Although this is indirectly about the healthcare debate, I want to step back and ask my friends on the right about their ideas on "government" and the Reagan cry that you hold dear: "government is the problem, not the solution"
___________________________________________________
I am confounded by a paradox in thinking by conservatives and libertarians. Let me see if I can break it down and not fall in the pit of confusion and distortion that they come seem to embrace with gusto.
This is how the conservative thinking goes:
- American conservatives seem to own the symbols of patriotism. The flag, the national anthem, the militaristic rituals, statues, songs and just patriotic bravado-- oh, they own the "founding fathers".
- Yet, these same people despise their government. The very government, that is the instrument the US Constitution, the mechanism by which our democracy is implemented. The thing that has kept the "democracy" alive.
- They deem this "government" incapable of any competence, except of course when that government goes to war, puts people in jail or executes them. Somehow, in their minds, government does that just fine.
- They seek to strip the government of all powers and privatize all activity. This sentiment, of diminishing powers is only when the other side wins. Privatizing the government services is a constant theme, public goods should be for private gain.
- They cite the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, yet, they do not tell us, if we did not have a government, courts, legislators etc, who and how would that Constitution be protected and or enforced? Yet, unlike me, who only has a distaste for the second amendment, they would gladly trim the sails of all the other amendments. So, why should government define marriage? Why should government be involved in their reproductive decisions? Why should government be entrusted with god? Why should government control what we see, hear or read?
- If it's the size of government they dislike, then why do embrace corporate bureaucracies? The corporate bureaucrat does not have a public process where at least the citizen can file a complaint and get a hearing. Public bureaucracies have provisions for change of unjust rules.
So, Mr. Reagan and all his followers who blindly believe that "government is the problem", pray tell, how do you suggest we manage this democracy, this nation? What are you offering to replace government? Why do you trust and embrace government when it comes to imposing your values and yet you distrust government in mechanical functions?
Think of a simple thing like building codes. If we stripped those powers, tell me, tell me how the free market would make sure that the materials and the builders built habitable and safe buildings?
I have worked in government and have fought with government for decades. I have little faith in the talk of change as long as we have elected officials who receive contributions and depend on being reelected.
Of course I am cynical about many aspects of how this nation is governed, but damn if I am willing to give it up to a bunch of looneys with guns, corporate boards and "that void of the conservative alternative".
What the fuck do you guys want? How do you suggest we do this? If tomorrow we eliminated all government in the US, what would this world look like?
Yes, there is the odd anarchist who will chime in and tell me how the whimsical free thinkers of the world will all hold hands and make sure, because they are such spiritual and righteous beings. Trust they say people will just do the right thing. Yes, right, now go off and do a pantomime and wear some fairy wings and as soon as you are done, get married and become a meaner and nastier bourgeois pig than I could ever be.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Infantilizing the American Public:
(Boehner and his idiotic rant about the size of the healthcare bill.)
================================================
Closing comments and I deleted John Knights comments cause he continued to be abusive. John is a bully and a troll, I have no interest in giving him a platform. I enjoyed the discussion. I will not let a bully hijack my post.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Martha Nichols
Jeanette DeMain
Amalias
Ken Honeywell
Patton Lee Beaugus
halfof42
Salon.com
Comments
The so-called conservatives, yammer on about all that is evil in the government, yet, under Republican rule, the government grows. It just grows militarily, but it grows.
What I find reprehensible, especially since the Christians have migrated to the Right in droves, is the lack of compassion, nay, the active disdain for the poor.
What I find head scratchingly odd is that a large portion of the "right Republican party" are not the recipients of the largess of the corporations they fawn and moon over. They will never be. And yet, they will fight to the death to preserve the right to corporate profits.
Go figure!
From your elegant presentations of inherent contradictions to WTF...
Priceless. Pretty soon the whole gang will be here.
I read blogs for six months to learn what's a libertarian, blue dog,
etc.,
I felt like I fell into a pitt if viper hissing a new unfamiliar verbiage.
Boehner wears silk ties I'd not use to lasso a wild stink skunk spraying avian parakeets, pot belly swine flue beagles,rabbits,
and he is a societal,
diseased,
maniac politico menace.
He and cohorts are disease.
He laid under a vain tanning bed.
Stellaa. Thee loons are bonkers bad.
They are hollow deaden mannequins.
Look at the eyes. They are darkened.
I doubt they can even read.
What cognitive dissonance.
They are incomprehensible.
They have no rational mind.
Why should any sane human respect them?
Why?
Why are they so selfish, inured in vain deceits?
Why should any citizen respect these bad jokes?
I'm a believer in:`
Total depravity.
I think I believe.
This:`
No respect them.
Tell them truths.
Politico's are ill.
They're evil bad.
A devil has them.
A ugh dead force.
They're perdition.
No respect them.
Why should we ?
@Steve, gad....I enjoyed the tags, although I know they don't get you much, but they feel good.
@ sheep: what is funny is they constantly accuse others of hating America. They love the paraphanalia of America. The flags, the lore, the past, but they have no compassion or love for any part of America for what it is. We are that whole messy thing that is a nation.
It's all bullshit. These guys love government... they just want it on their terms. What they really hates is when government serves the needs of average people.
If they hate welfare so much why do they accept tax breaks?
Great post!!
You are an excellent thinker.
Having anti-government Republicans run the government makes about as much sense as a strict vegan grilling a Porterhouse at a steak house.
they don't want government to protect people they despise, to look out for the common welfare, to see that shared resources are husbanded and distributed fairly, to stand up for the weak against the strong
and they especially don't want government telling them they have to keep their hatreds in check
Some time ago, someone posted about how Winston Churchill had actually started the ball rolling in the setup of the UK's National Health Service, but was voted out of power before he could get it done. The Labour administration that followed then set it up, and poor old Winnie had to argue for the rest of his life for some of the credit.
Now what brings this to mind here is the way the right wing always tries to portray itself as so in tune with the military, and strategic thinking, and rattles the sabers ever so loudly (if I hear one more bow-tied effete wimpy dweeb spewing military technology as if he was a decorated Green Beret I will hurl). But if they even know the history of Winston Churchill and healthcare, would they ask themselves WHY he wanted it so badly? I bet not. Besides the fact he had seen how well the temporary war-powers version of nationalized healthcare worked during WWII, Churchill was keenly aware of the need to have fit and healthy conscripts available in the event of a future conflict (he probably had the Soviet Union in mind, given his "Iron Curtain" speech). Having a good healthcare system for the general population is as important as ensuring access to oil deposits or strategic minerals, or keeping the military hardware on a par with a likely opponent, or maintaining a well-trained officer corps even in peacetime. It is a STRATEGIC NECESSITY. When the UK came out of the Great Depression and found itself in a war with the Axis powers, fully ONE THIRD of men drafted into the military were rejected on health grounds. Churchill didn't want to see that happen again.
I don't’ comment nearly enough on your posts. This one is another example of clear thinking and equally clear exposition of that thought.
The thinking that has increasingly come to characterize the right wing of the Republican party is nearly oxymoronic in nature. One example being unapologetic professions of being “pro life” while at the same time representing the loudest voices in support of the war, capital punishment, and preemptive military action.
To many, that kind of rationale is anything but “pro-life.”
Thank you for your wonderful analysis and warning flags raised in regard to the Constitution. The United States is a constitutional republic and as such is governed not by men but by a document.
Those who are of a mind to hastily amend or dismiss the Constitution would do well to remember “Prohibition” (fueled by religious fervor), Hans Brinker (the little Dutch Boy with his finger in the Dike), and your insightful comments here.
Rated and appreciated.
@ Gee Bee, that is exactly right. It is a strategic, economic and moral necessity.
@nana, I am willing to listen, and you are right they accuse us of not listening, but what they say, just does not make sense.
@Boan, i will have to use the social Darwinist line.
@ Roger, Roy and Michael, the contradictions you offer are part of the long list.
Don't be surprised if no one answers your question. I'm not going to.
They don't know Founders from Flounders, Constitution from constipation. Their "proof" of being "like our Founders" and "strict constructionists" is that they say so. Tap them for further discussion on why they are and they'll come up empty every time.
They are labelbabblers and theory thumpers, and don't have anything of value to add.
They're the air guitarists of American politics...they jump around, swing their arms and pretend...then insist that qualifies them to front the band.
I don't think anyone on the right has ever addressed this. They find an excuse not to answer. If none of the right-leaning people at this blog want to tackle this question, perhaps a link to someone who's discussed this seeming contradiction in an intelligible way would substitute.
Otherwise, I have gained a lot from the writing of Bob Altemeyer's book, available online, The Authoritarians. Solidly researched, and explains SO much.
Paul, ok, that was so funny. The image of air democracy, is hilarious.
America is not a democracy, it's a constitutional-republic...I suggest you read up on the difference.
Real conservatives and libertarians have nothing to do with the neo-conservatism that has hijacked the Republican party...nor can the George W. Bushes of the world be confused with "typical" right wing thought.
Neo-cons are just as big government as Democrats or other socialists...so you'd been correct if you'd aimed this rant of yours at that group, and not righties, or conservatives, and libertarians in general.
In painting with the broad brush, you've basically joined those you rail against in that pit of confusion you've mentioned.
Real conservatives believe whole-heartedly in the need for government...they are not anarchists. On the contrary, what we real conservatives are in favor of is a government limited in size, and scope a.k.a. what the founding fathers intended...and what is laid out in the Constitution.
Real conservatives do not believe war mongering, or torture, or oppressive doctrines like the Patriot Act are anything near to what America could or should be. Again, you've confused neo-conservatism for classic right-wing thought.
Real conservatives believe government has no place in our personal lives, and that we as individuals should be left alone to take care of ourselves, and to have access to a competitive, truly free market economy.
This article you've written only adds to the problem, as people take this stuff as gospel...sort of like Michael Moore's anti-capitalist film that was out recently.
Understand that what you're protesting against has nothing to do with real conservatives, or true capitalism, or truly free markets. America hasn't had any of those for over a century, if at all really.
What America has suffered with for too long, is corporatism...the collusion of big government with big corporations to the detriment of everyone on "Main Street". That, and the military-industrial-complex is the source of all of this anger.
Just know that your anger is felt just as strongly by us real conservatives who can only dream of living in a country where we can all be responsible for ourselves, stay out of everyone else's business, and stop perpetrating these ridiculous wars.
You guys got your chance with Greenspan, the closest you got to pure capitalism with essence of Ayn Rand and it was a total bust.
"Real conservatives" now who are they and where are they? Boehner? Palin? Gingrich? Or some academic somewhere? Or maybe Adam Smith?
I am talking about the breed that walks this earth now, if you want to play semantics, lets keep that for another post.
Before I moved here many years ago, a friend a mine, who lived in the U.S. for about a year, told me how there was a subversive anarchist feeling among the population. It did not take very long to understand what he was talking about. In fact, we can see numerous examples on OS.
I always find it very puzzling why the government is always bad at running everything (except for the military that is). I do recognize however where this animosity towards the Government comes from.
While his paranoia is more extreme than many right-wingers, it's more in degree than in type.
I can't exactly pinpoint when the Puritans kidnapped the Republicans; can you? Mybe it was like the gradual dehumanization of all non-Arians in the 1930s, or maybe like SARS, it was just an incidious and covert takeover while we Americans were enjoying our backyard barbeques with the friends.
But it did happen and now what do we do? Pull it out like a tick or a leach? Spray them with pesticides (now there's a thought). Set up Republican traps, baiting them with thousands of dollars instead of cheese, snapping their necks until the vermin are no longer a threat to peace?
@dvorasnell "What I find head scratchingly odd is that a large portion of the "right Republican party" are not the recipients of the largess of the corporations they fawn and moon over. They will never be. And yet, they will fight to the death to preserve the right to corporate profits"
Pick up a copy of "Deer Hunting With Jesus" by Joe Bageant. You'll be astounded why so many people, including the poor, espouse the right, beating their chests about it like gorrillas. It's actually quite disturbing.
Right wingnuts always remind me of my sisters when they find themselves on the losing end of an argument. Rather than acting rationally, they start diverting the argument by screaming about something I did fifty years ago.
They're all, my sisters and the right wingnuts are a bunch of "Boehners."
"I found your article offensive...and it bothers me that so many readers here have lauded you for being a "clear" thinker.
America is not a democracy, it's a constitutional-republic...I suggest you read up on the difference."
Snippy, snippy, snippy. Assertive and....Wrong.
We are a Liberal Constitutional Democratic Republic.
I suggest you read up on that, Kenneth. Start with Madison's Federalist 10. He speaks of Republic and Representative Democracy as being the same. I hear he had something to do with writing the Constitution.
The rest has a few errors, and uses a broad brush to paint "real" conservatism with attributes it never had. I guess we're down to asking what "real" means.
We'll add back points for being anti-corporatist, though.
"Sometimes libertarians end up reinventing the wheel. My favorite example is an article I read years ago advocating privatization of highways. This is a classic libertarian fantasy: government auctions off the land, private enterprise pays for construction and maintenance, tolls cover the cost, competition with other routes keeps it all efficient. And what about, um, intersections? Well, markets would recognize that it is more efficient for one company to own both roads at major intersections, and when that happened the company would have an incentive to strike the right balance between customers on each highway. And stoplights? Ultimately, the author had worked his way up to a giant monopoly that would build, own, and maintain all the roads, and charge an annual fee to people who wanted to use them. None dare call it government."
Any Rube Goldberg device is better than government, apparently. The important thing is that it's private. Because we all know that people who work for private companies are honest and truthful, while people who work for the government are dastardly knaves.
Like boxcars of striking coal miners being "shipped" out into the desert....anyone who doesn't fall in line with conventional morays will suffer great personal hardship and/or loss of life.
Keep bitchin Stellaa but you know the truth lies in separation from these folks...and until you so-called left wingers get organized enough to run your own succesful systems...you are always beholden to bitch about the Republican minds who control your very mode of life you enjoy NOW.
What horeshit! Complete horsehit. If you hate conservatives, fine. But at least be accurate about what conservatism is.
Conservatives want a government as defined by the Constitution. Conservatives are not opposed to courts, laws or legislators. To suggest that is bizarre.
Who is asking to strip the government of "all powers"? Where on earth do you get such nonsense? Conservatives are not against government. We are against a leviathan government that has its hands in everything that it shouldn't. Conservatives want a small, limited government as defined in the Constitution.
If you disagree with that view, fine. But what a dishonest coward you are for writing such horeshit and then ascribing it to conservatives so that you can feel like a hero to your 100% liberal audience. How pathetic.
You really have no idea what you are talking about. What books on conservatism have you actually read? Have you read the Federalist Papers? Do you understand why "The Founders" wanted a limited central government?
Come on, now. This is just pure meaningless jibberish. What are the "corporate bureaucracies" you are referring to?
1. You guys seem to share the idea that you are victims and misunderstood, when your rallying cry is "government is the problem"
2. Corporate bureaucracies: the banks, the insurance companies. Bureaucracies, for your information are not only public.
So, why don't you post in a precise and clear post what the conservative viewpoint is and what you want. You guys sound like the communists, "we have an ideal, no one ever let us implement it". Well, welcome to reality.
Is that your defense to my criticism of this post? How about acknowledging, I as I did to you, my specific comments and respond to them in a thoughtful manner?
If you do not like insurance company bureaucracies, then you have the choice not to deal with those insurance companies. The same goes for banks and every other industry - don't use their services.
"What books on conservatism have you actually read? Have you read the Federalist Papers? Do you understand why "The Founders" wanted a limited central government?" - John Knight
John, those are you comments, my arguments are above. You failed in your comments to deal with my points in any way worth arguing with, so move along and post something.
Hmm. How about simply choosing not use them? Not sure where the "fallacy" is. Are you an idiot? I'm beginning to think I am not simply arguing with an angry partisan but an idiotic angry partisan.
Do you not know that you have the power to not use any corporation's service? A corporation cannot deduct money from your paycheck without your permission. So what's the problem? The problem is that you like the services provided you so much that you cannot imagine doing without those services.
"John, those are you comments, my arguments are above. You failed in your comments to deal with my points in any way worth arguing with, so move along and post something." - Stellaa
In other words, you cannot cogently defend the words you wrote in your post and you'd rather just drop the matter altogether.
I attempted to engage you. I have found that there is nothing to engage. You don't know why you hate conservatives. You don't even know what conservatism is. You are only convinced that your side is right without even knowing what the other sides are. You live in a liberal bubble. You post in a liberal bubble that simply pats you on the back for any anti-right jibberish you write. You hate being challenged because you know you cannot defend your positions with any real knowledge or wisdom.
The least you can do is to learn about your ideological enemies. Read about conservatism. Read about economics. Read Edmund Burke, the so-called father of conservatism. Read Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman. Read The Road to Serfdom by Hayek. Read Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. Read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Listen to Reagan's speech from 1964: http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=reagan+rnc+speech&docid=1337405342675&mid=87C0D1897A7C151F9A7B87C0D1897A7C151F9A7B&FORM=VIVR14#
Read the Federalist Papers. Read the words of Madison, considered the father of our Constitution. Read what Thomas Jefferson said about the Constitution. Educate yourself.
After you have done those things, then you can come back and write a post about what conservatism is. If you do not do those things, then you are just another empty, thoughtless, angry, pathetic woman who knows little but says a lot.
Further idiots are the prvivateers, if you know anything about word origins . I am not arguing papers, I am discussing the positinons of your leaders.
You are not arguing or discussing anything. You are writing jibberish with your keyboard; pure nonsensical, childish jibberish. You can't even defend yourself. So, yes, I am your bully. And all I'm using is my mind.
The “founding fathers” were among the most liberal American that have ever existed. The conservatives of early America were the fat-cats sitting (in of all places) New York City…arguing that talk of revolution or separation from England was TREASON.
The early American conservatives were the guys writing to newspapers arguing that we all owed allegiance and fealty to George III…and that the “founding fathers”, whom they considered pie-in-the-sky liberals, were TRAITORS.
But of course, American conservatives during the mid-17th century were the people arguing that the federal government had no right to involve itself in questions of “private property” (read that, slaves) were to be resolved. The American conservatives of that time were the people arguing that each state should decide if humans could be kept as slaves and chattels.
American conservatives have been on the wrong side of every major issue we’ve ever had…and the “founding fathers” probably wouldn’t piss on them if they burst into flames.
John as far as you go, your ramblings and bullying, does not scare me or bother me. Calling my writing jibberish may make you feel powerfull but alas, you are still a trollin bully. Enlighten us and put up a post if you are so clever.
" - Stellaa
Translation: Yeah, what he said.
Of course, what he said was bullshit but it sure sounded good to an empty-headed ditz like yourself, didn't it Stellaa?
Can you name a single prominent conservative or libertarian who seeks to eliminate "all government in the US"? I'm still trying to figure out who exactly you are arguing against.
Have you ever read Cato.org? They are a great libertarian think-tank. They specialize in constituional matters. They want a government that adheres to the Constitution. Have you ever read Heritage.org? They are a conservative think-tank that wants a government which adheres to the Constitution. Cato publishes an excellent policy handbook. Heritage published an excellent book on the Constitution.
Your post makes no sense at all.
Can you give an example of what scares you worse than the Cold War?
I'm curious as to where exactly you've gotten your definitions of what a 'true conservative' wants. Is this the Conservative Party rules? Republican? Libertarian? Please, enlighten us. You've obviously never met a libertarian to which half this post is addressed. Many of them are true anarchists who do want the government done away with entirely.
Lemme ask you, John...what part was bullshit?
We can discuss this.
One of my good friends is a die-hard libertarian. He can recite the Bill of Rights from memory. I've never met a libertarian who does not cherish the Constitution.
Where is the proof in anything Stellaa wrote? Can she quote any prominent libertarian or conservative to back up her claims? Does Cato.org call for the elimination of all US government? Heritage.org? What is her source for any of the bizarre accusations she made? Do you folks actually know any real world conservatives or libertarians?
" - Frank
Most, if not all, of the Founding Fathers would have happily remained under rule of the Crown if the American colonies were simply given the same rights afforded to those in the homeland.
The decision to revolt against England was not a simple liberal/conservative decision. There was much debate on the subject by everyone.
Technically, talk of revolt against England was treason. The colonies were owned by England.
All of that is a side issue to the fact that modern conservatives adore the Founding Fathers values. Modern liberals, generally speaking, despise the values expounded by the Fathers.
To say that the Founding Fathers would not piss on modern conservatives if they were on fire is just weird. The Founding Fathers, by defition of the word "Founding", created a Constitution based on a limited central government. They put a lot of thought into that concept. Modern liberalism is the antithesis to that concept.
One other note. Edmund Burke, considered the father of modern conservatism, member of British parliament during the American Revolution, openly supported the colonies.
Why? So I can see a list of paranoid liberals saying the "anarcho-capitalists"? Why not just provide a quote from a prominent libertarian or conservative?
Read the first two bullet points of Stellaa's post:
"•American conservatives seem to own the symbols of patriotism. The flag, the national anthem, the militaristic rituals, statues, songs and just patriotic bravado-- oh, they own the "founding fathers".
•Yet, these same people despise their government. The very government, that is the instrument the US Constitution, the mechanism by which our democracy is implemented. The thing that has kept the "democracy" alive."
She specifically mentions "American conservatives". I want to know which American conservative she is referring to.
to me there are two basic types of conservatives. Old style conservatives who wanted a limited form of government. But who knew how to respect people they disagreed with who were in the opposition party. Old style conservatives did not say "deficits don't matter" when they were in power. They believed in a certain amount of internal consistency.
New style conservatives don't seem to mind internal inconsistency (like stellaa has pointed out). They spend much of their time apologizing any time they make a remark criticizing Rush Limbaugh, and repeating catch phrases about government picked up from Ronald Reagan in the 1980's. New style conservatives, like Rush Limbaugh, enjoy name-calling as an alternative to thoughtful debate. They, for example, call people "empty headed ditzes" rather than engaging any of their arguments. New style conservatives still do not acknowledge any inconsistencies in "conservativism" that developed under Reagan and Bush. They depend on being "against" (reflexively against ALL liberal or even Democratically defined positions) rather than "for" any particular definable of beliefs that are relevant to the pressing issues of our country today (health care, war, the economy, a lack of jobs etc.) Many new style conservatives regard Sarah Palin as their leader. New style conservatives also do not consider old style conservatives as part of their movement or worthy of respect. There have been many moves to kick them out of the party.
Don't point me to some obscure blogger. I specifically used the word "prominent". Anyone can find a nut on the internet.
By the way, Thomas paine once wrote:
"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."
(Please don't let there be any typos here.)
I noticed that you didn't answer any of my questions directly, but instead chose to deflect by asking questions instead. I know many real world libertarians and conservatives, thanks for asking. The libertarians want no government. The conservatives want to tell me how to run my life according to their rules. I know at least 30 personally, fairly well.
Again, please provide actualy positions by prominent libertarians and conservatives who either want no government or want to control your life.
Show me the libertarian party platform.Wanting less government does not mean wanting no government.
Which conservative policies control you? Conservatives seek to outlaw abortion. What else affects you?
Can you name some liberal policies that do not increase the size and control of the central government? Liberalism seeks to contantly add new government programs, new laws, new regulations, and new taxes. An honest person would admit that liberals desire much more control of our lives than conservatives.
Your protestations about “true conservatives” really bring up a point that should be made here. There are the kinds of “conservatives” you seem to think are “true conservatives”…but John, if you were to eliminate the garbage that makes up the better part of American conservatism from the equation…you “real conservatives” would be able to hold national conventions in the basement of a local pub!
The ranks of American conservatism are composed primarily of two groups that tell us what “real conservatism” is all about…no matter how you want to spin it.
The first big group is composed of bigots, misogynists, and other misanthropes. Their reason for identifying with American conservatism is that they realize the politicians who are elected by them are going to help further their agendas.
The second group are the cosmically hypocritical Christians…who dare to suggest that American conservatism does more to further the agenda proposed by Jesus than does American liberalism.
If those groups were to abandon “real American conservatism”…it would about as much influence over America’s political policies as do cone heads.
I’ll get back to your comments re my earlier comments later, John…but I really did want to mention some of that for your consideration.
“Most, if not all, of the Founding Fathers would have happily remained under rule of the Crown if the American colonies were simply given the same rights afforded to those in the homeland.”
I doubt that! Most colonists break away…and almost every British colony eventually broke away from the empire…even if there were times Great Britain tried to make it seem they were voluntarily relinquishing control.
“The decision to revolt against England was not a simple liberal/conservative decision. There was much debate on the subject by everyone.
Technically, talk of revolt against England was treason. The colonies were owned by England.”
I grant all of that. But the “radicals” who made up the “founding fathers” were willing to engage in the acts necessary for separation. Treason, as we know, never prospers, because if it does, none dare call it treason. The idea that it was technically treason is of no consequence here.
The first American conservatives…the tories…were the ones arguing that George III was our liege lord and that we owed him fealty and loyalty. The founding fathers were NOT those people.
“All of that is a side issue to the fact that modern conservatives adore the Founding Fathers values. Modern liberals, generally speaking, despise the values expounded by the Fathers.”
Yeah…I know that is what you conservatives like to sell. It just ain’t so…and it ain’t gonna be so simply because you continue to say it. In any case…some of the “values” of the founding fathers were not so commendable…and we have all come far away from many of them.
“To say that the Founding Fathers would not piss on modern conservatives if they were on fire is just weird.”
To say it is weird is even weirder. It is a way of expressing a sentiment in a forceful way…and is not to be taken literally…something most non-conservatives would easily recognize.
“ The Founding Fathers, by defition of the word "Founding", created a Constitution based on a limited central government. They put a lot of thought into that concept. Modern liberalism is the antithesis to that concept.”
Well, I disagree with that…but I’ve got more than my fair share of disagreement with liberal policy myself. I am not a liberal…nor am I a Democrat. But to hear a conservative speak to liberal maladjustment is like hearing a wart hog speak to the ugliness of water buffalo.
“One other note. Edmund Burke, considered the father of modern conservatism, member of British parliament during the American Revolution, openly supported the colonies.”
And????
Due to this hodgepodge, I'm finding it difficult to answer your questions as/if they related to libertarians. I am after all a libertarian and not really a conservative.
I find conservatives and liberals contradict themselves. Both have strong values but insist on using government to push their values on their fellow man. This is a contradiction because when the ability to form and hold values is impossible without liberty and yet aggression destroys liberty.
From the consistent libertarian perspective, no aggression is permissible, and since government is aggression, ie everything it does is aggressive or enabled by aggression, it is inconsistent with liberty.
Hope that helps.
GeeBee - you have such a great point - you should be able to single-handedly sell the right wing on universal affordable health-care!
McGarrett - of COURSE you're not going to answer! There is no answer!
(Okay, I'm only halfway thru the comments. There may be more excellent things...and McG and the other rightists in our midst may come thru yet...)
@John Knight, you are like all evangelicals and fanatics who are not looking at reality but obsessed with a fantasy. Quoting what was written in the past and seeking that place where you can create your magical kingdom. Yet, your kingdom is here. This is America. You cannot go back to some mummified version of the Constitution.
You insult me one more time and I will delete all your comments. You get it?
"Kenneth, look, you give the same arguments Communists gave for years: real communism this, real communism that."
Yes, and? Those that argue there's never been a truly communist system put into practice, have a point...just as I do.
Stellaa wrote:
"Well, this is what we have: Corporatist oligarchy if you want to be precise."
Right, which is also known as 'corporatism'.
Stellaa wrote:
"You guys got your chance with Greenspan, the closest you got to pure capitalism with essence of Ayn Rand and it was a total bust."
Greenspan? HA! That guy is one of the architects of our current economic collapse...to say he is close to a pure capitalist only goes further to show you don't know what you're talking about. Thanks to Greenspan's adherence to artificially low interest rates, and his complicity in inflating our currency - an enormous bubble inflated that we're now witnessing pop. Greenspan talked a good game...once...40 years ago...but something happened to him as he aged...he's hardly a bastion for free market capitalism, put it that way.
And Ayn Rand? Since when was she ever Fed Chairman, or Secretary of the Treasury, or President of the United States? Yes, she was a pretty strict libertarian, and some politicians over the years may have paid her lip service - but where were her beliefs ever enacted by any legislators...ever? That's my point...they haven't been...otherwise we wouldn't have this gigantic, bureaucratic nightmare of a government right now.
Stellaa wrote:
""Real conservatives" now who are they and where are they? Boehner? Palin? Gingrich? Or some academic somewhere? Or maybe Adam Smith?"
Again...more proof that you'd painted with a broad brush instead of knowing what or whom you were speaking about...there are "real" conservatives out there, speaking the truth - but yes, they are marginalized by the mainstream media, they are easy to find though. Check Peter Schiff on youtube, or Ron Paul, or Rand Paul...or Jim Rogers...Marc Faber...these people are "real" conservatives...not some Bush drones.
Stellaa wrote:
"I am talking about the breed that walks this earth now, if you want to play semantics, lets keep that for another post."
I just named some of the conservative "breed" who "walk this earth now", and are the living breathing examples of what true conservatism or libertarianism is - and they don't deserve to be denigrated or lumped in with those idiotic, war-mongering, pro-torture neo-cons.
Stellaa - called out Kenneth too!
Mark P - I boggle... (The Golden Fringers!)
Dr. Su - good one!
(Sorry to be commenting on your commenters, Stellaa, in case it's bad form. But this was a great post and it inspired great comments.)
Go Norwonk! What a splendid example you give of the madness.
Knight - "horeshit"? Sorry, got distracted by this spelling. Hey, what Stellaa is talking about (oh, I should wait, she'll respond marvellously) is not some small, limited bunch of True Conservatives (who are not the people that populate the Republican party), who seem to be fairies at the bottom of the garden cuz who's seen them? They haven't had any influence (except to [inadvertently?] provide fodder for meaningless slogans) in government or opposition.
One of Rand’s most famous devotees is Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, whose memoir, “The Age of Turbulence,” will be officially released Monday.
Mr. Greenspan met Rand when he was 25 and working as an economic forecaster. She was already renowned as the author of “The Fountainhead,” a novel about an architect true to his principles. Mr. Greenspan had married a member of Rand’s inner circle, known as the Collective, that met every Saturday night in her New York apartment. Rand did not pay much attention to Mr. Greenspan until he began praising drafts of “Atlas,” which she read aloud to her disciples, according to Jeff Britting, the archivist of Ayn Rand’s papers. He was attracted, Mr. Britting said, to “her moral defense of capitalism.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/business/15atlas.html
If you have a chance, watch the Frontline documentary on http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/, also read Greenspan's autobiography, he spells out his devotion to libertarian thought.
Ron Paul is great on foreign policy but contradicts his basic premise when he gets into the business of women and reproductive rights.
Ok, I want to clarify that I am talking about the conservative politicians and thinkers that dominate American politics.
Still, you avoid my questions. You are failing this conversation.
You never asked me initially to "provide actualy positions by prominent libertarians and conservatives who either want no government or want to control your life" so to say, "again" is disingenuous. G.W. Bush wants to violate the founding tenet of separation of church and state by forcing me to pray in school. Noam Chomsky believes government should be removed.
"This one is kinda fun:
"I found your article offensive...and it bothers me that so many readers here have lauded you for being a "clear" thinker.
America is not a democracy, it's a constitutional-republic...I suggest you read up on the difference."
Snippy, snippy, snippy. Assertive and....Wrong."
I think some snippy-ness was warranted given the level of vitriol in the original article...and look who's talking, could your comments be any higher on the condescension meter? And beyond all that, I'm not wrong.
Paul J. O'Rourke wrote:
"We are a Liberal Constitutional Democratic Republic."
Stellaa spoke of semantics...now THIS is an example of someone using semantics to try and make a valid point where none exists. Stellaa's original article spoke of "democracy", and in the context of "pure democracy".
And again, I point out, America is a Constitutional Republic - your use of the word "Liberal" is redundant considering it's a Republic. Ditto for your use of the word "Democratic" given that the word is encompassed yet again by the term - "Republic".
I'm aware of what that word means...and given what Stellaa stated in her article with regard to democracy, she needs an education in the difference between "pure democracy" and "Republic". And I think you're quite right to suggest reading up on Madison's Federalist Papers...it's a great place to start.
Paul J. O'Rourke wrote:
"I suggest you read up on that, Kenneth. Start with Madison's Federalist 10. He speaks of Republic and Representative Democracy as being the same. I hear he had something to do with writing the Constitution."
Thanks for the snark...I was running low on my daily quota. I'm well aware of the Constitution - and the articles contained therein. I'd suggest you look again at what I wrote in my reply, and what you've just written here...I said America is not a democracy it is a Constitutional Republic, and I'm correct given the context with which Stellaa spoke.
In my view, she made it sound as though right-wing Conservatives were undermining democracy, and I think she needs to understand the difference between "pure democracy" and "republicanism" (or "representative democracy") before she can make such broad characterizations.
Paul J. O'Rourke wrote:
"The rest has a few errors, and uses a broad brush to paint "real" conservatism with attributes it never had. I guess we're down to asking what "real" means."
Care to elaborate on that? I am a true conservative...I am a "real" Republican...I am also a libertarian since we're in the classifications game. I know what the words mean...I know what I, and others of my kind believe is the proper way to conduct a government. I know exactly what "attributes" are embodied within true or real conservatism or libertarianism if you prefer. But by all means, tell me where I'm wrong.
Paul J. O'Rourke wrote:
"We'll add back points for being anti-corporatist, though."
Oh, how kind of you. You do realize though that being 'anti-corporatist' might also make you pro-capitalist? Perish the thought!
"Kenneth, thanks for your civilized response. Did you read Greenspan's autobiography? He even had pictures with Ayn Rand. He was the most most powerful Libertarian in power.
One of Rand’s most famous devotees is Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, whose memoir, “The Age of Turbulence,” will be officially released Monday.
Mr. Greenspan met Rand when he was 25 and working as an economic forecaster. She was already renowned as the author of “The Fountainhead,” a novel about an architect true to his principles. Mr. Greenspan had married a member of Rand’s inner circle, known as the Collective, that met every Saturday night in her New York apartment. Rand did not pay much attention to Mr. Greenspan until he began praising drafts of “Atlas,” which she read aloud to her disciples, according to Jeff Britting, the archivist of Ayn Rand’s papers. He was attracted, Mr. Britting said, to “her moral defense of capitalism.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/business/15atlas.html
If you have a chance, watch the Frontline documentary on http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/, also read Greenspan's autobiography, he spells out his devotion to libertarian thought."
Stellaa...you're not wrong with any of this that you've just posted...but the only response warranted to that, is the same one that I and other REAL libertarians had when I first heard Greenspan try and put himself in the libertarian camp, and that response was and still is:
Really Alan? 'Cause you sure have a funny way of showing it!
Alan Greenspan can say all he wants, and swear until he is blue in the face that he is a staunch follower of Ayn Rand, and that he is as libertarian as anyone has ever been...but at the end of the day we can only judge the man based on his actions. And what does his time as Fed Chairman tell us?
It tells everyone that Alan Greenspan either A. doesn't understand economics (a scary thought considering he'd spent a lifetime studying it) or B. he lies through his teeth to engender support from other supposed conservatives/libertarians who wouldn't know real libertarianism if it spit in their face.
Alan Greenspan may have been libertarian in thought at one time...as I'd said in my previous comment...40 years ago...but trust me...all you have to do is look at what that man hath wrought during his time in power, and the proof is all right there confirming that the guy was as big government, and Keynesian as they come.
The man can say what he wants...he's shown his true colors already.
Stellaa wrote:
"Ron Paul is great on foreign policy but contradicts his basic premise when he gets into the business of women and reproductive rights."
Ugh...another tripping point of the ill-informed. I have heard this same point brought up so many times by people who refuse to move past the soundbites and understand the policies...but then have no problem going off half-cocked.
You're right, Ron Paul is ANTI-abortion. However, if you understand libertarianism, or true conservatism you'd also know that what the man's personal beliefs are have no bearing how you'd be governed under his watch.
If Ron Paul were President (one can dream!), his personal opinions would not effect your ability to have an abortion, or any other personal issue, because he does not believe the government should have any say over your private affairs. His personal belief has no bearing on how you live your life because as a libertarian, he believes you should be able to do what you want as long as it doesn't stop him from doing the same. He wants to get the government out of personal areas like drugs, or abortion to name a couple. Get it?
Stellaa wrote:
"Ok, I want to clarify that I am talking about the conservative politicians and thinkers that dominate American politics."
Now you say that?
Don't you think you could have mentioned that in your generalizing - and thus - offensive original piece? It's articles like that, that only serve to further debase the level of political debate in this country.
John,
The US Constitution is the world's most famous expression of Liberalism. It is based on Liberal Philosophy. Our property rights and civil liberties are drawn directly from Liberal Philosophy.
There is nothing in the Constitution about "small government." It does describe a limited government in that it establishes negative liberties - limits on what coercion can be applied by majorities. "Limited" often gets confused with "small." If they meant the same, they'd be spelled the same.
If you embrace the Constitution you very much embrace a deep and fundamental belief in Liberalism. No question. Why bad mouth your heritage? I suspect you do because you don't know where your freedoms come from. They come from...say it with me, big boy...Liberals.
Because Conservatism is nothing more than a mindset, and American Conservatism as a political movement didn't happen until around 1950, it is absurd to suggest the Founders were political Conservatives. Because Conservatism is a mindset with generic principles, one could say the Founders had some conservative beliefs, but owing to that generic (and let's face it, entirely unoriginal) nature, we can easily ask "who doesn't?"
The attributes you attach to Conservatism are mostly not "Conservative." They are liberal or libertarian-right. I make that valid distinction because Libertarianism is a leftist philosophy, and derived from and a subset of liberalism. Attaching "right" to it indicates a belief in laissez faire market theory, basically. In the esoteric jargon of political philosophy, Libertarian-Right begins with the individual who claims a resource owes society nothing. "Left" is the reverse of that.
There is no such thing as a Conservative philosophy, no such thing as Conservative economics. For those, the true Conservatives have always turned to Liberalism. Even Libertarianism is derivative of Liberalism. The same root is not a coincidence.
Burke did not support the American Revolution, he understood it. When the war began he urged a rapid conclusion. Our Founders absolutely did not adopt his “divine right” beliefs. Burke was a Whig...sit down John...this may be rough...the Whigs joined with other factions to become the British Liberals. Yes, Burke was a Liberal.
If you want to come across as studied in political philosophy, suggesting liberals are against the Constitution is a billboard absurdity. Don't worry, you're not alone. Kenneth is also confused.
Liberal Philosophy is THE controlling force of thought behind conservatism and libertarianism - whether left or right. Conservatism is a pipsqueak mindset in comparison to the all ruling Liberalism.
Want more? I'd love to break Hayek off in your wazoo, and then beat you over the head with whatever isn't stuck up next to your information source.
Back to school, guys....
The right wing is undermining our Democracy with their tactics. They did it under Clinton, they did it when they were in power under Bush and they are doing it now. And all the fake arguments and diversions you guys come up, cannot hide the following fact:
You had your chance, you deregulated everything and it collapsed. Your less regulated capitalism and social repression do not work. Call it whatever you want. You failed just like the Soviets did.
Liberal and Constitution are not the same. We are Liberal Constitutional because that defines what type Constitution- social contract - we have. Republic- res publica= public matter. A Republic means we have an executive, not a King. It is rule with public input. In our country, that input comes from representative democracy. This means we are a democracy. We vote. Pure or Representative qualify "democracy", but are both...democracy.
The Constitution is chock full of democracy, beginning with Art 1, Sec 2. There are many amendments that also describe democracy.
"Republic" as a pure term doesn't assure a democratic input, just a "public" one. In Madison's view the distinction is the same as the difference between pure and representative. While the meanings are close, they are not the same, so democratic republic is not a tautology...just almost.
As far as your definition of "real" Conservatism...you aren't even close. I suggest a dose of Kirk to cure your confusion.
One of my favorite quotes from Paul's piece:"The Right Wing is no longer as concerned
with governing power as it is with keeping an
audience of willing participants listening to
their radio shows, visiting their web sites and
watching Fox News. To achieve this loyalty,
those media efforts appeal to the least
intelligent Americans by cranking up their
prejudices and outrage with contrived targets
to fear and loathe."
I warned you if you insult me again I will delete your comments, I did and I will delete any comment you ever post on any of my posts. You understand?