Conservatism Is Dying

Is it?

It deserves to die; the sooner the better.IMHO.

Don't worry, frank. There's no creationism in politics, only evolution. As your society evolves it'll become, is becoming, more liberal That's why the two Democrat candidates are popular but regularly described on Fox News as 'of the far left'.That's why McCain is popular and 'not a true conservative'. Somebody somewhere,sometime, eventually gets around to thinking that what the electorate is ready for, and what it wants, is more 'liberal' than was the case years ago.It has got more 'liberal' over the years, hasn't it?( I hope so, anyway)

Hate to disappoint anybody here, but the author of this blog is dreaming. Conservatism is certainly not dead. While it may not be going through the best of times right now, it will certainly recover. American politics goes through its cycles like anything else. I dare say there is a conservative career in development right now that could very well be a major force a few short years down the road...

Conservatism now is about as dead as liberalism was in 1980. The pendulum seems to swing back and forth, only briefly achieving a sensible balance.

"Neo-conservatism" is a near oxymoron and, having strayed from principle, has hopefully run its course.

I would agree that the pendulum swings back and forth, but it never quite reaches the extreme height of the previous swing. Over time it evolves and for the direction that evolution takes one can get a hint by looking at the European Union. The so-called "happy medium" seems somewhat left of the American model. IMHO.

The one thing I've noticed over the years is Conservatives are proud to be Conservative. Liberals however tend to shy away from the liberal label. Even John McCain with his liberal tendencies is trying to push his Conservative voting record.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/23/america/liberal.php

I think LR would have been correct, with some exceptions, 20 years ago. Remember "The L word?" That seems to have changed.

That's odd, because I generally find the opposite to be true about Republicans in general, especially on this site. I could (but won't) name about 8 posters and former posters who claimed to not be Republicans but Independents, yet somehow manage to find fault with every single Democratic position and find, at best, very minor faults in every single Republican position. Anyone looking at the overall picture would see that, except to the extremist of each party, each party has times when it is right.

I've never shied away from identifying myself as a Liberal. I'm proud to be associated with those who gave us minimum wage laws; equal rights for blacks and women; safe working environments; laws against selling tainted food;, laws against polluting the land, water, and air; aid and comfort to the poor and elderly; and many more. I recognize that these are not solely Democratic achievements, that there are Liberal Republicans, but, on the whole, a look at who fought for each one of those issues and who fought against them will show a clear distinction between the party that fought progress toward a better place for all of us and the party that fought for that progress.


Note: I acknowledge that some Democrats fiercely resisted civil rights laws. I also note that, after losing their battle, most of those Democrats became Republicans. I also acknowledge that some Republicans supported civil rights, but I also remember that, for the most part, they joined the battle after the outcome was all too obvious.

Lincoln was a Democrat?

(j/k - you have made a reasonable case)

“God must love the common man, he made so many of them” ~ Abraham Lincoln, Republican


Well, he sure sounds like one.

OK DG, with the post above I would like to respond, not as a matter of debate but rather will give you my take on them. Actually we do have a certain degree of common ground.

That's odd, because I generally find the opposite to be true about Republicans in general, especially on this site. I could (but won't) name about 8 posters and former posters who claimed to not be Republicans but Independents, yet somehow manage to find fault with every single Democratic position and find, at best, very minor faults in every single Republican position. Anyone looking at the overall picture would see that, except to the extremist of each party, each party has times when it is right.

I tend to believe these Independents you refer to tend to find themselves more aligned with Republican positions but are more Moderate than Conservative. And I also believe some find the Republicans Conservative mantle being watered down. But I also run across many who for whatever reason, don't want to claim either Party. Some like to call themselves Libertarians. Seems to me Libertarians are generally cast off Republicans.

I've never shied away from identifying myself as a Liberal. I'm proud to be associated with those who gave us minimum wage laws; equal rights for blacks and women; safe working environments; laws against selling tainted food;, laws against polluting the land, water, and air; aid and comfort to the poor and elderly; and many more. I recognize that these are not solely Democratic achievements, that there are Liberal Republicans, but, on the whole, a look at who fought for each one of those issues and who fought against them will show a clear distinction between the party that fought progress toward a better place for all of us and the party that fought for that progress.

Many of these issues I feel were bi-partisan achievements. I do feel where the difference is, is in the approach. The more Conservative element prefers as little government intervention as possible, and where applicable, let the marketplace run its course. On laws concerning Minimum Wage & Affirmative Action, many Conservatives feel these issues are obselete. That we have progressed beyond these issues.

Note: I acknowledge that some Democrats fiercely resisted civil rights laws. I also note that, after losing their battle, most of those Democrats became Republicans. I also acknowledge that some Republicans supported civil rights, but I also remember that, for the most part, they joined the battle after the outcome was all too obvious.

It was when LBJ called upon our beloved Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, who was the Republican Senate Minority Leader, the Civil Rights bill was passed. As for many Southern Democrats turning Republican, I feel it was not because of Civil Rights issues but rather they came to the realization they personally had more of a common philosophy with the Republicans than they did with the Democrat Party. I also remember after the 1994 off-year elections, many made the switch then. But I often wonder if it was more for power positioning rather than all at once they adopted the Republican philosophy.

quote:

...more Moderate than Conservative.

One basic idea at the root of of 'conservativism' is 'moderation', isn't it? Or, wasn't it? I tend to agree with coldfuse, that what is dying is neo-conservatism.

Conservatism has its good points; the ideas of doing nothing hasty or extreme, of favouring reality over ideology when those two clash, and of freedoms grounded in the basic right to be left alone.

Neo-conservatism (starting with Reagan's ideological commitments to monetarism and deregulation no matter what, for example) seems to have dumped those better ideas while retaining the worst. The worst aspects of conservatism would include authoritarianism, a dislike of nuanced views or sophisticated argument that amounts to 'ignorance is strength', xenophobia, a desire to impose outward forms of religion, nostalgia for a 'golden age' that never was, over-cosiness with big business... and so on. (I guess similar lists could be made for 'liberalism'.)

Dubya's administration - which has increased the size of government, fooled around with the constitution, pushed for religious and legislative involvement in private life, started an uneccesary war and so on - is hardly a classically 'conservative' government.

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:
Neo-conservatism (starting with Reagan's ideological commitments to monetarism and deregulation no matter what, for example) seems to have dumped those better ideas while retaining the worst. The worst aspects of conservatism would include authoritarianism, a dislike of nuanced views or sophisticated argument that amounts to 'ignorance is strength', xenophobia, a desire to impose outward forms of religion, nostalgia for a 'golden age' that never was, over-cosiness with big business... and so on. (I guess similar lists could be made for 'liberalism'.)

Dubya's administration - which has increased the size of government, fooled around with the constitution, pushed for religious and legislative involvement in private life, started an uneccesary war and so on - is hardly a classically 'conservative' government.

Could you provide some examples...

Touche. Gimme a minute; this will involve doing some actual research, instead of just shooting my mouth off...