Conservatism vs. progressivism

[Cannonpointer]

This is basically an admission that you are not a very serious thinker - that you are not intrigued by significant and timely distinctions.
.

I'm pretty sure that's bullshit. Not being interested in a discussion of conservatism is not equivalent with not being a serious thinker. Those calling themselves "conservative" are a dying breed. I say let them go without further fanfare or waste of "serious thought."

Another betrayal of a shallow thinker.

A nation without a healthy conservative movement and a healthy liberal movement is doomed. Missing the former will doom it to making radical changes and exposing itself to the brutality of unintended consequences. Missing the latter will expose it to stagnation. Neither of these is healthy and both are dangerous.

For you to discount the value of conservatism to the national wellbeing exposes you as a blind partisan, or as someone who simply does not understand what genuine conservatism is (ironically, the very condition the OP seeks to remedy). I cannot battle willful ignorance, smugly embraced.

[Cannonpointer]

Well, small government is a relative term and Republicans favor a smaller
government than Democrats, even if they don't always live up to that
principle. I think most conservative Republicans wouldn't have a problem
with government doing the things you mentioned. Bush certainly didn't
have much trouble with them.

If you want to name it radical right wing progressivism, that's your call.
I'll stick with extreme conservatism.

I was talking about financial regulations, the watered down regs that
conservative Republicans were against. Deregulation is another one of
their mantras.

Are you still wiggling?

How is empowering your precious nanny state to torture citizens, to arrest them without probable cause and hold them without charges and question them without counsel "SMALLER," you impervious nincompoop?

How is DOUBLING THE NATION DEBT "shrinking" government, you impervious nincompoop?

How is starting entire new entitlement programs like Medicare Part D "smaller," you impervious nincompoop?

[Cannonpointer]

It's an old, old discussion,

Sure it is, Nancy. Sure it is. You huys have distinguished neo-conservatism from genuine conservatism until you are blue in the face - and everyone on this board knows the neocons are actually pushing radical rightwing progressivism.

Why, I'll wager that any minute now you will bump threads with that very distinction being widely debated and ultimately agreed upon.

Yep - any minute now, Fibber McGee.

[Bungalow Bill]

Conservative Republicans have always been more interested in smaller
government in relation to domestic issues; they don't have much of a
problem with a large national security apparatus. See Bush, George and
Cheney, Dick. As I've already said, they don't always live up to their
principles of small government, but that's their problem, not mine.

[Cannonpointer]

Conservative Republicans have always been more interested in smaller
government in relation to domestic issues; they don't have much of a
problem with a large national security apparatus. See Bush, George and
Cheney, Dick. As I've already said, they don't always live up to their
principles of small government, but that's their problem, not mine.

It becomes your problem, dullard, when you elect to chant their lies for them.

Medicare part D and domestic spying demonstrate that even on the DOMESTIC side, your lie is just that, a lie - and you're the one telling it. So, yeah - YOUR problem, retard.

The republican party is a big government, big spending, deficit-dependent party of drunken frat boys. The republican party is a progressive, big government party, and has been since the Reagan revolution.

[Cannonpointer]

Sure it is.
Why, I'll wager that any minute now you will bump threads with that very distinction being widely debated and ultimately agreed upon.

Yep - any minute now, Fibber McGee.

Search[color]

Gonna stop ya there, Nancy. By the way, Nancy - funny thing.

You are all over the board calling republicans conservative, while ho-humming the distinction, and falsely pretending to have MADE the distinction, that they are progressive. You lie, and you lie, and you lie.

...ultraconservatives ... ultraconservatives ... conservatives... conservatives ...U.S. Rep. Stephen Fincher, R-Tenn.

[bannination]

I just know that conservatives did this to our deficit. Chart Book: The Bush Tax Cuts

How anyone calls that conservative is beyond me.

[Boatrocker]

I just know that conservatives did this to our deficit. Chart Book: The Bush Tax Cuts

How anyone calls that conservative is beyond me.

It's always been bullshit. They who call themselves conservative have, for over 30 years, been just as eager to expand government and just as ready to accept deficits and debt. They tax and spend just as much; they simply spend on different things. They love missiles, tanks and submarines, but hate "food stamps" and unemployment benefits.

[Bungalow Bill]

I'm just repeating what conservative Republicans espouse as their principles.
Again, the fact that they don't follow these principles is not my problem, it's
their's. Domestic spying is really a part of the overall national security apparatus.
I still think the GOP is the party of smaller government, less spending, deregulation.
There is very little that is progressive about it.

[bannination]

I just know that conservatives did this to our deficit. Chart Book: The Bush Tax Cuts

How anyone calls that conservative is beyond me.

It's always been bullshit. They who call themselves conservative have, for over 30 years, been just as eager to expand government and just as ready to accept deficits and debt. They tax and spend just as much; they simply spend on different things. They love missiles, tanks and submarines, but hate "food stamps" and unemployment benefits.

... I think they just spend.... and then go holy crap look at the deficit, I just don't understand!!!

[GoCubsGo]

I just know that conservatives did this to our deficit. Chart Book: The Bush Tax Cuts

How anyone calls that conservative is beyond me.

It's always been bullshit. They who call themselves conservative have, for over 30 years, been just as eager to expand government and just as ready to accept deficits and debt. They tax and spend just as much; they simply spend on different things. They love missiles, tanks and submarines, but hate "food stamps" and unemployment benefits.

... I think they just spend.... and then go holy crap look at the deficit, I just don't understand!!!

No......first they cut taxes for the wealthy, reduce revenues, then spend and say holy crap.

[rstrong]

I'm just repeating what conservative Republicans espouse as their principles.
Again, the fact that they don't follow these principles is not my problem, it's
their's.

Since they don't follow those principles, they are not the party of those principles. They are the party of espousing those principles, nothing more.

I still think the GOP is the party of smaller government, less spending, deregulation.

Just like they're the party of espousing getting rid of abortion. Reagan campaigned on it. One elected he turned his back on the anti-abortionists. He controlled the House, Senate and White House at the same time, and Democrats could have done nothing to stop him.

Likewise Bush II promised to ban abortion. He controlled the House, Senate and White House at the same time, and Democrats could have done nothing to stop him.

But abortion laws have remained essentially unchanged since Nixon was in power. Sure the Republicans automatically ban funding of third-world contraception - inevitably leading to MORE abortion - but they impose no limits for American citizens. For all the anti-abortion rhetoric they espouse on the campaign trail, it's a big part of their brand, their policy once in power is indistinguishable from the Democrats.

The Republicans are also the party of espousing stopping illegal immigration and preventing any amnesty. They have endless freak-outs over the issue. And yet it was McCain who wanted it in 2008. Bush II who pushed for it in 2007. The Republican platform committee who made immigration amnesty part of the Republican platform in 2004. GOP members of congress who were pushing for the AgJOBS immigration amnesty bill earlier in 2004. Reagan who actually granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants. Even Sarah Palin has called for an amnesty, in between accusing Democrats of planning one.

The centerpiece of Republican "smaller government, less spending, deregulation" policy for the last four years has been their opposition to ObamaCare. Despite it being best described as "15 years of Republican healthcare policy." With an honorable mention in recent years of their endless "espousing" of oil drilling and pipeline deregulation - ignoring that the Democrats had already been doing exactly that.

The GOP is not the party of smaller government, less spending, deregulation. They are the party of espousing smaller government, less spending, deregulation. It's not the same thing. Not when they've consistently done the opposite for 35 years. You could argue the Republican history for deregulation - not easily - but they're clearly the party of larger government and more spending.

[Bungalow Bill]

To me, the Republicans are still a conservative party, even if they often
espouse conservative principles without always acting on them. That is
partly the nature of political parties. They cannot always realize the
principles they put forth because political reality trumps political principles.

Did Bush II actually promise to ban abortion? I don't recall that, though it's
possible. And in the states that now have the strictest abortion regulations,
I'll bet most of them were put in place by Republicans. And the GOP is now
leading the fight against putting into place more regulations on finanacial
advisors, so even if they don't always stand up for their principles, they
often do. Taking everything into consideration, I still think that the GOP
is the party of conservatives.

I recall reading articles pointing out that pee partiers are better educated
and have a higher income than average. I think this shows that many of
them are just older, crankier Republicans who shifted to the extreme right
in their frustration with Obama. The Dems should just sit back and relax
while the Republicans fight it out amongst themselves.

[neoplacebo]

Yep, until they recognize that political reality trumps political ideals, they're pretty well inconsequential.

[Bungalow Bill]

Well, they can always be the other party, and when things go wrong, as they
always do sooner or later, the other party often wins elections just by being
the other party.

[rstrong]

To me, the Republicans are still a conservative party, even if they often espouse conservative principles without always acting on them.

I on the other hand go with deeds over words.

Did Bush II actually promise to ban abortion?

Yes. The Guardian, Oct 2000: Women sent in to fight for swing vote on abortion

"Mr Bush, in contrast, has said he will "do everything in my power" to restrict abortion. He is opposed to all abortion except in cases of rape, incest and danger to the health of the mother. [...] In February Mr Bush won the backing of the National Right to Life Committee and he supports proposals for a constitutional amendment banning abortion."

Not long after, he controlled the House, Senate and White House. Like Reagan he had the power, and didn't even try to pass what was a major plank in the Republican platform.

Lest you think that somehow he didn't have that power, he DID end Habeas Corpus. That was a Really Big Deal with a lot of opposition. Once the Democrats regained control of the Senate in the next election, their Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 was to bring it back. It was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee with an 11–8 vote split along party lines, with all but one Republican voting against it. And then almost all Republicans filibustered it.

When your party is making radical, fundamental changes like doing away with Habeas Corpus, doing what opponents could never accomplish on the battlefield, destroying American liberties - and almost all party members vote to do so - your party is not conservative.

And in the states that now have the strictest abortion regulations,
I'll bet most of them were put in place by Republicans.

That was the Republicans being progressive - changing things - not conservative.

CNN Belief Blog: My Take: When evangelicals were pro-choice

Hey, remember when evangelicals were pro-choice because of the Bible? What a difference 30 years makes.

And the GOP is now leading the fight against putting into place more regulations on finanacial
advisors,

Again, that was the Republicans being progressive - changing things - not conservative. It was Republicans who forced through deregulation in the first place a mere decade before the collapse. And by "deregulation" we mean with no hyperbole that "outright fraud became perfectly legal."

The brief experiment BLEW UP. Not doing it again is the conservative choice. The Republican choice is suicidal insanity.

Taking everything into consideration, I still think that the GOP
is the party of conservatives.

In the same sense that taking everything into consideration, the Taliban is pro-American.

[rstrong]

One more thing:

It's always tempting, when one party resorts to hyperbole, filibustering and rabidly opposing good ideas, to say "Well, BOTH sides do it. It's part of the game. And it would be tempting to take the Tea Party's list of "traitors", and declare them to be conservatives.

But that wouldn't be accurate.

The Republican party's post-2008 stated and demonstrated policy is to block EVERYTHING the Democrats try to accomplish. Medical coverage for 9/11 first responders. The Republican's own health care policy. EVERYTHING. It's their stated policy to do so regardless of any efforts at compromise. A democratic majority isn't enough. Without a supermajority it won't pass. And if it DOES have a supermajority the Republicans automatically filibuster it, setting new records for the number of filibusters. On December 6, 2012 Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) even became the first senator to filibuster his own proposal!

This is not how "the game" has worked in the past. It is not "what the other side does too." And it sure as hell isn't "conservative." It's a radical change in how the federal government works, by radical extremists. Led not by the Tea Party, but by mainstream Republicans, and supported by virtually all Republicans in Congress. This is NOT a party of conservatives.

[Bungalow Bill]

Parties are usually a mixture of words and deeds. They can't accomplish
everything they would like to, maybe they even know this and play their
voters, but Republicans still play the conservative card.

Even if Bush, and Reagan before him, knew they could not get a constitutional
amendment to ban abortion, they still put that possibility out there. That the
social conservative zealots didn't consider the impractability of that outcome
is likely not very surprising, but it was still their dream. And what conservatives
could not accomplish nationally, they have tried to do in the states, restricting
abortion as much as they can.

I don't agree with Bush's ending of habeas corpus for detainees, but that is a
lot less radical measure than ending it for everyone. In the end the Supreme
Court found it unconstitutional.

Change in itself is not incompatable with conservatism. It all matters what the
changes are. Changing tax rates by lowering them or placing further restrictions
on abortions or changing regulations by weakening them or totally doing away
with them are all conservative moves.

Well, nobody really thinks the Taliban is pro-American, but most people think, and
with good reason, that the GOP is a conservative party. The fact that they don't
always live up to the principles they espouse is just the way that real world politics
works. All parties fall short of the ideal, usually by quite a bit. What are called
RINOs are to me the old time conservative Republicans. The tpers are just the
extreme right wing of the GOP.

[rstrong]

...placing further restrictions on abortions or changing regulations by weakening them or totally doing away
with them are all conservative moves...

Some would argue that choosing government control over women's freedom is a violation of conservative principle.

But... But... Their methods for doing so are oh-so-traditional and conservative!


(Link)

[Cannonpointer]

To me, the Republicans are still a conservative party, even if they often espouse conservative principles without always acting on them.

I on the other hand go with deeds over words.

Did Bush II actually promise to ban abortion?

Yes. The Guardian, Oct 2000: Women sent in to fight for swing vote on abortion

"Mr Bush, in contrast, has said he will "do everything in my power" to restrict abortion. He is opposed to all abortion except in cases of rape, incest and danger to the health of the mother. [...] In February Mr Bush won the backing of the National Right to Life Committee and he supports proposals for a constitutional amendment banning abortion."

Not long after, he controlled the House, Senate and White House. Like Reagan he had the power, and didn't even try to pass what was a major plank in the Republican platform.

Lest you think that somehow he didn't have that power, he DID end Habeas Corpus. That was a Really Big Deal with a lot of opposition. Once the Democrats regained control of the Senate in the next election, their Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 was to bring it back. It was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee with an 11–8 vote split along party lines, with all but one Republican voting against it. And then almost all Republicans filibustered it.

When your party is making radical, fundamental changes like doing away with Habeas Corpus, doing what opponents could never accomplish on the battlefield, destroying American liberties - and almost all party members vote to do so - your party is not conservative.

And in the states that now have the strictest abortion regulations,
I'll bet most of them were put in place by Republicans.

That was the Republicans being progressive - changing things - not conservative.

CNN Belief Blog: My Take: When evangelicals were pro-choice

Hey, remember when evangelicals were pro-choice because of the Bible? What a difference 30 years makes.

And the GOP is now leading the fight against putting into place more regulations on finanacial
advisors,

Again, that was the Republicans being progressive - changing things - not conservative. It was Republicans who forced through deregulation in the first place a mere decade before the collapse. And by "deregulation" we mean with no hyperbole that "outright fraud became perfectly legal."

The brief experiment BLEW UP. Not doing it again is the conservative choice. The Republican choice is suicidal insanity.

Taking everything into consideration, I still think that the GOP
is the party of conservatives.

In the same sense that taking everything into consideration, the Taliban is pro-American.

THIS!

And the genuine conservative answer to the crazyland we finds ourselves in, is to RETURN to our last moment of fiscal sanity - pre-Reaganomics, pre-deregulation, back to the financial rules of FDR under which we created the largest middle class in the history of history.