Is Conservatism America's Default Ideology?

[Ben]

Thom Hartmann talks about REPUBLICAN President Dwight Eisenhower who'd be waaaaay on the left by today's standards.
And, too, if one goes back even further to REPUBLICAN President Abraham Lincoln, well, you'll find the position of the Republican Party in the mid 19th. century was very left leaning by today's standards.
They were against wage labor. They saw wage labor and slavery as being identical. They were against industrialization. They saw it as an attack on their culture. I mean, the Republican Party has drifted so far to the right it's frightening. The Party (if they are even a political party anymore) merely serve the interests of the top 0.01 percent.
And, too, we're selling off our manufacturing sector at a rate of $4,000 every single second. (In terms of social and economic development America is starting to resemble a Third World nation.)

Is Conservatism America's Default Ideology? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GvByGyZFqc&feature=plcp&context=C4f1e537VDvjVQa1PpcFNVmXR_sq_i059umI2UEbrb 9Dqhpk4zPbk=)

[Ben]

Adam Smith said: Merchants and Manufacturers (today: corporations -- which by the way are unconstitutional... but nobody seems to care) are going to serve their interests REGARDLESS of the "grievous" impact on others. Those others one could -- and should -- argue are workers, women, forests, wildlife, oceans etc., etc., etc.... But who cares, eh?
Adam Smith also pointed out that the nub or main point of government is to strictly serve corporate power. And core decisions are being made that are not in the best interests of the public, of the planet, of other species and, too, well, future generations.
But:
I mean, why would, say, ExxonMobil be concerned about global warming or pollution or cancer? Why would they? Why should they? Pollution isn't their concern. Again, why should it be?
Take, for instance, well, a chemical factory emitting waste as a by-product into nearby rivers and into the atmosphere. This creates negative externalities which impose higher social costson other firms and consumers. e.g. clean up costs and health costs.
(But) that's the sole function of a corporation: internalize profits and externalize costs.
The external cost of car companies... and oil, gas and coal companies is global warming and, well, the fate of the species. But that's none of their business. Their business is to maximize money. No matter the HARM to other species -- and to future generations.
And that lack of concern for future generations started over 150 years ago. And continues today. I mean, what'll the planet be like in 50 years, or 100 years, or 200 years???????????

Paul Ryan's end point is Ayn Rand Utopia & he knows it - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5dNkLmFVdM&feature=plcp&context=C422a524VDvjVQa1PpcFNVmXR_sq_i05uzBO2PQ28E GPgHhm1ywiI=)

[hippifried]

corporations -- which by the way are unconstitutional...

You're going to have to show me this one.

[dana295]

something i learn in civics 101

in the mid to late 1800's the republican party was the lefties yup in was til the earl 1900's that they changed thier name to demicratic party. and the dems of the 1800's became the republicans of today. hmm wierd huh ? the reason for this i never found out but it did happen. but then in the end i think we'll all wish we had listened to washington when he warned agianst a two party system instead of a no party system. see he thought we should vote our hearts and minds not for one party or the other.

[buttslinger]

The entire south was Democratic until Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act!

[robertlouis]

something i learn in civics 101

in the mid to late 1800's the republican party was the lefties yup in was til the earl 1900's that they changed thier name to demicratic party. and the dems of the 1800's became the republicans of today. hmm wierd huh ? the reason for this i never found out but it did happen. but then in the end i think we'll all wish we had listened to washington when he warned agianst a two party system instead of a no party system. see he thought we should vote our hearts and minds not for one party or the other.

That's not right Dana. The Republicans were formed in the 1850s in the prelude to the civil war, when (if you'll forgive me) American society was every bit as polarised as it appears to be now. As the Whigs they had been the primary opposition to the democrats more or less from the creation of party politics, but during Buchanan's hopeless presidency the rump that emerged as the Republicans began to take a united stand against the extension of slavery into new territories as they became states in their own right, with "Bleeding Kansas" the most contentious and violent example.

During the Civil War, the Republicans under Lincoln became of necessity associated with all things northern, which included the rapidly expanding capitalist manufacturers who became rich on the war and have bankrolled the party ever since. The war broke the spirit of the Democrats, but their adherence to a political balance containing slavery until the last possible moment ensured that for decades afterwards, the white south resolutely voted democrat every time. It wasn't till Nixon and then Reagan that the south began to vote Republican in large numbers.

But the Democrats did re-emerge in the 1890s and afterwards as more inclined towards the working man and organised labour, whereas the Republicans, as the party of big business, sided with the bosses.

That's pretty much how it has remained to the present day, but ever since 1856 the Democrats have been the Democrats and the Republicans have been the Republicans. No name changes.

[hippifried]

I think everybody should just make up history as they go along.

[robertlouis]

I think everybody should just make up history as they go along.

Is your real name Sarah Palin? :)

[Prospero]

Is your real name Sarah Palin? :)

Nope - it's OnMyKnees

[robertlouis]

Nope - it's OnMyKnees

Same thing. OK, same IQ at least. :dancing:

[Prospero]

Indeed - though I've not been reading the aspiring clown prince of spin's postings of late. Life is way too short.

[robertlouis]

Indeed - though I've not been reading the aspiring clown prince of spin's postings of late. Life is way too short.

He makes Alistair Campbell sound like Machiavelli.

[yodajazz]

Thom Hartmann talks about REPUBLICAN President Dwight Eisenhower who'd be waaaaay on the left by today's standards.
And, too, if one goes back even further to REPUBLICAN President Abraham Lincoln, well, you'll find the position of the Republican Party in the mid 19th. century was very left leaning by today's standards.
They were against wage labor. They saw wage labor and slavery as being identical. They were against industrialization. They saw it as an attack on their culture. I mean, the Republican Party has drifted so far to the right it's frightening. The Party (if they are even a political party anymore) merely serve the interests of the top 0.01 percent.
And, too, we're selling off our manufacturing sector at a rate of $4,000 every single second. (In terms of social and economic development America is starting to resemble a Third World nation.)



If you want to look at a pure form, of things advocated by today's 'radical conservatives', look at the institution of slavery. Here, you have a fully 'free' market system with little interference from government.

[robertlouis]

If you want to look at a pure form, of things advocated by today's 'radical conservatives', look at the institution of slavery. Here, you have a fully 'free' market system with little interference from government.

Who needs slavery when everyone except the very rich is subject to the whims and caprices of rabid fuck-you capitalism? That's right, those same lovely people who brought you global financial meltdown. Stop blaming your governments, they were pliant accomplices of a sort by taking the brakes off regulation, but the real villains were, and continue to be, the bankers. Yes, capitalism is the only game in town, but without adequate checks and restraints, it will continue in its rapacious and amoral way.

Oh, and by the way, the Republicans want to give them even more freedom to fuck you over. Consider that before you vote, please.

[onmyknees]

Nope - it's OnMyKnees


Trolling for me again? Dudes like you are a real source of entertainment for me..You seemingly can't handle the heat of a debate....so you seek to silence dissent ....maybe you hang out with too many like minded people because you got a real thin skin. Grow some balls dude. You sound a lot like the sniveling private General Patton had to bitch slap with his gloves for whining in the heat of battle !!

[onmyknees]

Who needs slavery when everyone except the very rich is subject to the whims and caprices of rabid fuck-you capitalism? That's right, those same lovely people who brought you global financial meltdown. Stop blaming your governments, they were pliant accomplices of a sort by taking the brakes off regulation, but the real villains were, and continue to be, the bankers. Yes, capitalism is the only game in town, but without adequate checks and restraints, it will continue in its rapacious and amoral way.

Oh, and by the way, the Republicans want to give them even more freedom to fuck you over. Consider that before you vote, please.


Thanks for the public service announcement on behalf of Obama from abroad ...but no US citizen is seriously going to consider anything you have to say when voting.......... And I know you're an "amateur " US political historian, so you should recall just 18 months ago.....Americans did speak and did vote, and they rejected your advice by huge margins. LOL You really don't understand middle America...do you?

[onmyknees]

Adam Smith said: Merchants and Manufacturers (today: corporations -- which by the way are unconstitutional... but nobody seems to care) are going to serve their interests REGARDLESS of the "grievous" impact on others. Those others one could -- and should -- argue are workers, women, forests, wildlife, oceans etc., etc., etc.... But who cares, eh?
Adam Smith also pointed out that the nub or main point of government is to strictly serve corporate power. And core decisions are being made that are not in the best interests of the public, of the planet, of other species and, too, well, future generations.
But:
I mean, why would, say, ExxonMobil be concerned about global warming or pollution or cancer? Why would they? Why should they? Pollution isn't their concern. Again, why should it be?
Take, for instance, well, a chemical factory emitting waste as a by-product into nearby rivers and into the atmosphere. This creates negative externalities which impose higher social costson other firms and consumers. e.g. clean up costs and health costs.
(But) that's the sole function of a corporation: internalize profits and externalize costs.
The external cost of car companies... and oil, gas and coal companies is global warming and, well, the fate of the species. But that's none of their business. Their business is to maximize money. No matter the HARM to other species -- and to future generations.
And that lack of concern for future generations started over 150 years ago. And continues today. I mean, what'll the planet be like in 50 years, or 100 years, or 200 years???????????

Paul Ryan's end point is Ayn Rand Utopia & he knows it - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5dNkLmFVdM&feature=plcp&context=C422a524VDvjVQa1PpcFNVmXR_sq_i05uzBO2PQ28E GPgHhm1ywiI=)


Ok Ben...I'll play nice since it appears we have some very fragile egos on here that have been damaged.

So you and Thom Hartman are not pleased by Ryan's plan, and somehow think he's channeling Ayn Rand....I'll swallow that for the sake of discussion. So please tell me what is the democratic plan to deal with the debt crisis and economic recovery...or let's back up a moment...do you and fellow liberals even acknowledge there is a debt crisis? Do you even acknowledge Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is unsustainable?
Assuming you say yes, please proceed to tell me the liberal plan for fiscal stability. It doesn't have to be detailed...just an outline. And if you tell me "tax the rich"... or any manifestation of that, The Buffet rule won't even cover a mere 17 days of federal spending, The Democrats in the Senate haven't even taken up, let alone pass a budget in 3 years. Imagine a government operating without a budget for 3 years? Imagine a household operating without a budget for 3 years? Obama's budgets (last year and fiscal year 2012) was UNANOMOUSLY rejected by liberals and conservatives.The president walked away from his own Simpson-Bowles debt commission and hasn't so much as mentioned them in over a year. So could you and Thom take a few moments out from criticizing Ryan and enlighten me on the democrats plan? Then you can go back to bashing Ryan.

[BluegrassCat]

Ok Ben...I'll play nice since it appears we have some very fragile egos on here that have been damaged.

So you and Thom Hartman are not pleased by Ryan's plan, and somehow think he's channeling Ayn Rand....I'll swallow that for the sake of discussion. So please tell me what is the democratic plan to deal with the debt crisis and economic recovery...or let's back up a moment...do you and fellow liberals even acknowledge there is a debt crisis? Do you even acknowledge Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is unsustainable?
Assuming you say yes, please proceed to tell me the liberal plan for fiscal stability. It doesn't have to be detailed...just an outline. And if you tell me "tax the rich"... or any manifestation of that, The Buffet rule won't even cover a mere 17 days of federal spending, The Democrats in the Senate haven't even taken up, let alone pass a budget in 3 years. Imagine a government operating without a budget for 3 years? Imagine a household operating without a budget for 3 years? Obama's budgets (last year and fiscal year 2012) was UNANOMOUSLY rejected by liberals and conservatives.The president walked away from his own Simpson-Bowles debt commission and hasn't so much as mentioned them in over a year. So could you and Thom take a few moments out from criticizing Ryan and enlighten me on the democrats plan? Then you can go back to bashing Ryan.

There are a lot of crises going on at the moment and no, the deficit is certainly not at the top. Climate change is much bigger as is the sluggish economy. And of course Social Security is easily sustainable with a small increase in the payroll taxes. Obamacare goes a long way towards extending the lives of Medicare and Medicaid but more work bending the cost curve is needed. So you want to run around screaming about deficits and follow the Paul Ryan austerity path to paradise? Go to Spain, austerity is going gangbusters over there. I'll take the success of Keynesian economics over here rather than 50% youth unemployment over there.

But since someone told you deficits were important, I'll humor you and maybe you'll learn something for a change. You want to know how to bring down deficits? Grow the economy. Get people back to work, earning money and paying taxes. And we get the economy moving through massive stimulus. Stimulus saved us from disaster and it could push us back into the fast lane. But of course, that's a two-step solution. You want something faster? End the Bush tax cuts. The single biggest policy cause of our deficit are the Bush tax cuts. Until you or Ryan or any GOP flack stops protecting those tax cuts, we can rest assured that your complaints about deficits are pure political shit.

[hippifried]

If you want to look at a pure form, of things advocated by today's 'radical conservatives', look at the institution of slavery. Here, you have a fully 'free' market system with little interference from government.
Well, you have the same situation with the black market. Cartel wars are just free enterprize at its freest & finest.

What I object to is the whole idea of "radical conservatives". It's an oxymoron. You can't be both because they're opposites. Radical isn't conservative. Reactionary isn't conservative. Regressive isn't conservative. Conservatives are cautious, not crazy. Conservatism isn't an ideology. It's an attitude. The same goes for liberalism. All this linguistic revision is nothing more than lies.

[yodajazz]

Well, you have the same situation with the black market. Cartel wars are just free enterprize at its freest & finest.

What I object to is the whole idea of "radical conservatives". It's an oxymoron. You can't be both because they're opposites. Radical isn't conservative. Reactionary isn't conservative. Regressive isn't conservative. Conservatives are cautious, not crazy. Conservatism isn't an ideology. It's an attitude. The same goes for liberalism. All this linguistic revision is nothing more than lies.

Are you saying that the 'conservative' wing of the Republican party are not conservatives? I disagree with this on the general principle that people have the right to label themselves. For example transexuals who say they are women. Knowledgable people would give them a substatus, if they dont feel they are the same as biological women. I picked up the term 'radical conservatives' from this thread. The argument was that 'true conservatives' wish to preserve past instiutions and practices. If this is true, there would need to be some name for people who call themselves conservatives, but wish to radically alter US lives. So then, what do you call them? Or do you believe that these people are in fact the new definition of the word?

[Prospero]

Trolling for me again? Dudes like you are a real source of entertainment for me..You seemingly can't handle the heat of a debate....so you seek to silence dissent ....maybe you hang out with too many like minded people because you got a real thin skin. Grow some balls dude. You sound a lot like the sniveling private General Patton had to bitch slap with his gloves for whining in the heat of battle !!

Oh believe me OMK I've no desire to silence dissent. The very opposite.

What I can't abide about you are your lies - pure and simple. Your politics are not mine. That's cool. But you stoop to the politics of the gutter with lies and libels. Thatis what makes YOU despicable. You are a moral coward.

[trish]

Oh believe me OMK I've no desire to silence dissent. The very opposite.

What I can't abide about you are your lies - pure and simple. Your politics are not mine. That's cool. But you stoop to the politics of the gutter with lies and libels. Thatis what makes YOU despicable. You are a moral coward.:iagree::iagree::iagree: The truth is the truth, and the truth is OMK can't seem to help himself. He habitually lies about the people on these boards with whom he disagrees. Disagreement of fine. Personal attacks in the form of lies is, indeed, despicable.

[Stavros]

If the USA has an ideology, a political discourse of belonging, identity and geography, it must be a discourse shaped by concepts of liberty and the rights of man. That may sound romantic, yet the ability all Americans have to understand their rights with reference to a constitution that is a living document, indeed one that for all its origins and revisions remains relevant to the present day, gives American politics its grounding in reality.

The emergence of a party political system and the way those parties play/fiddle with the constitution and the law, is not 'American' ideology in practice, but a response to changing/fluctuating ideas of what freedom, liberty, happiness, opportunity etc- mean at the time. It may be that approaching law-making thorough the portal of a political party is not the best way in which to maintain or promote the values that have made the USA a magnet for so many people, but it's the only route currently available.

Hence the paradox of a system that is forever fascinating (to this outsider) while according to Americans themseves, threatening to undermine it; or holding 'self-evident truths' together.

[hippifried]

Are you saying that the 'conservative' wing of the Republican party are not conservatives? I disagree with this on the general principle that people have the right to label themselves. For example transexuals who say they are women. Knowledgable people would give them a substatus, if they dont feel they are the same as biological women. I picked up the term 'radical conservatives' from this thread. The argument was that 'true conservatives' wish to preserve past instiutions and practices. If this is true, there would need to be some name for people who call themselves conservatives, but wish to radically alter US lives. So then, what do you call them? Or do you believe that these people are in fact the new definition of the word?
Yes, that's what I'm saying. This isn't about anybody's rights at all. Anybody has a right to lie through their teeth, if that's what floats their boat, but there's no such thing as a right to impunity. There's no right to revise the language that everybody else uses too, just to hide your lie. Where does a handful of fanatics get off expecting to be able to hide behind a legit group of people without anybody outing them for the primary lie? Why do y'all just accept the lame meme? You're just tossing a word salad that has no meaning. What to call a radical? Radical. Regressive is regressive. True conservatives aren't looking to go backwards. It's about conserving current institutions. People's comfort levels are right now. Honest people, regardless of attitude, know better than to try & push the whole society into some fictional revision of history. There's no "new definition of the word". There's just the lie, & it would appear that you swallowed the hook.

[Stavros]

I'm with Hippifried on this, not just because of the confusing use of the words 'Conservative' and 'Liberal' which mean different things when applied, for example, to the UK and the USA. Most established political parties have their 'left-right-centre' complexions which usually means 'hard-medium-soft' or some variation of these. I seem to recall Daniel Boorstein -I think it was him- on radio a few decades ago saying that he was an economic conservative, a social liberal and a political radical. In fact, I think that's what I might be, although as an economic conservative I don't believe in tax cuts...guess that depends on how one defines 'economic conservative'....

[buttslinger]

confusing use of the words 'Conservative' and 'Liberal' which mean different things when applied

You philosophers have overthunk this, I think. If Obama can plant this healthcare fiasco in the ground and let it grow, you'll have Education, Social Security, and Healthcare for EVERY goddam American. What's left- PEOPLE can fight over all the rest and keep what they earn, just like EVERYBODY does. Myself, I'm conservative when it comes to cash, and liberal when it comes to what's RIGHT.
Democrat presidents and Republican Presidents, they will all fight over the hearts and minds for 51% of the vote. It will shift back and forth over the decades. But if Obamacare takes root, and the Republicans are very aware of this, that will be a change in the fabric of the country.
No Democrat will run on the platform that Cash is Great, although they all like cash. Let the Republicans champion that cause. It's all a game, that goes back to the Bible-"Am I my brother's keeper? God never answered Cain-Amen for now, thank you.

[hippifried]

Philosophers? I think not. I'm just tired of being mislabled by assholes who are trying to cover their own lies by doing it. What phiosophy? That crap only serves confusion. The "left, right, center" arguments & other ubiquitous political & ideological nonsense have nothing whatsoever to do with describing someone's general attitudes as liberal or conservative.

[Stavros]

No Democrat will run on the platform that Cash is Great, although they all like cash. Let the Republicans champion that cause. It's all a game, that goes back to the Bible-"Am I my brother's keeper? God never answered Cain-Amen for now, thank you.

Not always sure I understand your posts, Buttslinger -and you are also wrong, God did answer Cain -easily checked:

Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?”
“I don’t know,” he replied. “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
The LORD said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground. Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.”
Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”
But the LORD said to him, “Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the LORD’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

[buttslinger]

You're always right Stavros! Damn my English Teacher! Mrs Adams.

PS nobody understands my posts.

Good work! I read the New Testament last year, but besides Job, never got into the old testament stuff. You got me.

[hippifried]

So Cain went out from the LORD’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

I wonder if he ran into Winken or Blinken.

[Stavros]

He ended up in a low-life bar off Market St, drinking away his sorrows with Steinbeck.

[Ben]

Are Conservatives Scared Stupid? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbhijzlGKEI&feature=plcp)

[robertlouis]

Not always sure I understand your posts, Buttslinger -and you are also wrong, God did answer Cain -easily checked:

Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?”
“I don’t know,” he replied. “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
The LORD said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground. Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.”
Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”
But the LORD said to him, “Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the LORD’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

And then he did add an "e" to his name and lo somehow made a career out of squinting through horn-rimmed glasses and an endlessly replayed clip in which he exclaims "You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!!"

But, on the other hand, he did appear in the title role of the original Get Carter in the 1970s, and for that, at least, we should be eternally grateful. That film nailed the early years of the decade in the same way that The Long Good Friday nailed its last scraps and eerily and accurately presaged the easy money horrors of Thatcher's 80s. Two nigh perfect British films.

[Prospero]

How much Laphroig did you imbibe before that inspired hijack RL?