YUCK! Are dems the CONSERVATIVES ?!?!?!

[txaslftist]

Charlie Reese wrote this essay on Lew Rockwell, of which I posted parts. Then another poster replied with a number of Charlie Reese pieces, including this one, wherein he defines how he is a "conservative". I agree with so many of his positions my stomach nearly flipped, and I've seen a lot of dem posters on these boards who would agree with them, too. Have we become the conservative party? Or are his definitions just all screwed up?

See for yourself just how many of his positions you agree with:

(exerpts from) Conservative
by Charley Reese

"...His mistake was in his apparent definition of "conservative," which he seems to think is somebody who is in favor of foreign wars and against gay marriage and abortion. That is a definition of conservative straight out of the "How to Dupe the Dumb Masses" manual used by professional campaign managers like Karl Rove."
(part of the set up, next comes HIS definition of conservative)

1. "... A conservative believes that not only should the Supreme Court strictly construe the Constitution, but so should the president, the House, the Senate, governors, mayors and everybody else."

Okay, I pretty much believe this is true, although I defer to the Supreme Court on how to define the constitution...

2. "..A conservative does not approve of wars, except in defense of the land and the people, and only upon a declaration of war by both houses of Congress. A war to liberate somebody else from a nasty government is unconstitutional, illegal and immoral."

I totally and strongly agree with this statement.

3. "..To strictly construe the Constitution is to recognize that it is not a "living document" to be amended by interpretation, but rather is a contract between the states and the federal government. To be properly construed, it must be read in the context of the times in which it was written and adopted..."

I pretty much agree with this...to the extent I understand it. It still ain't getting down to 'brass tacks', but okay...

4. "A conservative is against foreign aid. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress authorized to tax the American people and then hand their money to a foreign government as either a gift or a loan."

I agree with this, although I favor emergency type aid in Tsunami-type situations.

5. "Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to provide welfare, health care, housing or education."

Okay, here's one I disagree with...

6. "Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention abortion or gay marriage. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to subsidize either individuals or corporations."

That's just a statement, not a position, and to that extent it is true...

7. "Philosophical and moral issues are to be decided by the legislatures of the states, not by federal courts or even by Congress, whose duties and powers are strictly limited by the Constitution."

Kinda vague, but in principle I agree...

8. "Whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry or form civil unions and whether abortion should be legal or illegal are both questions to be decided by the state legislatures. No state or federal judge should have a say in the matter, and Congress likewise has no authority to intervene one way or the other."

I agree as to gay marriage, disagree as to abortion, but of course that is a traditional disagreement upon which liberals and conservatives are always going to disagree...

9. "A conservative Christian believes that his own soul is not imperiled if other people down the street decide to do some sinning. A conservative Christian recognizes that he is commanded to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and comfort the sick and dying. He is not commanded to shift this responsibility to government. He is not commanded to judge other people's lives and to regulate their behavior. A conservative Christian recognizes that something does not have to be illegal in order for him to refrain from doing it."

Totally agree here (although I'm not a 'conservative' Christian).

10. "A conservative believes in the real, traditional values of this country: courage, hard work, self-reliance, frugality, chastity before marriage, faithfulness after marriage, loyalty to family and loyalty to the Constitution. Loyalty to a political party or to a politician is profoundly un-American."

I agree with most of this, although I think 'chastity before marriage' is a bit priggish and is not an area where politics should have any say providing everyone involved is of age.

11. "Now, it should be noted that the republic handed to us by our Founding Fathers died with the Confederate States of America...since then, we have had a centralized national government ever increasing its powers, and an imperialistic foreign policy..."

Okay, well that's just wishful thinking, Charlie, and not really a position. If conservatives wanted the civil war to turn out differently, they're delusional...

12. "As for traditional values, they are little observed. America is a decadent country, especially its cultural elite..."

More of this 'things were better in my day, grandson.' sort of rant, not something I can go along with, but his priviledge...

13. "A true conservative has no place in either major party. They are both committed to a centralized government at home and imperialism abroad."

Interesting statement...seems to imply that the Republicans aren't really 'conservative'...

So have I entered into Bizarro-world, or has he? I found so much of what he said that I agreed with (especially nos. 2 and 9), although I have NEVER thought of myself as a conservative. Certainly he seems as disdainful of the current Repuke party as I am...

I don't know, look it over. Are WE the conservatives, now?

[Vincardog]

1. #3 is the path to Biblical preeminence and The American Taliban

3. "..To strictly construe the Constitution is to recognize that it is not a "living document" to be amended by interpretation, but rather is a contract between the states and the federal government. To be properly construed, it must be read in the context of the times in which it was written and adopted..."


BS it is a Living Document. We do not need to consider anything other than what it says and maybe read the Federalist Papers to see what they mean when they wrote it. I may believe in some of the 'conservative' statements but I AM A PROGRESSIVE.

[txaslftist]

2. Not sure how that leads to biblical preeminence...

and the American Taliban...

I'm not sure what 'living document' means, but I agree with you that "We do not need to consider anything other than what it says and maybe read the Federalist Papers to see what they mean when they wrote it." to understand what it meant at the time...

I don't think we should change it or try to assign the words meanings they didn't have then...

To get to the biblical preeminence and american taliban business we have to CHANGE the historical context. The men who wrote the constitution were hardly conservative christians. Franklin was an irreligious nut, Adams was hardly religious, and all of them essentially wanted the church and politics kept separate. The First Amendment is hardly an endorsement of a biblical preeminence position...

I don't know if this is conservativism or liberalism or what, because like I said, I hardly understand this point, but I don't think its a taliban license.

[Vincardog]

6. You don't think it is Taliban License;

aWoL does. The code word for this is 'Strict Constructionist' The thin end of the wedge is that we are a 'Christian Nation'. The argument goes that we need to consider the context of the constitution as written by devout Christian men and the Bible as the pre-eminent source and basis of all law. The trick is to get some supreme court judges in who buy into this twisted world view. Then they declare that the courts can not review any decision based on Biblical law.
VOILA you have the American Taliban and our Mullahs are above the law. Just like the head a$$ hatter aWoL sees himself already.

These are not my views. They are the NeoCon's plan and agenda to be fought at every turn.

[MostlyLurks]

3. Seems to me he's neither Lib nor Con

He's a Federalist, in the European sense, as defined in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist). Also seems to be a lot of Libertarian elements. I think his use of "Conservative" is just a way to get people to read it - I don't think he's using the label for anything other than his own attention-grabbing purposes.

As to #3 specifically, this is Scalia's stance on the Constitution and it boggles my mind that any judge can argue it. The idea that the founding fathers somehow anticipated no change in socal mores, rule of law, technology, etc. is inherent to the argument. It's like saying they thought human and social progress would stop as of 1776.

Mostly

[CWebster]

4. No, they advocate for the common good.

Conservatives are the business party and seeks to further the interests of the corporate class.

..To strictly construe the Constitution is to recognize that it is not a "living document" to be amended by interpretation, but rather is a contract between the states and the federal government. To be properly construed, it must be read in the context of the times in which it was written and adopted..."


"..it must be read in the context of the times in which it was written and adopted"

Sounds like "amended by interpretation" to me.

[pansypoo53219]

5. of course most dems are conservative

we want to conserve the environment.
we want to conserve peace.
we want to conserve energy.
we want to conserve budgetary sanity.

obviously georgie is a liberal.