Are we DUers the real "conservatives"? Let's list the ways

[starroute]

When I was a kid, I was told that conservatives were people who wanted to keep things as they were or even move them back a notch, as opposed to those who were eager to try out untested schemes for purely ideological reasons and didn't care how many lives they disrupted in the process.

Maybe I'm just getting old, but these days there are more and more things I want to keep as they are, or even restore to the way they used to be when I was a kid. Here are a few:

I want to keep this country a democracy, not an empire.

I want to feel that our Constitution and Bill of Rights are secure from meddling.

I'd like to have the Pledge of Allegiance back the way I learned it in Kindergarten.

I'd like to be able to see the Milky Way again.

I'd like to see the unions powerful again. I'd really like to go back to the way things were when almost any family could have a middle class standard of living on a single income.

I'd like to be able to walk around town on a Saturday and see other people out on the streets or on their front porches, exchanging greetings with the neighbors. Where do they all hide these days?

I'd love it if New York City had six or eight daily newspapers again, and other major cities had at least two or three.

I want local radio stations back -- ones where the dj's had real personality and even got to pick their own music.


That's just off the top of my head -- but I'm sure there's a lot I'm missing. Any suggestions?

[san antonio]

1. This is like...

The real conservatives trying to claim they are the 'real patriots'.

[denverbill]

2. How about a balanced budget?

[MR. ELECTABLE]

5. No good Bill...

It seems that DEAN is the only candidate out there that supports a balanced budget. All the other hopefuls must think that money is gonna fall from the sky or something once they get into office...

[ComerPerro]

8. Actually

The money will come from cutting Bush tax cuts for the top 1%, and by not spending billions of dollars on widespread warfare without justification.

[Parrcrow]

3. we legitmately call ourselves...

liberals or progressives or socialists. conservatives are out there too and we can engage them in legitimate debate. Neo-cons and the religious right are a dangerous group who only wish to destroy their opponents. Their aim is control of America even if that means undermining all it stands for.

[WildClarySage]

4. I'd like to see

'family values' mean that our social structure supports the formation and continuation of committed people who want to be together.

[efhmc]

7. What about it meaning that we create a loving, safe environment for

children to grow up in? Edited to add "also".

[BeFree]

6. I'd like..

to conserve our environment. Even better, turn it back to the way it was 50 years ago.

While we're at it, wouldn't it be nice to have a conservative media that tells the whole story, not just bits and pieces?

True conservation requires that fiscal deficits are as small as possible.

True conservatives don't believe in nation building. Or propping up dictators like the chicoms.

How twisted can things be? *, in the SOTU, sounded like a free-spending liberal, and we are beginning to sound like conservatives.

[san antonio]

9. Ummmm, maybe you should do a little research....

"to conserve our environment. Even better, turn it back to the way it was 50 years ago."

Do you mean before the SuperFund cleaned up toxic waste dumps that were everywhere?

Do you mean before the CAA was finally able to do something about the steel industry?

Do you mean the days when DDT and other toxic pesticides were used with great joy?

Do you really want to go back to the time that convinced the government that the environment was so bad that they had to get off their asses and pass the sweeping environmental laws?

[BeFree]

10. san antonio

Thanks for your reply.

Your reply shows how someone could take my wish in the wrong way, and it is of course, solely my fault.

What you are talking about is the politics of the environment and you are absolutely correct: It would be a grave error to return to the days of legal DDT, etc, etc.

What I meant when I say turn back 50 years is that the air then was cleaner, as was the water. More old growth forests still grew then. More fish were in the sea and rivers. Less sprawl, less noise, and much less environmental destruction had occurred, back then.

Today. Well, even with all the laws, things have gotten worse, haven't they? Sure, in a few places a few things have improved, but overall the environment of the 50's was far better than today.

Thanks.

[san antonio]

11. I know.

I know you meant well, sorry for the attack.

Just FYI, I was an environmental engineer before I went and started my web firm. A huge part of the environmental consulting industry that had it's boom during the 80's was built on the fact that there really was a lot of polution going on 50 years ago. People like to think back and imagine a world with pristine air and water but that simply wasn't true for large cities.

The killer smog and absolutely HUGE waste dumps that happened back then were nothing to fantasize about. Pittsburgh and steel cities like it were uninhabitable when you compare the air back then to what it's like today.

The fights we're having over arsenic would have seemed silly to officials back then. Why clean the arsenic out when you have all that lead going straight into drinking water?

Responsible forestry? Yeah right. Clear cut it and forget it.

[Dr Fate]

12. We respect the old-time notion of Seperation of Church & State n/t

n/t