with knowing that Bush wasn't a traditional conservative, when he campaigned in 2000, how again??
-
"Regional Value"?? Try country wide value. Try historical value
Yes, regional. Not historical because it only existed for a short period of time. Conservatism existed long before Reagan's strain and will exist long after. An historical definition is what I gave, which is accurate to conservative ideology.
And.........................that has what to do with knowing that Bush wasn't a traditional conservative, when he campaigned in 2000, how again??
That's not what you asked Sirs. You compared him to Reagan. I'll quote:
"Yet, I too knew Bush wasn't a conservative when he ran in 2000, near to the sense of what a historical Regan conservative is. Religious yes, conservative, not even close. yet, that gets discounted.....how again?"[/blue]
But that is an irrelevant comparison in this case. What I said was that you fit into the historical definition of a conservative more than Ami does. Because you complained that:
"So conservatives are not really conservatives any more because Bush is what Conservatism is supposed to be now, as espoused by the left??"[/blue]
Which is not what I said at all.
-
What you clearly have said is some agreement with Krugman that Bush is really a conservative, because, look at how the "right wing" voted for him, as if that's all is required to validate that position. Yet, when it's made painfully clear how much of the "right wing", myself included, KNEW Bush wasn't a traditional Reagan-like Conservative when he campaigned in 2000, that seems to get ignored, with the rationalization efforts applied to try and re-validate Krugman's cockamamie premise of how Conservative Bush is supposed to be
What's with that?
-
Krugman is meaningless in my evaluation. His approach is typical tit-for-tat politics.
I think that an historical definition of conservatism is the only way to really provide any meaning to the term. Otherwise Bush is as conservative as anyone else precisely because the term is so relative that it becomes useless.
As an aside though, I find it curious that it is so offensive to many that Bush be considered a conservative. So what if he is?
-
So, Bush is a conservative because the term is too vague? and the reason I'm having an issue with you and Krugman trying to apply the heavy duty conservative label on him, is that, like Krugman, you look at Bush's failings as a President, and by design, try to lay claim to how the failures are that of Conservative ideology.
Why are you and Krugman having a problem if Bush isn't a traditional conservative?
-
Interesting.
I don't believe Bush's failures necessarily come from the historical definition of conservatism that I offered. Not at all.
I agree that Krugman does exactly that, which is the point of his article. As I said, simple tit-for-tat politics.
But, to be fair to Krugman, many on the right have claimed that the Republican Party (along with the President) did stray from traditional conservatism and that cost them in 2006 and with Bush's problems. In fact, I believe that you agreed with this assesment, though I could be mistaken. So, it isn't as if Krugman just made that theory up...it has been popular amongst the right as well.
I don't really care what you call Bush. Mister Potato Head is fine with me. In an historical context, I think that he is a conservative...but so are most American presidents to varying degrees. We live in a rather solidly right of centre nation.
-
I don't believe Bush's failures necessarily come from the historical definition of conservatism that I offered. Not at all. I agree that Krugman does exactly that, which is the point of his article. As I said, simple tit-for-tat politics.
But, to be fair to Krugman, many on the right have claimed that the Republican Party (along with the President) did stray from traditional conservatism and that cost them in 2006 and with Bush's problems. In fact, I believe that you agreed with this assesment, though I could be mistaken. So, it isn't as if Krugman just made that theory up...it has been popular amongst the right as well.
The assessment is that Bush never really focused on conservative issues, not that he strayed from them. You also seem to be trying to tweak your angle here. If the question were, on the political ideological spectrum, does Bush lean to the right a little, the answer is yes. If, however the question, as prefaced by Krugman, and your follow-up rationalization efforts, that Bush hasn't really strayed from anything, this is precisly what modern Conservatism is and what the "right wing" is all about now, the answer is dead NO
I don't really care what you call Bush. Mister Potato Head is fine with me. In an historical context, I think that he is a conservative...but so are most American presidents to varying degrees. We live in a rather solidly right of centre nation.
As I said, that's different question, does Bush lean right, yes, he does have some conservative streaks in him. Kinda makes him a conservative minded moderate perhaps, but he is no conservative in the traditional vane, and hasn't been since the get go. I knew that, and I'd like to think you knew that, yet you didn't answer my question. What's yours and Krugman's problem if he isn't this staunch conservative??
-
I think originally conservatives were people who resisted change. Reactionaries. But the reason they resisted change was because change threatened their interests. This led to some fluidity in the definition of conservatives. For example, they could be anti-immigrant at one point in time and then when the value of cheap immigrant labour impressed itself on them, they became pro-immigration but remained anti-immigrant. The immigrants were good enough to work in their factories but not good enough to move in next door to them.
This thread's debate seems to assume a "golden age" of conservatism, when conservatives were fiscally conservative, and a present state of decadent conservatism, when conservatives (or maybe people who just call themselves conservatives) have built up huge deficits, and the question then arises, are they real conservatives or not? From the POV of conservatives, the whole point of the debate seems to be to arrive at a definition of "conservative" that will weed out the fiscally "irresponsible" and ensure that social conservatives can be elected who will also reduce the deficit. From the POV of everyone else, the debate appears to be purely semantic.
-
President Bush isn't and never has been as conservative as I would have liked , far too eager to compromise and get along when he could ave been makeing more of a diffrence.
But...
As time goes on I have warmed to him , he has had success where I ddn't expect him to ,and the Democrats hav been so nvested in division that he has been offered few compromises to negotiate, thus accidentallyavoiding the pit his father fell into.
I am pleasantly surprised at the state of the economy , I would be very pleased indeed if Presidnt Bush's ideas on immagration reform were implemented, I like his actions in respose to terror , Iam pleased that he is comitted to the rebuilding of Iraq , I am happy with the course of his diplomacy in North Korea , I am glad he is sensitive to Chineese feelings andis developing our relationship withthe Cineese government and people....
I could go on, but the point is made I like him better than I used to , as his succeses pile up he remains a modest man.
But ... am I still as conservative as I used to be?
-
I could go on, but the point is made I like him better than I used to , as his succeses pile up he remains a modest man. But ... am I still as conservative as I used to be?
Apparently not, Plane. Apparently Conservatism is no longer what we believed it to be, and more what Krugman & Js says it's to be
-
The center point is moving , but it moves both ways .
It moves a little as people are persueded by rhetoric or events.
It moves a little more when people feel that they are being disrespected.
What faction is playing worse with the credulity of the public these days?
Who is telling us that we can't win war against a force that is no threat anyway?
Who is telling us that our economy is approaching third world unemployment ,invisibly ,as people are not even registering their joblessness, as they give up on finding work, resulting in a false good employment number, which also doesn't count the Mexicans who are streaming in to fill the gap in lowere wage level availability?
Who is campaigning against policy's ,foreign and domestic,that they intend to continue when they achieve power?
-
This thread's debate seems to assume a "golden age" of conservatism, when conservatives were fiscally conservative, and a present state of decadent conservatism, when conservatives (or maybe people who just call themselves conservatives) have built up huge deficits, and the question then arises, are they real conservatives or not? From the POV of conservatives, the whole point of the debate seems to be to arrive at a definition of "conservative" that will weed out the fiscally "irresponsible" and ensure that social conservatives can be elected who will also reduce the deficit. From the POV of everyone else, the debate appears to be purely semantic.
Well said.
I think it is interesting because conservatives are so quick to not wish to be associated with the President.
I wonder, does Clinton then rank amongst Conservatives. He certainly was one of the most fiscally conservative Presidents of recent times. Or does the definition change again?
Is conservatism more of a club, with membership blackballing than it is true political ideology with a true historical definition of merit?
-
I think it is interesting because conservatives are so quick to not wish to be associated with the President.
WRONG again. I have many criticisms of this president, but I distinctly recall my support for him with his efforts to take on Islamofascist terrorist. How that's not wanting to be associated with him is quite a mind bender :-\
I wonder, does Clinton then rank amongst Conservatives. He certainly was one of the most fiscally conservative Presidents of recent times. Or does the definition change again?
You mean the same one who's budgets he submitted were consistently higher than what actually came back from the GOP congress? No change in definition Js, been the same since the get go. Both Presidents largely moderate, with Bush leaning a little right and Clinton leaning a little left. It's truely stunning to watch how many here just can't have Bush being anything but some staunch conservative. I guess it's a way to take the spotlight off of what one would consider wreckless liberal-like spending on social programs
-
WRONG again. I have many criticisms of this president, but I distinctly recall my support for him with his efforts to take on Islamofascist terrorist. How that's not wanting to be associated with him is quite a mind bender :-\
Not at all, you wish to be associated with his warfare, just no the methods of paying for it all.
You mean the same one who's budgets he submitted were consistently higher than what actually came back from the GOP congress? No change in definition Js, been the same since the get go. Both Presidents largely moderate, with Bush leaning a little right and Clinton leaning a little left. It's truely stunning to watch how many here just can't have Bush being anything but some staunch conservative. I guess it's a way to take the spotlight off of what one would consider wreckless liberal-like spending on social programs
Blah, blah, blah...spending is spending. Whether you purchase billions of dollars in weapons or billions of dollars in social programs. It was Clinton who destroyed AFDC, not Reagan and not Bush. It is Clinton to whom we owe that great stupidity.
Just because you're a middle class whiner (and that is one large club in this nation) doesn't make you a conservative Sirs. It makes you a typical American. "Woe is me, some poor person may actually be helped!"
If that is what conservativism is to you...then the definition is so broad as to be meaningless.
[/quote]
-
WRONG again. I have many criticisms of this president, but I distinctly recall my support for him with his efforts to take on Islamofascist terrorist. How that's not wanting to be associated with him is quite a mind bender :-\
Not at all, you wish to be associated with his warfare, just no the methods of paying for it all.
Excuse me? Do we need to keep a tally of how many times you've been wrong in this thread?? How on earth do you jump to the conclusion of how I don't want to be associated in paying for it?? oy
Blah, blah, blah...spending is spending. Whether you purchase billions of dollars in weapons or billions of dollars in social programs. It was Clinton who destroyed AFDC, not Reagan and not Bush. It is Clinton to whom we owe that great stupidity.
You mean it's the GOP CONGRESS, under Clinton, we ough thanks for finally having some moxy to stick to a budget. I realize the need to twist the facts when they suit your purposes, and ignore others that get in the way. We have deficts now, must be connected to Bush, despite that his budget proposals, had THEY been adopted, wouldn't be anywhere close to the current deficit. Same with Reagan's proposed budgets. Clinton's budgets he submitted had deficits every year. CONGRESS sent him budgets FAR lower than what he wanted, which he did sign, (apparently because his polling data which generated what kind of decision making he should employ, said he should.) So this effort to try and paint Clinton as fiscally conservative demonstrates how transparent it is, when you willfully ignore what he proposed, and just gloss over it with "blah blah blah, spending is spending." "Complexity" apparently takes a back seat when trying to paint with a broadbrush
Just because you're a middle class whiner (and that is one large club in this nation) doesn't make you a conservative Sirs. It makes you a typical American. "Woe is me, some poor person may actually be helped!"
Best not walk that path of debate Js, when you consider my Mother, who raised us 3 kids on her own, were well below the poverty line, much of my childhood & early adolescent years. And my Mother never was whining about "woe is me, why won't the Government help me?". I'm a conservative not by what class I'm in, but by what I advocate, Freedom, Personal Responsibility, and large injection of Moral Absolutism.
-
And my Mother never was whining about "woe is me, why won't the Government help me?". I'm a conservative not by what class I'm in, but by what I advocate, Freedom, Personal Responsibility, and large injection of Moral Absolutism.
Oh please. Want to compare growing up poor stories? I might can top yours.
I've already said that you're a conservative. *sigh*
You don't even read the damn posts Sirs. Fiscal policies do not a conservative make.
Personal responsibility and moral absolutism...catch phrases. They are used at convenient times, completely dropped at others. But I'm game for this discussion.
Let's hear some examples of moral absolutism?
-
And my Mother never was whining about "woe is me, why won't the Government help me?". I'm a conservative not by what class I'm in, but by what I advocate, Freedom, Personal Responsibility, and large injection of Moral Absolutism.
Oh please. Want to compare growing up poor stories? I might can top yours.
I don't really care what you can top. Just don't reference me as a conservative simply because I'm some supposed whiny middle classer, who doesn't want to help others, or any other distorted Tee-like claim of what a conservative is supposed to be. Reference me as a conservative by what I stand for, say, and advocate
Let's hear some examples of moral absolutism?
Evil is evil, it can not be appeased, it can not be placated, it can not be made to see the error of their ways and become all nice-nice. It can only be surgically removed. And ends rarely, if ever, justify the means, when the means are either illegal, unethical, and/or immoral
-
I don't really care what you can top. Just don't reference me as a conservative simply because I'm some supposed whiny middle classer, who doesn't want to help others, or any other distorted Tee-like claim of what a conservative is supposed to be. Reference me as a conservative by what I stand for, say, and advocate
You are a middle class whiner, that is evident from your posts. I never said that you don't want to help others. And if you read what I wrote I said, "just because you're a middle class whiner (and that is one large club in this nation) doesn't make you a conservative..."
Please read next time before accusing me of the exact opposite of what I actually said.
Let's hear some examples of moral absolutism?
Evil is evil, it can not be appeased, it can not be placated, it can not be made to see the error of their ways and become all nice-nice. It can only be surgically removed. And ends rarely, if ever, justify the means, when the means are either illegal, unethical, and/or immoral
[/quote]
That is not moral absolutism, nor is that an example of such. Do you have specific examples or not? "Evil" can be broadly or narrowly defined to encompass a great or few things. "The ends justify the means" is a teleological principle coined by Ovid, but made famous by Niccolo Machiavelli. It has little to do with moral absolutism.
-
I don't really care what you can top. Just don't reference me as a conservative simply because I'm some supposed whiny middle classer, who doesn't want to help others, or any other distorted Tee-like claim of what a conservative is supposed to be. Reference me as a conservative by what I stand for, say, and advocate
You are a middle class whiner, that is evident from your posts.
Yea, I realize that the knee jerk reaction to anyone daring to advocate personal responsibility & accountability is deemed a "middle class whiner"
Please read next time before accusing me of the exact opposite of what I actually said.
Contrary to popular perception, I can read nuance
Let's hear some examples of moral absolutism?
Evil is evil, it can not be appeased, it can not be placated, it can not be made to see the error of their ways and become all nice-nice. It can only be surgically removed. And ends rarely, if ever, justify the means, when the means are either illegal, unethical, and/or immoral
That is not moral absolutism, nor is that an example of such. Do you have specific examples or not? "Evil" can be broadly or narrowly defined to encompass a great or few things. "The ends justify the means" is a teleological principle coined by Ovid, but made famous by Niccolo Machiavelli. It has little to do with moral absolutism.
Boy, you simply have no intention of paying attention, do you. The examples are specific and hardly vague. Dealing with Islamofascist terrorists is dealing with evil. Ends justifying the means are specific in efforts to try and rationalize not only every attack on this President and his efforts to take on militant Islam, but in also trying to make equate things such as waterboarding to raping, dismembering, burning, etc. If you're not going to pay attention, then please move on. I don't need a Migraine for Friday
-
What I dislike dealing with is someone who will not be genuine or will not discuss an issue with academic honesty.
Now try it with actual examples:
Moral Absolutism: Stealing is never acceptable under any circumstances.
Moral Objectivism: Stealing is unacceptable and there is clearly a body of historical precedent that demonstrates this as being so.
Kantian Ethics: If you stole in this situation and it became a universal law that stealing was acceptable in all similar situations for everyone, would that be a rational end?
Situational Ethics: There are circumstances where stealing would be better than the alternative of not stealing.
Moral Relativism: Whether or not stealing is acceptable depends primarily upon one?s cultural, social, and historical background.
Emotivism: Stealing is neither right nor wrong as making such a claim would only convey my personal feelings on the matter and offer no factual view grounded in scientific study.
I doubt you are truly a moral absolutist. I might suggest you read C.S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man and a few other books that go into this topic a little more deeply. You'll find that most people who rant on this topic have no understanding of what moral relativism or absolutism really are. In reality there are very few Absolutists and very few Emotovists in the world.
If you truly are one, I'd love to discuss it with you without the venom. Now which of the above accurately describes you?
-
What I dislike dealing with is someone who will not be genuine or will not discuss an issue with academic honesty....I doubt you are truly a moral absolutist.
I never claimed to be 100%. I referenced a healthy injection of it, but perhaps that bit of nuance was "too complex" for you ::)
-
What I dislike dealing with is someone who will not be genuine or will not discuss an issue with academic honesty....I doubt you are truly a moral absolutist.
I never claimed to be 100%. I referenced a healthy injection of it, but perhaps that bit of nuance was "too complex" for you ::)
LOL
So you are relatively absolutist...
-
If it makes you feel better, sure :-\
-
Nah.
I do recommend the book though. You and Lewis probably agree quite a bit. I don't necessarily agree with him, but it makes for a good read and thought-provoking points on moral views.
-
Here JS gives you clear guidelines of all the positions, and yet you refuse to identify which you are.
You could even make up your own definition.
But no.
disappointing.\
I think I would go with situational ethics.
Suppose I was charged with a group of hungry children and I knew of a bakery warehouse where it was probable that the bread would be eaten by rodents or otherwise be spoiled rather than sold. If I were to break in and steal this particular bread in this particular situation, I don't think I should be considered guilty of the crime of theft.
-
Kantian ethics might work there as well XO.
I worked on that list for a review of Lewis' The Abolition of Man I wrote not too long ago.
I think it works rather well and I drew from reputable sources. Situational Ethics and Moral Relativism get a real knocking around from those who look down on modernism (as Lewis did) and post modernism. Yet, in reality I think that many people fall into both categories to some extent. It would really be difficult not to.
-
Nah.
Then I'm sorry I couldn't help you. And thanks for the book recommendation on moral view considerations, though as I've already referenced, I'm pretty "absolute" in those views already. Thanks again, though
-
It doesn't seem to me that any rational thinking person could actually be a moral absolutist. It is not too difficult to imagine a situation where almost any crime or sin could be justified by exceptional circumstances.
Even cannibalism.
Have you seen the film "Alive" about the Uruguayan rugby team that survived by snacking on their deceased teammates? The Anniversary DVD interviews all the main characters. Quite interesting.
As realistic a plane crash as I have seen in any film. At least as realistic as the crash in Tom Hanks' "Cast Away", and I bet done with a much smaller budget.
-
It doesn't seem to me that any rational thinking person could actually be a moral absolutist.
Probably because no one, including myself, have claimed to be a diehard 100% moral absolutist
Have you seen the film "Alive"
No
-
Stop Sirs, before you make a fool of yourself.
A moral absolutist doesn't go half way. This is inherent in the term itself. To be a moral absolutist you must believe that morality is dictated by absolute standards set down in universal laws (rules, etc). Typically there is a God or god-like figure who sets these universal laws (a Tao would work as well).
So you get a view of morality as being something like this:
Slavery is wrong.
Theft is wrong.
Dictatorship is wrong.
Adultery is wrong.
Fornication is wrong.
Murder is wrong.
Cannabilism is wrong.
Absolutism means that there is no question after the statement. You cannot say something like, "well, Thomas Jefferson took very good care of his slaves and it was a common economic arrangement at this point in Southern American history." Now you are making a moral relativist argument.
Moral Absolutism means what it says Sirs. It is like pregnancy. You can't be sometimes, sort of, 35% pregnant. You either are, or you are not.
For an absolutist there is no moral dilemma that is not solved by universal law (whatever law that is depends upon the beliefs of the absolutist - it might be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, etc.)
Does that make sense now? I'm not being a smart ass and I understand that these terms get misused a lot by people who don't understand them, including journalists. Yet, you cannot "sort of" be an absolutist. You are, or you are not.
-
This reminds me of the anti-alcohol debate back in the early 1900's with Carrie A. Nation and company.
A total abstainer was a person who never drank alcohol. But then some would claim that alcohol as a tonic foir heath was okay.
Those that disagreed and refrained for absolutely all use of alcohol were not just Totalers, but Tee-Totalers, which is where the word comes from.
Teetotalers were, with regard to Demon Rum, moral absolutists.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Sirs makes this claim:
"Probably because no one, including myself, have claimed to be a diehard 100% moral absolutist",
one can only wonder if he refutes the word 'diehard' or claims to be a 98.6% or 99 and 44/100ths percent moral absolutist.
But no, this is impossible. Either one is an absolutist or one is not. Unless one is 100% absolutist, one cannot claim to be an absolutist at all.
There are no exceptions from absolutism.
-
Stop Sirs, before you make a fool of yourself. A moral absolutist doesn't go half way.
Try reading first, then you may want to look in the mirror with that proclaimation. "Healthy injection". Now, what part of that clear parameter I provided in the beginning insists I must be some 100% moral absolutist?? It means, I have very strong and concrete positions of morality, of what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil. THAT's what my statment meant, so why this semantic two step of what I was supposed to mean, I can only assume at this point as some deflection effort. To what ends, I'm not at liberty to form a substantiated opinion.....yet. Suffice to say, i know what I meant, and it really wasn't complex at all, as it fits the parameters I originally presented. Had I claimed I WAS a moral absolutist, I would have said so ::)
-
You do know what the word "absolutism" means, correct?
-
Whether it is called "conservatism" or not is really immaterial.
President Bush and his administration has certainly led the right wing in this country, until perhaps 2006. I don't see a lot of inconsistencies with right wing thought.
Actually, the neocons differ greatly from traditional conservatism as presented by William Buckley.
-
Interesting.
I don't believe Bush's failures necessarily come from the historical definition of conservatism that I offered. Not at all.
I agree that Krugman does exactly that, which is the point of his article. As I said, simple tit-for-tat politics.
But, to be fair to Krugman, many on the right have claimed that the Republican Party (along with the President) did stray from traditional conservatism and that cost them in 2006 and with Bush's problems. In fact, I believe that you agreed with this assesment, though I could be mistaken. So, it isn't as if Krugman just made that theory up...it has been popular amongst the right as well.
I don't really care what you call Bush. Mister Potato Head is fine with me. In an historical context, I think that he is a conservative...but so are most American presidents to varying degrees. We live in a rather solidly right of centre nation.
"We live in a rather solidly right of centre nation."
And God bless America we do!
-
Actually i don't think neo-cons are conservatives. It is a misused descriptor and pejorative much like liberal was last decade.
-
Good point, BT.
BTW, what Service were you in?
-
You do know what the word "absolutism" means, correct?
Yes. And I used the term in conjunction with the opposite of moral relativism, a near sickening aspect of those who can rationalize anything to everything, regardless any facts or logic to the contrary. Now, do you understand my actual position yet, given the parameters I've tried to provide??
-
You do know what the word "absolutism" means, correct?
Yes. And I used the term in conjunction with the opposite of moral relativism, a near sickening aspect of those who can rationalize anything to everything, regardless any facts or logic to the contrary. Now, do you understand my actual position yet, given the parameters I've tried to provide??
But that isn't what moral relativism means at all. It isn't "rationalizing anything and everything." Nor is moral absolutism the opposite.
I gave you perfectly good examples of how each would approach the moral question of stealing, so you could see the difference.
Simply saying moral relativism bad, moral absolutism good, is foolish. One cannot be sort of a moral absolutist or have a "healthy injection" of moral absolutism. ::)
Moral relativism simply takes into account the historical, cultural, and social context of a moral decision. And as much as you claim to hate moral relativism...I've seen you make a moral relativist argument in this very forum.
-
BTW, what Service were you in?
Navy
-
BTW, what Service were you in?
Navy
Excellent. Second-best there is..... ;D ;D ;D
-
Was man made for th law or was the law made for man?