What do conservatives stand for?

[bling bling]

This is a serious question. If I had to describe a "conservative", in the traditional sense, would I be off base with the following(?):

A conservative generally speaks negatively about government becoming too big. In particular, the federal government should be limited in it's authority of the states. The best government is a small government that stays out of people's lives and let's states government themselves except to enforce the federal laws as guided by our constitution. Furthermore, the constitution should be interpreted almost literally and should not be subject to change at the whim of judges.

A conservative typically dislikes taxes being spent on social programs and thinks that, instead, citizens should be able to keep more of their own money rather than giving to the government. People who fall into the lower socio-economic classes should be left alone to "take responsibility" for their situation and not look to other taxpapers to help them out, OR, such people should turn to charities for help if necessary. Taxes that are collected should be spent, in large part, towards self defense militarily. However, the military should not be used as a world police organization.

Economically, a conservative generally thinks the government should stay out of corporate affairs execpt to regulate and enforce generally accepted legislative policies (such as child labor laws, etc.). A laissez-faire type system is the best system and this includes both domestic and global markets.

I've probably left out a lot, but if the above description is on target, then I don't think that I really have that big of a problem with conservatives. I don't necessarily agree with the philosophy as outlined above, but I am at least able to understand it.

However, (and again, this is assuming my definition was basically on-target), our current administration does not resemble that definition at all. I think that is part of the reason I hate them so much. They don't seem to really represent ANYBODY in our country, other than the super-affluent oil and giant-corporate industries.

Maybe my overall definition of "conservative" is completely wrong. If so, would someone please explain to me where I went wrong in my assumption of their philosophy?

[Skittles]

1. GREED AND INTOLERANCE

nt

[Sir Jeffrey]

2. Fear of change or progress n/t

[buff2]

3. They stand for one word and one word only......

Hypocrisy.

[Warpy]

4. Cheap labor

Paying people less than it takes to live on, if they have jobs at all.

Neglecting the sick to death.

Cheating the elderly out of their futures.

Hating everyone who isn't white and rich, plus whoever the pundits tell you to hate that particular week.

[FlemingsGhost]

5. Wealth as a vehicle of entitlement.

Those who are lacking, need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and try harder.

[Erika]

6. They have not figured out

that you cannot have the extreme wealthy without having the economic cost being bore by the middle and lower class. Hence, they are materialists without a social conscience.

I cannot understand how they can profess to be Christians. The results of their philosophy directly contradicts the teachings of Christ.

[optional]

7. What do conservatives stand for?

It really depends on which "conservatives" you're talking about. If you're referring to the kinds of conservatives I grew up with, back in the 1970s, then what you're saying is not to far off of the mark. On the other hand, if you're referring to what passes for a "conservative" now, we're looking at a completely different fish. These people are better described as "reactionaries." Their goal is to turn the socio-economic clock back to 1928, or earlier. Their idea of "states rights" is the idea that held before the interpretation of the Commerce Clause in the Constitution was broadened in 1937: by that interpretation, any state law favorable to big business was upheld, while any law unfavorable (like minimum wages) was over-turned. They have a blatantly fascistic idea of police powers and foreign policy. That, of course, incorporates their imperialist ambitions and jingoism. Their legislative priorities are unfailingly pro-business. Their economic policies are redistributional; although, in their case, the redistribution is up the socio-economic ladder and from the countries traditional economic heartland to the state's that lend them electoral support (this is accomplished through "block grants," which are readily converted into pork. It is, as Paul Krugman has called it, "crony capitalism." It specializes in Trojan Horse legislation. Really, I don't see a lot that's redeeming about it unless you are, or fancy yourself, part of the economic and power elite.

[bling bling]

10. So what happened?

Has the term conservative been hijacked, then? And if so, where the hell are the people who *used* to actually align themselves with and believe in the "traditional" philosophy (as outlined in the OP) of what it means to be conservative??

Are their convictions so weak that they would tag along with the hijackers without a fight simply to maintain the "label" conservative? Are they united under a common label?

Or, is it that the philosophy itself was collectively deemed to be "wrong" and thus what we are dealing with now is a generally accepted "improvement" of the philosophy by conservatives. Are they united in being neo-conservatives?

Or, are they simply divided into two groups now? Traditional conservatives and neo-conservatives, who's philosophies are completely at odds with one another. In this case, are they simply united not by a philosophy at all but by their common enemy, the democrat?

I am still having trouble deciding what a "conservative" stands for.

[newyawker99]

12. Hi optional!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[NAO]

8. IGMFU. Not my problem. Private Morality. Miracle of 'free market'

The Conservative Manifesto:

IGMFU - I got mine, f**k you.

If you are poor - it must be your own fault. Hey, I'm not working to support freeloaders. If you want to get on your feet, get off your ass.

Personal morality - abstaining from 'sins' is important. Never mind about social morality. Crap like caring for the poor and being honest and fair in business transactions is just a bunch of liberal whining. The Free Market will fix itself, by 'miraculous market forces' if anything goes wrong.

The Free Market is a self-healing, ever improving miracle. All of society ills, except homosexuals and Hollywood sinners, can be cured by a free enterprise system. Free Enterprise is self-correcting and inherently fair. In absolute freedom of commerce, there is universal prosperity, except for freeloaders, who will become destitute because of their own laziness.

Oh, yeah, multilateralism is for sissies. Who cares what other countries think - our military can crush them if they give us any crap. The UN is a tool of Satan, the liberals, and those who want a One World Government.

If anyone gets in our way, we can bomb them back to the stone age. Like it says in the Bible, "blow them all to hell, in the name of the Lord".

Everybody knows all this is true if they just think about it. The only people who disagree are atheists and those goddamn egghead college professors who are too smart for their own good. They have all that 'book learnin' but they don't know squat about the 'real world'.

May God continue to bless America.

[OutsourceBush]

9. torture, rape, incest, murder, war...

[johnaries]

11. Good Question! Let's look at it:

1. In your first point, the Repugs are now claiming that they support States Rights over a strong central Federal government. This is a total flip flop from the original Republican platform. Technically, a Democracy is a government where the citizens vote on every single issue and write the laws. A Republic is a government where the people elect representatives to write the laws and vote for them, on their behalf. Obviously, we are technically a Republic. However, originally the Democrat platform support "States Rights" over a strong Federal government. The Civil War pretty much settled that issue. I'm not sure exactly when it happened, but at some point the Democrats (well, except for the Southern "Dixiecrats") to realize that Civil Democratic Rights was best enforced by a strong central government with standardized laws. Since the Democrats changed their position, well, the Republicans had to change their's.

As far as the "activist judge" charges, that is a new propaganda campaign. Judges intrepret laws based on the law as written and also based on what they can discern was the "intent" of the law. When the Law contradicts Bush's wishes, he incorrectly blames the Judges instead of the Law. Bottom line, Bushco hates the Constitution, is trying to "end run" it.

2. What they actually support is technically called Social Darwinism. One of the basic premises of Social Darwinism is that those who perform the best reap the rewards. This would be fine if we were all born to the same situation and were working on a "level playing field." This is never the case. Social Darwinism also work on the premise that if the parents have the talents and work ethics to be successful, they will pass these talents, wisdom, and ethics to their children. As we know from experience, this seldom happens and the children usually end up spoiled rather than prepared. Can you imagine Paris Hilton running the Hilton chain of hotels?

In fact, because of the abuses that these spoiled brats wielded as a result of their inheritance from their spoiled parents who in turn inherited their wealth and power from their parents (a "Dynasty"), Congress passed the Inheritance Tax. This is the tax that Republicans call the "Death Tax", but it's purpose was as a Dynasty tax: to curb the abuse by spoiled brats who inherited money and power but who didn't have the wisdom to use it properly.


3. Claiming "laissez-faire", they are actually preaching a Caveat Emptor "let the buyer beware" rather than a Caveat Vendor "let the seller beware" system. Considering the advantages that Corporate "Sellers" have, the buyer can be easily screwed and are in more need of protection than the vendor.

However, what they are actually PRACTICING is "Cronyism". Bush actually made his personal millions from cronyism.


So, no - the Republicans actions do not match their rhetoric.

[gollygee]

13. I don't think the neo-cons are true conservatives

I agree with you. They have a different philosophy than what I've heard called Eisenhower Republicans. This ain't your father's Republican Party . . .