Conservatism's 'loyal heir'

[sirs]

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

[Plane]

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?

[_JS]

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?

[sirs]

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

[_JS]

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]

[sirs]

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.

[_JS]

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?

[sirs]

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

[_JS]

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.

[sirs]

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

[_JS]

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?

[sirs]

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   

[_JS]

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...

[sirs]

If it makes you feel better, sure       

[_JS]

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.