[annatar1914]

Would you as an American conservative not be forced to be an "American conservative", in other words operate within the US conservative tradition? Is it possible to be a conservative in the tradition of a country not one's own? For example, a British conservative could not believe in Russian or French conservatism because these are foreign. How could it be possible to believe in anything but American conservatism if you are an American conservative?

This is what i'm saying, indeed. I continue to be a traditionalist, but have realized that in the context of what and who and where I am, the political system here-ordained by a Benevolent Providence-is the structure best worked within. The American System is unique and as i've said, the perfect vehicle for solving the problems that eluded previous ages while keeping the best elements of those ages. We will find the right balance between liberty and authority, the general and the local, the individual and the society, positive and natural law.

That is, once the virus, the cancer, of liberalism and leftism is contained.

[Llamamall]

"Conservative" and "progressive" are contextual, relative terms. In the context of the American political spectrum, your views are simply not conservative. It makes little sense to describe yourself as a "true conservative" when conservatism by its very nature is defined by the political context in which it exists, not by any objective ideology.

Historicist nonsense....

American Conservatism by it's very name is an ideology that seeks to preserve the unique American Constitutional system for future generations; both 'progressive' and 'conservative' in the best meaning of the term. Go back and read the links I provided concerning Orestes Brownson and the Ameican Republic.

This is quite obviously a misunderstanding. You are conflating conservatism with American conservatism: Conservative, as an adjective, is by its very nature relative. However, American conservative in't an adjective (You wouldn't say 'I`m American conservative', you would say 'I`m AN American conservative'), so it isn't relative. You are both right: in this case, American conservative refers to a Constitutionalist, or Constitutional preservationist.
However, I have one major problem with American conservatism if we start from the basic philisophical position behind the idea. The problem is that Thomas Jefferson himself believed that we should rewrite all laws and the Constitution itself every 19 years, because acting under the laws of the previous generations would be effective slavery to them. Thomas Jefferson knew that the ideas of his peers and himself would become outdated and should not be imposed on future generations if they would never have agreed to live under them. Basically, you cannot strive to act under the ideas of the founding fathers if one of their ideas was for their ideas to not directly affect future generations. And even if this wasn't an idea held by Thomas Jefferson, the idea itself is still pointless. Why should we unquestioningly heed the words of the long-dead? We should think for ourselves. The ideas of past generations are not relevant to the ideas, needs, & wants of current Americans. I`m not suggesting that we disregard the Constitution. It was the document that our country is based off of, and it has a lot of cultural & political significance. I respect that. However, we shouldn't carry it around as if it is unmatched in its wisdom. It is not perfect. We are not the Founding Fathers, & we shouldn't have to live under their ideas if we disagree with them.

[annatar1914]

This is quite obviously a misunderstanding. You are conflating conservatism with American conservatism: Conservative, as an adjective, is by its very nature relative. However, American conservative in't an adjective (You wouldn't say 'I`m American conservative', you would say 'I`m AN American conservative'), so it isn't relative. You are both right: in this case, American conservative refers to a Constitutionalist, or Constitutional preservationist.
However, I have one major problem with American conservatism if we start from the basic philisophical position behind the idea. The problem is that Thomas Jefferson himself believed that we should rewrite all laws and the Constitution itself every 19 years, because acting under the laws of the previous generations would be effective slavery to them. Thomas Jefferson knew that the ideas of his peers and himself would become outdated and should not be imposed on future generations if they would never have agreed to live under them. Basically, you cannot strive to act under the ideas of the founding fathers if one of their ideas was for their ideas to not directly affect future generations. And even if this wasn't an idea held by Thomas Jefferson, the idea itself is still pointless. Why should we unquestioningly heed the words of the long-dead? We should think for ourselves. The ideas of past generations are not relevant to the ideas, needs, & wants of current Americans. I`m not suggesting that we disregard the Constitution. It was the document that our country is based off of, and it has a lot of cultural & political significance. I respect that. However, we shouldn't carry it around as if it is unmatched in its wisdom. It is not perfect. We are not the Founding Fathers, & we shouldn't have to live under their ideas if we disagree with them.

I think you're not getting my original point; forget the Founding Fathers; but as the saying goes 'Man proposes but God disposes'. That is, the Founding Fathers created something far greater than what they thought of individually or even collectively. As I said, read Orestes Brownson-having the faults of a 19th century writer but still a worthy read-and see that this system is truly something beyond mere mortals. And yet admittedly, something mere mortals can abuse and discard if they so wish.

[quetzalcoatl]

American Conservatism by it's very name is an ideology that seeks to preserve the unique American Constitutional system for future generations

Very well. You must also then agree with the system of corporate governance put in place after the American Revolution:

"Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company’s accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will."

[annatar1914]

Very well. You must also then agree with the system of corporate governance put in place after the American Revolution:

"Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company’s accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will."

Can't disagree with that at all, not one bit.

And that is part of American Conservatism in it's truest sense.

[quetzalcoatl]

Can't disagree with that at all, not one bit.

And that is part of American Conservatism in it's truest sense.

Well, here's to you then. I hope you are able to influence other like-minded Conservatives.

[nucklepunche]

In a sense annatar is describing and older version of American conservatism, one that was less ideological, less conspiratorial, less hysterical than what passes as "conservatism" now. It is the tradition of Washington, Adams (both father and son), Hamilton and Clay. It is the tradition of the Federalist Party, the Whig Party and the Republican Party for the first 100 years of its history. By this standard of what I call "classical American conservatism" I am a proud conservative, however I am not a conservative in the sense that I agree with what modern Americans who self-identify as conservatives believe, in other words "pseudo-conservatism."

Things began to change as the Republican Party began to change. While it was originally a northern movement it began to incorporate more Southern Democrats who could not accurately be described as conservative, but reactionary. It began to combine a social agenda based on racial resentment and theocratic inklings with extreme economic libertarianism. There are however some vestigial traces of the older conservatism left but they are disappearing. It appears now that so is the Religious Right, unfortunately this doesn't "fix" what's wrong with Republicans as it seems to me they are being replaced by more dogmatic libertarians.

I disagree with annatar that FDR is part of this tradition. I think a lot of FDR's opponents at the time like Alf Landon and Wendell Wilkie were more representative of this tradition. FDR was essentially a social democrat as were Truman, Kennedy and Johnson. All the Republican presidents from Lincoln to Ford were more or less part of this tradition but Reagan shifted the direction of the GOP yet even he today would be run out of the party (assuming he was a modern figure with more or less the same views instead of a quasi-mythological figure) for not being ideologically doctrinaire enough.

[ACuboConstructivist]

The 1950s of the late Eisenhower time. Federal Highways And GI bills and conservative culture.

However the main issues facing America are MADE IN CHINA and MASS IMMIGRATION. GOP deliberate pussyfooting which tries to say illegal vs legal (while supporting "skilled" "enriching" multiculturalism) and its deranged support of outsourcing jobs to the orient needs to cease. As this country is a democracy, at least in terms of voting, people should have faith in their millions of votes compared to the few corporate cheap llabor pushers. As the editor of the corporate-establishment-outsourcing magazine "national review" came around and said a moment a truth:

The wall street element is something else though as is the pro mass immigration stuff through the false paradigm of illegal vs legal job looting wage driving multiculturalism.

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/08/rich- ... epublicans



When establishment figures see the truth and use the establishment to promote those ideas it's a positive. Just like nest Gingrich saying Ron Paul might be right on foreign policy a few years ago.

The wall street element is something else though as is the pro mass immigration stuff through the false paradigm of illegal vs legal job looting wage driving multiculturalism.

Do not double post. Just say everything you need to say in one post and edit as needed.

-TIG Edit

[spodi]

I'll start off by stating that I am a God fearing American. I believe in America, her Constitution and like Reagan I belive her greatest days are yet to come (wipes tear from eye, mumbles America to himself). I would also like to prematurely congratulate you on 2014 midterms. I support Ronald Reagan even with the constant attacks by the liberal mainstream media (MSNBC, Fox; etc). Do you conservatives agree that you have to modernize to stay relevant though? I am not a heretic but Michael Steele was not modernizing. The downfall began with W and has never fully recovered. Did you really think Gingrich let alone Romney, an out of touch city slicker from the snoody northeast was going to make you guys look good? The tea party like the left's occupy movement has failed. Fox news should just admit what all people on the political spectrum know and embrace their right leaning roots. Rush Limbaugh (the Noam Chomsky of the right) should retire. The right should aim for a paradigm shift towards libertarianism, Ronald did say "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism" and as true conservatives you cannot speak out against that great actor from Hollywood California and the last great voice of the base. You conseratives should of embraced Ron Paul but you went fancy smancy city slicker on the god fearing anti union working class conservatives and sold out. Who is the future of the party? Rand. Like him or not, he is the republican of the future. If conservatives nominate ted cruz who BTW looks more like the gender which he isnt in 2016 your image risks becoming the image I posted below and say good bye to conservatism. To sum it up, modernize you fox news lovers. Even the CATHOLIC church is accepting gay marriage, Obama may not be an American but he wasn't born in a Kenyan mosque and finally Ronald Reagan died in 2004. May the christian version of God rest his soul. I hope this fires you guys up for a new Reagan revolution without Reagan, 04, I hope you were paying attention. How about a game face?


Note: To rally the base come 2016, have a Reagan Hologram at the convention to rally the base and appeal to disenfranchised millenials with their phablets and stem degrees. Jindal just wont do, Christie lacks legitimacy being a native new joysian and like I mentioned above, the right's Chomsky is obsolete in 2016.

[Drlee]

To sum it up, modernize you fox news lovers. Even the CATHOLIC church is accepting gay marriage, Obama may not be an American but he wasn't born in a Kenyan mosque and finally Ronald Reagan died in 2004. May the christian version of God rest his soul. I hope this fires you guys up for a new Reagan revolution without Reagan, 04, I hope you were paying attention. How about a game face?

Well. Let's see.

OK. One by one:

Reagan was not a conservative. He was the first of the abject corporate tools to make the claim. His notion of trickle-down economics would have been appalling to the founders. He spent like a drunken sailor. Did not even try to balance the budget. His deficit numbers make President Obama look very conservative indeed. Reagan raised taxes in 7 of his 8 years in office. He was the king of income inequality and had unemployment rates nearing 11%. Reagan claimed to be for small government but government grew a whole lot on his watch. He created a new government agency with 300,000 employees. Reagan gave amnesty to three million illegal aliens. He gave weapons to Iran. Reagan was a mess of a president though quite the effective actor.

The Catholic Church DOES NOT "accept gay marriage" and shows no signs it ever will. The current synod asked some questions about being more accepting of gay members and the idiot press went off like a skyrocket.

Obama may not be an American but he wasn't born in a Kenyan mosque and finally Ronald Reagan died in 2004.

God if I hear this nonsense one more time I am going to puke. Barak Hussein Obama is as American as I am. Born and raised an American. He is the duly elected President of the United States of America in part because a significant number of Americans are very much smarter than the mental midgets trying to sell this bullshit.

The last thing we need is a "Reagan revolution." We need to repudiate just about everything that corporate tool did and get back to representative democracy. And THAT IS a conservative principle.

[spodi]

Drlee, are you a Goldwater conservative? And my post was based off some truth and some karl rove truth to get a response out of the base. Also I commend you on denying that Reagan wasn't a conservative and good luck with the base and having your own opinion vs the herd.

Oh and a off topic question, you've been on this forum for a few years, why isn't there a fascist forum? Liberals get a communist forum, is this forum controlled by the left?

[quetzalcoatl]

There are a number of fascists of varying stripes quite prominent on this forum. And they do have a Sub-Forum entitled Paternalism & Corporatism, as well as a private users group (although I'm not certain of its current status).

[spodi]

There are a number of fascists of varying stripes quite prominent on this forum. And they do have a Sub-Forum entitled Paternalism & Corporatism, as well as a private users group (although I'm not certain of its current status).

Are you on stormfront too?

[Drlee]

Drlee, are you a Goldwater conservative?

I knew Barry Goldwater and agree with many of his opinions. He was a fiscal conservative and social libertarian and so am I. I would have to mention Rockefeller as well.

quetzalcoatl

After reading your post on the founders and corporations I have resolved to buy you a very old, very good bottle of wine should we ever meet.

[fuser]

Liberals get a communist forum, is this forum controlled by the left?

I can't wrap my head around this comment, wtf liberals have to do with communism?

Also as they say if you are a liberal this forum is tightly controlled by conservatives and if you are a conservative this forum is tightly controlled by liberals.

[spodi]

Wow! Drlee thats really cool that you knew Barry and the term Rockefeller Republican always rings a bell with me. Aside from my harsh recommendations earlier, I had to make a bold statement. Reign in the social bs and concentrate with the real problems. What's your opinion of Ron and Rand and can I have a bottle of wine too?

[spodi]

I can't wrap my head around this comment, wtf liberals have to do with communism?

Also as they say if you are a liberal this forum is tightly controlled by conservatives and if you are a conservative this forum is tightly controlled by liberals.

First of all fuser, show some respect, your on a conservative sub forum for christ's sake. Oh that's right you don't recognize our saviour. Secondly liberals and communists are two sides of the same coin. Its called a left coin in Karl Marx's pocket. Third where are you at? A university in the northeast, a bath house in San Francisco or at a victory day parade at the mother ship. We're all entitled to our opinions but watch your commie mouth in this conservative forum. We have values besides Lenin, Lennon and LSD.

Edit: Excuse me but I've simmered down and regained my conservative demeanor. First liberals have everything to do with communism. With your equal rights, class warfare ideologies and general blindness to reality your one in the same. Your avatar, is that your class photo from the students for a democratic society yearbook? Do you support Bill Ayers on a Chicago ed board (a communist supported by a liberal public organization, case closed commie)? and as a communist are you more of a Marxist Leninist, a Maoist or a socialist with Chinese characters?

This is why I've returned to conservatism. Posters like Drlee and Fuser influenced my decision.

[fuser]

First of all fuser, show some respect, your on a conservative sub forum for christ's sake. Oh that's right you don't recognize our saviour.

You are spewing arrogance while asking for respect? What does christ have to do with this at all?

Secondly liberals and communists are two sides of the same coin. Its called a left coin in Karl Marx's pocket.

Ummm, no they are not. Not by any definition, any logic, any analysis, they are completely different ideologies.

Third where are you at? A university in the northeast, a bath house in San Francisco or at a victory day parade at the mother ship.

No, I am in Patna. A small city in eastern part of India, But your caricature is amusing.

watch your commie mouth in this conservative forum. We have values besides Lenin, Lennon and LSD.

I don't like Lennon, never had LSD but Lenin was awesome, anything else?

Now returning back to my original comment, yeah liberalism and communism are not same and this is obvious to anyone who have even cursorily looked at these ideologies.

[spodi]

Hey Fuser, my whole intention was to get a reaction out of some hardliners so I went all out. Believe me I do not believe in intentionally disrespecting a believer's beliefs. Its just really really hard to present sarcasm through computers. Someday right? Anyway I appreciate your dialogue and your opinion and as much as I am no way a communist I enjoy studying it's theories and leaders. As for our debate I had to go to the right with conspiracy theories and comparing apples and oranges just as the left compares conservatives to fascists. Signed, your tolerant yet sarcastic debating opponent, spodi.

[nucklepunche]

Reagan was not a conservative. He was the first of the abject corporate tools to make the claim. His notion of trickle-down economics would have been appalling to the founders. He spent like a drunken sailor. Did not even try to balance the budget. His deficit numbers make President Obama look very conservative indeed. Reagan raised taxes in 7 of his 8 years in office. He was the king of income inequality and had unemployment rates nearing 11%. Reagan claimed to be for small government but government grew a whole lot on his watch. He created a new government agency with 300,000 employees. Reagan gave amnesty to three million illegal aliens. He gave weapons to Iran. Reagan was a mess of a president though quite the effective actor.

It is about time somebody spoke the truth about Reagan. I feel like had Jimmy Carter won in 1980 conservatism would have been better off today. I am tired of hearing conservatives act like you cannot criticize Ronald Reagan. Calvin Coolidge and Dwight Eisenhower were much more conservative than he was because they believed in balanced budgets.

Furthermore he escalated the War on Drugs. Although I am not for wholesale legalization, much of the way it has been waged is unconstitutional. The problem is he adopted the utopian view that a drug free society is possible, it isn't. The role of government is to police it enough to keep it to a minimum. Decriminalize small amounts of cannabis, put hard drug users in mandatory rehab, keep prosecuting dealers but obey the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. It seems we're finally waking up to this insanity.

As for ending the Cold War I don't get conservatives who argue this. Isn't the point of conservatism to believe communism doesn't work? They constantly repeat that "Obamacare is socialism (it isn't) and socialism has always failed." The Soviet Union would have fallen apart due to the unworkable nature of communism had we simply done nothing.

He also legalized abortion in California (and then claimed he was sorry once he left a relatively liberal state for national office, just like Romney) and supported gun control throughout his career (he banned open carry in California and supported the Brady Bill later on). Also the amnesty. If anything this encouraged illegal immigration because if they grant a mass amnesty once what is to make people think they won't do it again?

Although I strongly disagree with Murray Rothbard on many things, his writings on how Reagan was not really a free market guy in any way were spot on. Still even a lot of so-called "libertarian Republicans" think Reagan was great or that the Democratic Congress was to blame. Still, Reagan had the veto pen and a Republican Senate for six of his eight years and Democrats never once had a two thirds supermajority.