Both Left and Right have over time thought there was seriously wrong with the thinking of their opponents……but is there a scientific way to determine who will be a conservative?
Glad you asked.
Scientists Are Beginning to Figure Out Why Conservatives Are…Conservative | Mother Jones.
First a little advice from an old fart…..to the young…..go out and live life and make some memories for yourself…..for when you grow old memories are all you have….society will push you aside and you will be left with the memories that you have made…..
I recall my youth…….after my stint in Vietnam…..when I returned I became a steadfast supporter of the anti-war movement……and I watched the youth of the day go from protests to rolling over for conservatism……Nixon signed the 18 year old vote into law and the downhill plunge started and culminated with the election of Reagan….I bring this all up because the young seem to be a bit liberal for now……they have a strong pro-choice slide, pro same sex marriage, etc…..all this is great and I look for them to help this country get back on track…….that is until I read a report the other day and my heart sank…..again.
The Upshot blog of the New York Times has an analysis sure to cheer the hearts of today’s conservatives, and it’s all rooted in one simple fact: The voters of tomorrow are coming of age in a generally lousy time with Democrats in control of the White House, writes David Leonhardt. Forget the “largely useless cliche” that people are liberal when young and turn conservative as they grow older. Generally speaking, generations remain consistent in their politics from youth to old age, and what was happening when they first became aware politically is a big factor in determining whether they’ll lean left or right.
Leonhardt points out that the youngest voters in the next presidential election will have been born in 1998. Millennials might be old enough to remember that some of today’s problems are rooted in the Bush years, but not these younger voters. They’ve become politically conscious in an era when economic growth has been stagnant and the world’s problems ever-growing. “We’re in a period in which the federal government is simply not performing, and that can’t be good for Democrats,” says an analyst with the Pew Research Center. How Obama fares in the remainder of his term will affect more than the 2016 election, writes Leonhardt. The president’s performance will “cast a shadow” over the 2024 campaign and beyond. Click to read the full post.
I pray the study is mistaken for I do not think that this country can recovery its place in the world on the back of conservative ideology…..
I was attempting to use this article for a post…..but after a couple tries…I gave up….it is better to read the entire thing…..
A scary thought…I live in the state and believe me when I say that America does not need to if it wants to survive….there is NOTHING that can be said good about the social aspects of the state nor the political either…….
Demographics, conservatism, and racial polarization: Could America become Mississippi?.
College of Political Knowledge
Subject: Conservatism
Today is my final day of policy and issues analysis for the coming year……today I want to focus on politics.
Remember Mad Magazine and its strip Spy vs Spy? Real life has a situation as comical as the strip…..that situation I will call conservative vs conservative. It seems that the conservative movement is attacking itself…..why?
An excellent question! It appears that everyone in the “conservative” movement is trying to redefine what it is to be conservative.
I am an old fart and educated in the ways of political philosophy and in my studies I found NOTHING in the modern conservative movement that bears any reflection of the conservatism of Edmund Burke. Of course we could always say that we, as Americans, have a unique brand of conservatism…….yes we could say that but it would be bullsh*t.
Conservatism….real conservatism means…….a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and opposes rapid change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to “the way things were.” The term derives from conserve; from Latin conservare, to keep, guard, observe. To a conservative, the goal of change is less important than the insistence that change be effected with a respect for the rule of law and traditions of society; since the 1940s the term has been closely associated with preservation and promotion of capitalism and opposition to liberalism, socialism and communism. (thanx to wikiquote)
But in today’s American political climate, conservs are not true conservs but rather a neo-liberal. That’s right if you adhere to the percepts of the GOP or the Tea Party you are a neo-liberal.
Think not? Then answer these questions…….do you hold any of these ideals sacred?
Do you like the sound of any of the above? If your answer is yes then you are a NEO-LIBERAL! Congrats! Did you notice there is NO mention of a “moderate conservative”? That is a new term coined by the media to explain what cannot be explained. If you are moderate does that make you a centrist?
Meanwhile back to the conservative movement…..who decides who is a conserv? There are many sub-species of conservative thought…..there is the liberal conserv…..the libertarian conservs…..fiscal conservs……religious conservs and my fav “progressive conservs……my point is that there are many many strains of conservatism and to belittle someone for not being conserv simply because they will not agree with you is nothing short of MORONIC!
Just like all Americans need to find a way to work together to move this country forward….so should the conservs….if they cannot move forward then they will remain just a minor player that has nothing but NO as a platform……maybe that is what these tools from the Tea Party want….if they have NO plans to govern then it is easy to be a thorn in the foot of democracy…….maybe that is all they aspire to…..there is NO future for the conserv movement as it is today………and unity is not something they understand only on their terms…nothing these will do…….the movement is screwed!
There is more than the big two candidates in this upcoming election….I have already offered up the Libertarians and the second in this series will be……
Constitution Party:
Former Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode (Running mate: attorney Jim Clymer)
Labeled “Mr. Independent” by his home newspaper in Virginia, the Richmond Times-Dispatch, former six-term Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode has demonstrated a willingness to change parties when his principles did not comport with his party. Goode was elected to the Virginia state Senate as a Democrat, and served his first two congressional terms as a Democrat. But he became a political independent in the year 2000, and was reelected twice as an independent before switching to the Republican Party. Goode may have a major impact on the November race, as the former Virginia congressman is currently polling between five and nine percent in Virginia. Virginia is a key swing state in the presidential race, and support for Goode could tilt the outcome of the state in the race more than any other third-party candidate.
Goode left Congress after narrowly losing a reelection bid in the 2008 Democratic landslide for Obama. In his last term in Congress (2007-2008), this magazine’s “Freedom Index” congressional scorecard rated him at 72 percent. Now running for president, he has already qualified for the ballot in at least 17 states in November (but will probably qualify for twice that number).
Fiscal Agenda: As a congressman, Goode reliably voted to cut foreign aid and other wasteful spending. He even voted against his own party’s appropriations bills on some occasions.
Goode promises to introduce a balanced budget immediately by cutting spending. “Nearly every department and agency will face significant cuts and some will face elimination,” Goode says on his campaign website. Goode plans to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts and No Child Left Behind, and to cut the Department of Education and foreign aid. He would pursue a full audit of the Federal Reserve Bank.
Foreign Policy: Goode favors a strong military that is substantially disengaged from unnecessary foreign wars, which is a change from his earlier vote in favor of the Iraq War (roll call 455, 2002). He now says, “I do not believe we should be involved in wars that have not been declared by Congress as specifically provided in the U.S. Constitution, so we must come home from Afghanistan. And I don’t think we can afford — nor is it strategically necessary — to have military bases all over the world. We owe too much money to underwrite the stationing of so many troops all around the world. Finally, I am against placing our armed forces under United Nations command.”
Goode strongly opposes multilateral free-trade agreements as job killers, voting against CAFTA — the Central American Free Trade Agreement — (roll call 443, 2005) and calling for the end of NAFTA and the WTO. In such calls, he could be contrasted with the libertarian-leaning Rep. Ron Paul, who supports genuine free trade but opposes the trade regimes as centralizing forces and threats to national sovereignty rather than as job-killers. Goode makes no claim to support free trade as an objective good.
Civil Liberties: As a congressman, Goode voted to allow warrantless searches (roll call 502, 2006) and for virtual civil immunity for telecommunications firms that provide private subscriber information to intelligence services (roll call 437, 2008). He also voted for military tribunals for terrorist suspects (roll call 491, 2006), tribunals that flatly contradict the Sixth Amendment requirement for a jury trial for all criminal suspects.
Goode says he has learned from his years in the private sector, noting in his acceptance speech at the April 21 Constitution Party national convention that one of the most important votes he made a mistake about was his vote in favor of the Patriot Act (roll call 398, 2001) and its reauthorization (roll call 414, 2005). “I made some mistakes in the House on votes,” Goode said in his acceptance speech, “and one in particular — several but one in particular: I voted for the Patriot Act. And most in this room are very much opposed to that measure. I want to say that my association with the Constitution Party over the last three plus years has given me a better perspective of analyzing legislation from a constitutional viewpoint. And I want to say that I made a mistake in voting for this measure.”
But in his very next words, Goode demonstrated that his improved view of civil liberties had yet to be brought up to the level of actual constitutional understanding. He would only seek to repeal the Patriot Act “as it applies to U.S. citizens in this country and to legal permanent residents. I do not favor, though this may not comport with all federal court decisions, extending constitutional rights to persons from foreign countries or those illegally in the United States.” Of course, the Constitution does not limit rights to U.S. citizens, nor can it. Rights are inalienable gifts from God. Moreover, the Bill of Rights makes no distinctions between citizens and immigrants — legal or illegal. The Sixth Amendment demands that a trial by jury is a right in “all criminal prosecutions.” It allows no exceptions.
Goode is, however, a solid supporter of the Second Amendment (A+ rating from Gun Owners of America). And Goode says he favors repealing provisions of the NDAA that allow the president to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without trial.
Social Issues: On social issues, Goode has a solid conservative record. He is pro-life on abortion and supports traditional marriage. “I’ve always supported the proposition that marriage should be between one man and one woman,” he said in his April 21 acceptance speech for the Constitution Party presidential nomination.
Goode’s social focus is on immigration, making his campaign slogan “citizenship matters” a strong contrast to the establishment candidates Obama and Romney, as well as Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson.
Goode has called for a repeal of that portion of the 14th Amendment that courts have interpreted to mean that children of illegal immigrants born in the United States are entitled to automatic U.S. citizenship. Goode has called for a moratorium on even legal immigration (with few exceptions) until the immigration issue can be solved, a contrast with all the other candidates for president.
There you have a synopsis of the Constitution Party……as provided by The New American…..this one is not my cup of tea but if you need an alternative to the “Big 2″….then maybe a consideration of this party could be in order…..
Are you weary of the Paul Ryan story yet? Good, because there is lots of legs on this story and by the GOP convention we should know everything about the man, to include his opinion on anchovies.
I will do my part for the cause of a Ryan vice presidency…….since the MSM is fixated on Ryan, as they should be, after all Mitt has given them so much fodder that it just has to be the story for the next couple of weeks…….my previous post talked about Ryan the person and now I would like to give my readers information on Ryan the Congressperson……
Rep. Paul Ryan is the most ideologically far-from-center vice presidential nominee since at least 1900, according to one statistical analysis of historical Congressional voting records.
Based on the DW-NOMINATE model, Ryan’s record makes him the most extreme nominee from either party during that stretch, meaning he is not only ranked as more conservative than any past GOP vice presidential nominee, but also as further from center than any Democratic number two over that same stretch.
That ranking system analyzes all the roll call votes cast by members of Congress and computes a weighted average of how conservatives or liberal elected representatives are based on those votes. For example, the system pegs Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Raul Grijalva (D-NM) as the ninth-most liberal member of the House, while Ron Paul (R-TX) ranks as the second-most conservative member (Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) barely beat out Paul for the title of most conservative.)
Ryan, meanwhile, falls well into the conservative end of the spectrum. In fact, the ranking system puts him just four slots closer to center than Tea Party crusader Michele Bachmann (R-MN.)
The system presents its averages on a numerical scale, from -1.0 to 1.0, liberal to conservative, with zero being completely centrist. Ryan earned a 0.562 Ideology Score according to the system, higher than Dick Cheney’s previous record high score for a VP nominee of 0.531. The most extreme Democratic nominee, by contrast, was President Franklin Roosevelt’s VP, John Nance Gardner (-0.482.)
That finding affirms anecdotal evidence about Ryan’s perceived image as a very conservative politician. His budget proposal last year, for example, was so extreme that even Newt Gingrich dismissed it as, “right-wing social engineering,” — though he has since come around now that Ryan is on the party ticket.
Analysis written by Jonathan Terbush
This should help Mitt become more likeable to the conservative base….the problem is he, Ryan, will be the vice president and we know that Mitt does not take well to people upstaging him. Personally, I think Ryan was the perfect choice for the party but a horrible choice for Mitt.
But we shall see, right?
College of Political Knowledge
First of all, I am not here to condemn anyone from being a conservative….I just want to point out a few things that may not be known……in this world of political correctness we tend to be damn right ignorant when it comes to true philosophy……take conservatism for one….
But what is conservatism…….in politics, the desire to maintain, or conserve, the existing order. Conservatives value the wisdom of the past and are generally opposed to widespread reform. Modern political conservatism emerged in the 19th cent. in reaction to the political and social changes associated with the eras of the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. By 1850 the term conservatism, probably first used by Chateaubriand, generally meant the politics of the right.
The original tenets of European conservatism had already been formulated by Edmund Burke , Joseph de Maistre , and others. They emphasized preserving the power of king and aristocracy, maintaining the influence of landholders against the rising industrial bourgeoisie, limiting suffrage, and continuing ties between church and state . The conservative view that social welfare was the responsibility of the privileged inspired passage of much humanitarian legislation, in which English conservatives usually led the way. In the late 19th cent. great conservative statesmen, notably Benjamin Disraeli , exemplified the conservative tendency to resort to moderate reform in order to preserve the foundations of the established order. By the 20th cent. conservatism was being redirected by erstwhile liberal manufacturing and professional groups who had achieved many of their political aims and had become more concerned with preserving them from attack by groups not so favored. Conservatism lost its predominantly agrarian and semifeudal bias, and accepted democratic suffrage, advocated economic laissez-faire , and opposed extension of the welfare state. This form of conservatism, which is best seen in highly industrialized nations, was exemplified by President Reagan in the United States and Prime Minister Thatcher
in Great Britain. It has been flexible and receptive to moderate change, favors the maintenance of order on social issues, and actively supports deregulation and privatization in the economic sphere. Conservatism should be distinguished both from a reactionary desire for the past and the radical right-wing ideology of fascism and National Socialism. (Thanx to the Free Dictionary for the definition)…….
In today’s political world, at least in the good ole US of A, when one calls themselves a conservative they are not completely accurate….they are more something else than a classical conservative….in the US of today we have several types of conservatives………
hard-hat A working-class conservative, so called from the protective metal or plastic helmet worn by construction workers.
A “Hard Hat” is a construction worker, but his helmet symbolizes all those beefy blue-collar workers who have suddenly become the knuckleduster on the strong right arm of President Nixon’s silent majority.
redneck An ultraconservative. This disparaging term usually refers to the poor white farmers of the Southern backwoods who are notorious for their purported intolerance of liberals, intellectuals, Blacks, and hippies. Redneck, originating as an allusion to a farmer’s perennially sunburned neck, is now an epithet for any person who shares similar prejudices.
right-wing Reactionary, conservative; averse to change, die-hard. The term reputedly arose from the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, in which conservatives sat on the right side, or wing, of the chamber. As used today, right-wing, like left-wing, has pejorative connotations of extremism—in this case, of bigotry, prejudice, moneyed interests, anti-humanitarianism, etc. Both terms are used primarily to denigrate and stigmatize one’s opponents; a political conservative would not call himself a right-winger, just as a liberal would not call himself a left-winger; yet each might well label the other with the appropriate epithet.
But what is a classical conservative?
mixed view of human nature
self-interest eventually harmful
society is organic whole
equality is not important
society is hierarchy of layers
elites have right to rule but responsibilities for welfare of others: “noblesse oblige”
stability of society paramount
law & order
customs & traditions are important
responsibilities & civil liberties of citizens, plus privileges for elites
limited electorate
mixed views on economy
Some of the traits of the classical branch are common in today’s political world but it all comes down to interruption…….and the mouthpiece spouting the perceived “truth”….in today’s world those calling themselves conservatives are more like neo-conservs……meaning?
limited government involvement in the economy
very limited range of social welfare programs
increased government protection of morality
emphasis on populism
maintain traditional social values
distrust of trade unionism
Once again let me emphasize that I am NOT condemning or demeaning conservative thought…..My only thing is trying to point out the differences in the beliefs and that NO one ideology is worse or better than another….only that there are different ways of approaching a political problem and that common ground should be found if there is to ever be a continuing of the political success of the country.
(For further explanation please check out next week’s post on neo-liberalism)
While we await the decision in New Hampshire….let us talk a bit about conservatism…….since I believe that this election is a bit of a mandate on the policies and beliefs of the movement……
First, let me apologize to my conservative friends……but the GOP needs to spend a lot of time evaluating their stances….Why? They will lose the 2012 election and have to go back a find a new direction…let us be honest…..your choices of candidates for 2012 are nothing short of a joke….sorry but you know I am spot on here…..you have a flip in Mitt he will NOT get past the election and to have a guy with more money than half the population and then we move on to a historian that is nothing but a revisionist that would not know the truth if it bit him in the ass…..a governor that is a bully that has NO idea how to govern on the national level….and then there is a Libertarian….need I say more?
I appreciate the differences in the two prevailing ideologies but in recent years the GOP has stopped being a real party just a stop by for the extremists in society……there are real conservatives in the party but they either cow tow to the extremists or they go home….there are NO conserv statesmen left (Dems are NO better)……
Maybe the idea of change should begin with the party and the people that are running for office……after the defeat in 2012 there should be a meeting of the RNC and new guidelines…..and a couple that have been put forth by Conor Freidersdorf in the Atlantic……
1) Stop obsessing over inconsequential slights, real or perceived. In the current primary season, a lot of conservatives deemed Jon Huntsman unacceptable, or not worthy of consideration, because he sent out a Tweet gently mocking climate-change and evolution deniers. Whether or not you object to his attempt to curry favor with the media, it is undeniable that he governed Utah for 8 years as a conservative, favors the Paul Ryan budget, and is generally more reliable and more conservative than Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, both of whom have outperformed him.
2) Realize that aggressive rhetoric isn’t a proxy for how successfully a politician can push conservative reforms. Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann can zing liberals as harshly as anyone. Their penchant for doing so on Fox News is a major reason both of them were at one time considered viable 2012 contenders. But neither were ever electable, and even if either improbably won a general election, they’d lack the necessary skills to actually advance a conservative agenda in office. In contrast, Tim Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor, had substantial executive experience and a demonstrated ability to advance conservative reforms by cooperating with and fighting legislators from the other party. Despite his record, he was deemed unreliable — partly because, on a debate stage, he shief away from insulting Mitt Romney in the same way he’d done elsewhere.
3) Understand that movement conservatism operates in a media bubble.That means that the politicians who Republicans think they know all about from Fox News and talk radio haven’t in fact been scrutinized and vetted — something right-leaning media outlets are hesitant to do their homework unless given the cover of a political campaign, when other conservatives are attacking. Were conservative media outlets more willing to acknowledge the flaws of their own outside of campaign season, the set of candidates deemed to be viable standard bearers would change.
4) Accept that governing always means compromise. This is relevant because a successful multi-term governor is always going to appear less pure than a businessman seeking public office for the first time or someone who needs only to win a Congressional seat in a safe district. Like the former governor, the businessman and the congresswoman will compromise to advance their overall agenda if elected to the presidency — the only difference is that we don’t yet know how they will compromise. A failure to realize as much is causing conservatives to feel unduly negative about electable candidates with executive experience, and unduly optimistic about empty vessels whose purity is mostly due to the fact that they haven’t accomplished anything or run anything or been around very long.
5) Recognize the right’s new foreign-policy radicalism. As George W. Bush proved in 2000, running on the need for a humble foreign policy that doesn’t squander American resources abroad can be effective for Republicans, as can critiquing Democratic presidents for abusing their power or expressing wariness about the military-industrial complex. Even though President Obama has embraced much of the post-9/11 Bush-era approach to fighting terrorism, the Republican field is determined to run to his right and to portray him as an appeaser who is uncomfortable asserting American power — a hopeless criticism given that his reply will be that he’s killed Osama bin Laden and much of Al Qaeda’s leadership.
Granted these may not be the sole answer but at least it would show conservatives that the Party is serious about winning elections with quality candidates……without young voters or Hispanics or African-Americans the party will be marginalized and ineffective….and for God’s sake work on a REAL message and stop with the one liners….it makes you look superficial!
College of Political Knowledge
There have reports, articles even books that have said that conservatism is dead. And then there has been a wealth of articles, reports and books that have disputed the claim. Especially, in the last couple of elections, it does seem that there are NO real conservatives left……but to answer the question….NO conservatism is not dead….but it is on life support and the far Right has their hands on the plug.
The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use “social issues” as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy.
The sine qua non of a conservative is someone who rises above his personal self-interest and promotes moral and economic values beneficial to all. Alternatively, a conservative is willing to learn and advocate the insights of economics and the morality of the Bible for the benefit of all, recognizing that the Bible is the most logical book ever written. Specifically, conservatives seek or support:
Does any of this sound familiar? Personally, it is not dead or dying….it is trying to re-define itself and that could lead to a break among the members of the party….but the aristocratic thinking of the conservative will remain.
Steven Haywood has an excellent point……
It might seem that the long-standing conservative project to shrink the New Deal welfare state by starving it of tax revenue, reigning in entitlements, and limiting its reach into the lives of American families and businesses – begun in the Reagan years and continued fitfully through the first and second Bush presidencies – might be ready to recommence. And perhaps, this time, with help from the fervour of the Tea Party, conservatives may even finish the job.
For those willing to probe a bit deeper, however, it should quickly become apparent that we badly need to take stock of our position. Conservatism, despite these impressive electoral victories, is failing on its own terms. Start with the social indicators, which are the most important to conservatives. The US’ fast-growing and largely minority underclass shows limited signs of progress or assimilation to middle-class American life. And the white middle class – the bed-rock of conservatism’s political strength and social vision – is showing signs of social stagnation and economic regress that should be sounding ominous claxons in conservative meeting halls but, so far, have attracted only the attention of Charles Murray. Stagnant income growth and mobility and a shrinking middle class are considered unhealthy by most conservative understandings of social health, cohesion and well-being. While conservatives have plenty of macro ideas for increasing economic growth, they have fewer ideas about how to secure a wider distribution of new wealth.
While conservs may see the need to re-think their positions….none have the cajones to admit it out loud….after all there are elections to be won…….so, NO conservatism is not dead, but it is walking with a limp……
The media cannot make up his mind….is its Trump or Huntsman or Perry or Bachmann….and now it is Cain, well before they started flicking Christie’s wanker, that is…….but what is all this back and forth about?
Feeling a little deja vu over the latest GOP poll, the one that shows Herman Cain surging as Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann sink? You should, explains Steve Kornacki at Salon, because Republicans have once again embraced the “nuisance candidate.” It’s a pattern they’ve been repeating for a while now, with different candidates in the starring role. Bachmann had her moment, and even Donald Trump took a turn. It speaks to the “comically high ratio between fringe candidates and actual viable contenders.” The pattern goes like this, Kornacki writes: “Some sort of triggering event, followed by an encouraging poll or two, ramped up media coverage, even better poll numbers, a surge in fundraising, even more media coverage, and a sudden consensus that the candidate just might have more staying power than we all thought—at which point the moment would end and it would be someone else’s turn.” And Perry could have saved the party from the latest round if he hadn’t bombed so miserably in the debates. Full column here.
Cain is winning straw polls, at least for now and his 999 tax plan is getting a bit of play, well at least from us bloggers….and the media is on his side….that is when they are not trying to convince Chris Christie that the country cannot survive without his unique brand of conservatism…….but with Perry’s campaign in the crapper will he be the mainstream Repub candidate? My thought is no. Thoughts?