The Conservative Movement In America

My beliefs:

Uncle Sam should do this:

A) Defend me from enemies foreign and domestic
B) Collect taxes to pay for the military and police that protect me
C) Do other minor things

The States should do everything else.

I support a small government that does not do too much to interfere with my life or the lives of others.

Liberty is similiar to the word liberal. I support liberty; I am a liberal. In the modern use of the word, I am not one. The modern use means one who supports a large government, high taxes, and a welfare state. That may sound extreme of me, but it is true. And besides, we're a bunch of Star Wars nerds dbating at midnight. I don't expect anyone to be intelligent, myelf included.

 

Gentlemen, this appears to be a divisive topic, but let's try to keep the content of this thread civilized.

 

So what influence would you rate the 1960's Civil Rights movement as having on both the Conservatives and Liberals in the US? I would submit it was responsible for a large number of people seeing both parties continue support for Vietnam, despite popular protests against it. I would submit that this could be partially responsible for a large attitude shift in both parties, esp. if one considers the age of the then-protestors matches the age of the now-politicians...

Well said, too, Obi-Dan.

E_S

 

[image=http://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan/photographs/graphics/rr/RR_65.JPG]
The Gipper says "Get back on topic."

 

IMO there's no "conservative movement" in the US. It's merely moderates shifting from one party to the other as they eventually get disillusioned from each party. A president in his first term could balance the budget, get Saddam out peacefully, pay down the debt, have a thriving economy, cure any social ills of the day and your opposing party liners still won't vote for him.

Right now many moderates are disillusioned with the democrats. Clintons 8 year stint of relatively borderline liberalism left (in theory if not practice) this country with a weak CIA that helped contribute to 9/11, an economy that tanked too soon to be attributed to Bush, scandles that happend while he was in office, corporate scandles that left Bush to deal with etc. I think unless things get even worse now, Bush and the Republicans will have another 4 years at least. If the economy tanks even worse in the next 2 years the moderates will shift back to the democrats.

Right now the mentality of moderates is they trust social issues to the Democrats, and they trust monetary and defense issues to the Republicans. Monetary and defense are the two big issues, and as a result I think November will show it; but democrats take heart it's not going to last forever.

 

I remember reading about that in TIME, tenorjedi. Basically, the new, post-Gen-X'ers are fiscally conservative but socially liberal. It's similar here; and whilst our Labor party has moved closer to this position, it is still working off a union-dominated agenda which alienates some younger voters. I think, though, the difference here is that we do have some House of Reps and Senate seats that have gone to smaller parties - Australian Democrats and Greens, for example.

E_S

 

Ender_Sai statistically conservatives = republicans, not in all cases but for the majority. Pull up history...hey did you forget to mention slavery?? Did you know it was the REPUBLICANS that were anti-slavery and the "liberal" Democrats in the south that wanted to keep slavery for their plantations? Before you go using one example...look at ALL of US history. Yep, it was the Democrats that wanted to keep the Africans of that time as slaves. In some way, affirmative action and over funding for social programs that don't work keep people down, not help them up. Think about it, Democrats were/are less for Civil Liberties than Republicans in the grand scheme of things!!

 

Yeah, actually, I did know that. I don't defend either party; but am interested because of the disparity between them and the rest of the Western democratic world.

If I'm not mistaken, did not the Republicans and Democrats start out essentially opposite to how they are now, in terms of the "left/right" distinction?

E_S

 

I don't give a darn about what Clinton does in his spare time. I don't care about Newt either. However, I hate it when people lie under oath. Don't you?

I don't give a da*n about what either Clinton or Gingrich does in private. What I can't stand is hypocrisy. And Newt had it in spades.

And I don't like people that LIE. Period. Don't you? Why do you have to qualify it as under oath?

 

I believe you're thinking of the Whigs party Ender (the republicans emerged as the whigs lost power). Still there is a difference between pre-civil war and now. Socialism changed the democratic party's focus. The Republican stance has always been pretty steady.

It's just my personal opinion, but how I see it, the spectrum shifted with the democrats as they searched for a way to regain a powerbase, but the Republicans largely didn't budge in terms of issues.

 

Did you know it was the REPUBLICANS that were anti-slavery and the "liberal" Democrats in the south that wanted to keep slavery for their plantations?

Well, as much as I love old Abe and his party I must debunk this myth. Yes, it was Abe that signed the proclimation to free the slaves. However, this was not done until well into the civil war. The simple explanation as to why it was done was to cripple the economy of the south. It was meant to be a major blow to them and was not really done out of good will. I can assure you that there were Republicans who owned slaves. This was not a party/party issue but rather an issue that came into being well into the Civil War.

Oh yes, and on a side note the Democrats of the south were quite conservative. In fact, southern conservative democrates are a rare breed now but have been around I'd say up through the 80s.

 

IMO there's no "conservative movement" in the US. It's merely moderates shifting from one party to the other as they eventually get disillusioned from each party. A president in his first term could balance the budget, get Saddam out peacefully, pay down the debt, have a thriving economy, cure any social ills of the day and your opposing party liners still won't vote for him.

Boy, you're not kidding, tenorjedi.

Right now many moderates are disillusioned with the democrats. Clintons 8 year stint of relatively borderline liberalism left (in theory if not practice) this country with a weak CIA that helped contribute to 9/11

This may or may not be true. Generally speaking, the shift from primarily human to primarily electronic intelligence which left the US with the inability to piece together pre-9/11 events started under the Reagan administration. Although Clinton continued it, I don't think one can really attribute 9/11 to him. It was a failure all across the board, mostly of the FBI's internal chain of communication.

an economy that tanked too soon to be attributed to Bush, scandles that happend while he was in office, corporate scandles that left Bush to deal with etc.

I have to respecfully diagree with you here. I think the economy did so well during the Clinton years more as a result of peacetime defense budget slashing and record investment in america than anything else. Bush came in during a time when things were in transition. Everything cycles. He happened to have the misfortune of a presidency that started under a cloud with the election controversy. Then 9/11. He cut taxes and largely inflated the defense budget. The effect this actually has had on the economy is debatable; however, wall street investors saw a repeat of the reagan years that put the US into debt and panicked, dropping the market. Bush has some blame for this with talk of war. Also, the republicans are generally seen as far more 'big business' than the democrats, and most people (and polls) that I am aware of believe that the corporate fiends will be treated far less harshly, and are far friendlier with, republicans than democrats. I can't 'blame' clinton for the corporate scandals either. They simply happened, and they got caught now. Whatever administration is in power when bad things happen tends to get blame-it's the nature of american politics.

As far as the Clinton scandals went, they were an obvious lynching of a popular president by those who were horrified by his policies and a testament to how good we really had it during the 90s; that's why the entire House could waste as much time as it did on the definition of 'sex'. They were a politicized witch hunt by those who wanted clinton out, tarred and feathered, nothing more. The hypocrisy of those who ran those proceedings was stunning.

I think unless things get even worse now, Bush and the Republicans will have another 4 years at least.

Bush maybe, but the republicans? Doubt it. Guess who's getting blamed for the sharp rise in jobs cuts this past month come november? How about the loss of 401k's and the tanking market? Bush's strategy of keeping war talk on the front page (which is fading, by the way) has helped the stock market tank and people lose even more money. Universally, most polls in this country show people voting on domestic economic and health care issues this election, not the war on terrorism; and most of them show people favoring the democrats. Bush, while popular still on the terrorism war, is seen as unconcerned about the economy, especially from the viewpoint of the average american. Also, from his far-right social stances on abortion and stem-cell research to his erosion of church and state, many moderates have jumped ship for this election and may in fact vote the other way. I know it's certainly appearing to be happening here in PA with Ed Rendell in the gubernatorial race.

Will Bush lose his base? Of course not, because they're ecstatic with his social leanings. But the ones who