Conservatism's 'loyal heir'

[_JS]

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.

[sirs]

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

[Amianthus]

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.

[_JS]

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.

[sirs]

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?

[_JS]

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.

[sirs]

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??

[_JS]

"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.

[sirs]

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?

[_JS]

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?

[sirs]

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?

[_JS]

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.

[sirs]

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??

[Michael Tee]

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.

[Plane]

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?