Is true conservatism a worthy opponent?

[George_Bonanza]

I'm not talking about faux-conservative neo-con America. I'm talking about true conservatism, which is definitely not what conservatism means in America now.

What is true conservatism? What are its ideals? And is it a worthy adversary to liberalism? All conservatism can't be bad. Winston Churchill started as a conservative, switched, then ended as a conservative, I think.

[La_Serpiente]

1. I think true conservatism is totally different than neo-conservatism

It's definetly different. It's most isolationalist. Traditional American conservatism is mostly isolationalist. I think that's the only main difference. They don't like International Institutions but they also don't like Wars. If you were a tradtional conservative isolationalist, you wouldn't have supported this war.

[FDRrocks]

2. Conservative

Economic:

Involved a balanced budget and restricted spending. The right wing has not been conservative for quite a while in this respect. Look at spending during Clinton and juxtapose it to Nixon, Reagan or Bush.

They also support Corporate welfare (some Democrats do, as well, to be fair), which has nothing to do with conservatism and alot to do with lobbyists.

Social:

It's a toss up, for me, on whether the Neo-Conservatives in power represent this. Conservative means resistant to change, if not all out against any change. The Republicans seem conservative on thier anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-minority stances. But that is more conservative in the way of adhering to ingrained rascism and false biblical teachings. (imo) Of course there are facets to these, but I'm sure the point is in there somewhere.

It's too late for me to make a substantial post on the issue, really. Sorry!

edit: No. Conservative ideals do not work, and therefore are not a worthy opponent. This is taking it for its true form, resisiting change, not the stereotypes like balanced budgets, etc. A system must be very flexible to change, otherwise it will meet its end. The US might not be around if FDR and LBJ weren't so adament in thier reforms. Such is history.

[izzie]

4. I am with you, not the same party.

They do not save things at all and that was the meaning of the old GOP.

[leftyandproud]

5. We should reverse the labels

conservatism has not been conservative for many years...There is nothing conservative about the right wing agenda...They are absolutely RADICAL on most issues. They want to roll back decades of government growth, repeal the new deal, privatize social security, etc etc...They have the radical agenda and WE are trying to 'conserve' things as they are. WE are the new conservatives...They have become something far more dangerous.

[maggrwaggr]

6. interesting notion. When I found myself agreeing with Pat Buchanan

before the Iraq "war" I knew things had really changed.

It's true, we now want to "conserve" the things that we've gained over the last 50 to 100 years. The neocons want to rip them away in, yes, a very radical fashion, in a neo-dictatorial style.

I've tried to talk to my father about this. He's an old time conservative and has been a staunch Bush supporter. I think strictly because Shrub is a republican. But I've tried to tell him "hey, your party's been hijacked! They don't stand for the things you think they stand for!"

I hope he, and others like him, are figuring that out. My Dad's a good guy, and an idealist in his own way (used to talk about Jefferson a lot), his ideas about how to achieve those ideals are built on a lot of cold war fears and distrust of "hippies"

[gottaB]

15. Al Sharpton is the conservative

From the AFL-CIO debate:

REV. SHARPTON: Since my pre-teenage years, I have fought in the area of corporate accountability and civil rights. As a youngster, Bayard Rustin, a great labor leader, gave me the money to start a youth group in New York. We celebrate this month the 40th anniversary of the march that he and others put together that labor and others marched in Washington and heard about the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King. Forty years later, we still see the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Forty years later, we still see a country that will not deal equally and fairly with labor. I intend in this race to not only win an election but to win a direction. We have gone in the wrong direction in this party. We need to go back in the direction of building coalitions and building on progressive politics that are people-based. I've marched with President Sweeney. I've been to jail with Dennis Rivera. I didn't just come here to get a vote. I came when it was time to put our blood and sweat on the line.

There are the pundits that say Lieberman is the centrist and Dean and Kerry is the liberal. Well, I'm the conservative on this stage. I want you to know the secret. I'm the conservative. I'm fighting to conserve Roe versus Wade, to conserve affirmative action, to conserve workers' right to organize, to conserve what Wellstone and others stood up for. We must conserve what we won in the last 50 years. To conserve it, vote for Al Sharpton in the Democratic primary.

Right now "Republicans for Sharpton" is like some snide racist joke, but what's really funny is that they don't see the irony. In many ways Sharpton is no farther from conservative ideals than the cabal in Washington.

Yo, conservative lurkers. If you're going to compromise your principles, do it with class. Vote for a Democrat in 2004.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. No one knows...

any more. Everything has been defined by faux issues and buzzwords.

One could talk about Gramsci, Bentham, Locke, classical liberalism, old Toryism and some others, but to get to the crux of it all I think the distinction between Hamilton and Jefferson makes it clear.

Jefferson, the conservative, believed in the essential decency of humanity, and believed firmly that government should leave everyone to do what they think best. The idea is that everyone living in his best interest will ultimately be in the best interest of society. Jefferson believed that we do know what is best for us, and we should not suffer interference.

Hamilton was far more cynical and was under no illusion that laissez-faire was in the best interests of anyone. He read the part of "Wealth of Nations" that said the invisible hand of the marketplace usually needs a considerable amount of guidance, since it is often blind as well. Hamilton shrewdly noted that we often do not know what is best for us, and even if we do it doesn't mean that's best for anyone else. Hamilton would be a "liberal" today.

Getting away from silly arguments over guns or abortion, I think everyone agrees that both of these points of view have something to be said for them, although Hamilton's has proven far more practical.

I know plenty of Jeffersonian conservatives, and can disagree with them in mutual respect. Quite often, we agree in principle but only disagree on means. Unfortunately, their voices have been drowned out by the wingnuts and clowns.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. The father of modern conservatism was Edmund Burke...

Today's conservative movement doesn't follow his dictums and has probably never read him....

[rucky]

8. My Debates...

with self-labeled "classic conservatives" have been intelligent, informative and kinda fun .... and always over a few beers. It doesn't happen very often, but I do know a few conservative folks that I consider friends. It's healthy for democracy - as long as both sides are respectful.

And with all the blurring of the lines these days, I would even venture to say that they've been redrawn: Everybody realizes that our country is split. But on both sides, there are folks who want a "win-win" situation, and others who just want to win.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Burkean Conservatives

weren't opposed to change.....

Burke supported the American Revolution but opposed the French Revolution because of it's excesses...

Burke favored change that was prudential and was needed to ameliorate "real" wrongs...

The Bush crowd are in favor of change just the wrong kind of change....

[Padraig18]

9. I know some old-line "true conservatives"

Odlly enough, they agree with us on many issues:

---They are apalled at the budget, the tax cuts, etc.

---They oppose the Patriot Acts I & II

---They opposed the IWR

These are just 3 that come immediately to mind. :)

[sweetheart]

10. a conservative is not an opponent

I have been chided on this forum for using the word conservative to mean its true meaning... The british true conservative party is the liberal democrats. They believe that the best way to preserve the status quo is through nonviolent action, proportional representation democracy and and end to the war on drugs... THAT is conservative.

I am a conservative by that standard.

[Cat Atomic]

12. They *are* conservatives, socially speaking.

Look at the last 500 years of history, and you see one long struggle of the general population against the wealth and power of small groups. It's been a long and slow downhill slide for the powerful, from monarchy to republic to labor movements, etc.

Looking further back, things like the New Deal are pretty recent victories. Labor laws are recent victories. Civil rights, too.

These guys *are* conservatives, socially. The ideal society they'd like to preserve is just a bit older than you might expect.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

13. yes imo the paleo-conservatives were worthy opponents

same could be said of paleo-democrats :7

[Selwynn]

14. Not the same party - old was bad, new is worse. It was never "good"

[mitchum]

18. Succinct and correct

[Bandit]

16. We need to change old labels ~ Liberal=Progressive ~ Conservative =

REGRESSIVE

[George_Bonanza]

17. Funny insights

In many ways, the "liberals" of today are so overwhelmed by the radical agendas of the neo-cons (NOT conservatives) that we have been transformed into the conservatives. To me, this reiterates the fact that conservatism is not a flawed, dumb, or lesser ideology. It's a perfectly valid counterpoint to a view. Liberalism seeks new ways and changes, which can either be good or bad, and conservatism seeks to use tried and tested methods, which can be good or bad. Conservatism DOES NOT equal military arrogance, corporate corruption, and waving civil rights. IMHO, the conservatives of America should be outraged at Bush for demeaning their philosophy and party. If I were them, I would vote to send a message to the fading neo-cons that their moment in the sun is up and they have failed miserably.