Sam Tanenhaus, an liberal historian, recently wrote a book called "The Death of Conservastism". In it, he tries to prove that the title is true.

Well, not quite yet...






http://www.gallup.com/assets/images/www_gallup_logo.jpg (http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx)

October 26, 2009

Conservatives Maintain Edge as Top Ideological Group

Compared with 2008, more Americans “conservative” in general, and on issues

by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June (http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/Conservatives-Single-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx). Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/kbbslvggvkexv3o8tr8f8q.gif


"Changes among political independents appear to be the main reason the percentage of conservatives has increased nationally over the past year: the 35% of independents describing their views as conservative in 2009 is up from 29% in 2008."
The 2009 data are based on 16 separate Gallup surveys conducted from January through September, encompassing more than 5,000 national adults per quarter. Conservatives have been the dominant ideological group each quarter, with between 39% and 41% of Americans identifying themselves as either "very conservative" or "conservative." Between 35% and 37% of Americans call themselves "moderate," while the percentage calling themselves "very liberal" or "liberal" has consistently registered between 20% and 21% -- making liberals the smallest of the three groups.


http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/zntfjoviausssafhlmpohg.gif


Independents Inch to the Right
Changes among political independents appear to be the main reason the percentage of conservatives has increased nationally over the past year: the 35% of independents describing their views as conservative in 2009 is up from 29% in 2008. By contrast, among Republicans and Democrats, the percentage who are "conservative" has increased by one point each.

As is typical in recent years, Republicans are far more unified in their political outlook than are either independents or Democrats. While 72% of Republicans in 2009 call their views conservative, independents are closely split between the moderate and conservative labels (43% and 35%, respectively). Democrats are about evenly divided between moderates (39%) and liberals (37%).

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/vateecybw0idoofwxsji9a.gif
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/olupcdjnt0o3mrdkauxgug.gif

Americans Also Moving Right on Some Issues

In addition to the increase in conservatism on this general ideology measure, Gallup finds higher percentages of Americans expressing conservative views on several specific issues in 2009 than in 2008.



Perceptions that there is too much government regulation of business and industry jumped from 38% in September 2008 to 45% in September 2009 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/123101/Americans-Likely-Say-Government-Doing-Too-Much.aspx).

The percentage of Americans saying they would like to see labor unions have less influence in the country rose from 32% in August 2008 to a record-high 42% in August 2009 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/122744/Labor-Unions-Sharp-Slide-Public-Support.aspx).

Public support for keeping the laws governing the sale of firearms the same or making them less strict rose from 49% in October 2008 to 55% in October 2009 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/123596/In-U.S.-Record-Low-Support-Stricter-Gun-Laws.aspx), also a record high. (The percentage saying the laws should become more strict -- the traditionally liberal position -- fell from 49% to 44%.)

The percentage of Americans favoring a decrease in immigration rose from 39% in June/July 2008 to 50% in July 2009 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/122057/Americans-Return-Tougher-Immigration-Stance.aspx).

The propensity to want the government to "promote traditional values" -- as opposed to "not favor any particular set of values" -- rose from 48% in 2008 to 53% in 2009 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/123326/Renewed-Desire-Gov-Promote-Traditional-Values.aspx). Current support for promoting traditional values is the highest seen in five years.

The percentage of Americans who consider themselves "pro-life" on abortion rose from 44% in May 2008 to 51% in May 2009, and remained at a slightly elevated 47% in July 2009 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/122033/U.S.-Abortion-Attitudes-Closely-Divided.aspx).

Americans' belief that the global warming problem is "exaggerated" inthe news rose from 35% in March 2008 to 41% in March 2009 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/116590/Increased-Number-Think-Global-Warming-Exaggerated.aspx).

Gallup has not recorded heightened conservatism on all major social and political views held by Americans. For instance, attitudes on the death penalty, gay marriage, the Iraq war, and Afghanistan have stayed about the same since 2008. However, there are no major examples of U.S. public opinion becoming more liberal in the past year. (Gallup's annual trends on healthcare will be updated in November, so those attitudes are not included in this review.)


The conservative shifts discussed here result as much from changes in political independents' views as from changes in Republicans' views. Democrats' views, by contrast, have generally changed only slightly -- either to the conservative or liberal side -- with two exceptions: Gallup finds greater movement in Democrats' views of abortion, which have become more liberal, and their views of labor unions, which have become more conservative.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/cluq-ugsrkkpstq8u6mp0w.gif

Bottom Line
Americans are more likely to consider themselves conservative this year than they were in 2008, resulting in conservatives -- now 40% of the American public -- outnumbering moderates for the first time since 2004. While Gallup first documented this trend in June, the finding has been sustained through the third quarter.

Conservatism is most prevalent among Republicans. However, the overall increase in this ideological stance since 2008 comes largely from political independents, among whom 35% say they are conservatives thus far in 2009 -- compared with 29% last year. Independents have also become more conservative on a number of specific policy issues, including government and union power, the role of government relative to promoting values, gun laws, immigration, global warming, and abortion. Republicans, most of whom considered themselves ideologically conservative in 2008, have also grown more conservative on several of these issues this year, while less change is seen among Democrats.

All of this has potentially important implications at the ballot box, particularly for the 2010 midterm elections. The question is whether increased conservatism, particularly among independents, will translate into heightened support for Republican candidates. Right now, it appears it may. Although Gallup polling continues to show the Democratic Party leading the Republican Party in Americans' party identification, that lead has been narrowing since the beginning of the year and now stands at six points, the smallest since 2005. According to Gallup Managing Editor Jeff Jones (http://www.gallup.com/poll/123362/Independents-Lean-GOP-Party-Gap-Smallest-Since-05.aspx), "the Democratic-Republican gap is narrowing because more independents now say they lean to the Republican Party." That trend aligns with the recent changes in how independents perceive their own ideology and where they stand on some key issues.


Survey Methods
The 2009 political ideology results reported here are based on 16 aggregated Gallup surveys conducted from January to September 2009. For results based on the total sample of 16,321 national adults, aged 18 and older, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage point.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.



Source: Conservatives Maintain Edge as Top Ideological Group (http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/Conservatives-Maintain-Edge-Top-Ideological-Group.aspx?version)

So much for the Death of Conservatism. More Americans identify themselves as Conservatives than before the 2008 election. They have now seen liberalism, and they don't like it. They have seen moderation, and they find it ineffective at combating liberalism. They have also seen conservatism, and they increasingly indentify with what it represents.

In that sense Obama is turning out to be the best thing that could have happened to Conservatism in America. He's shown the American people an option that they DON'T like, and they are reacting to it.

You can bet the Republican Party is seeing this trend... and starting to vote accordingly in Congress. And if the Party wants to survive, they'll have to move to the RIGHT to pick up these conservative votes.

The rumors of the demise of Conservatism in America have been greatly exaggerated.

Elliot

And just as you were posting this, I was posting this (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/another-one-under-bus-409012-2.html#post2054981). Let the spin begin...

In that sense Obama is turning out to be the best thing that could have happened to Conservatism in America. He's shown the American people an option that they DON'T like, and they are reacting to it.Gee, didn't we learn this same lesson back in 1976 under President Jimmy Carter? How soon we forget! History really does repeat itself and, as the old saying goes, those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.

What it looks like is you have a polarisation of the electorate. What I would like to know is where are the other 2%

I started to read Tanenhaus until I realized that he was just another lib trying to tell conservatives what conservatism is ,and should be.

Basically this meme states that old conservatism is dead or dying and that new conservatism needs to emulate European models of conservatives who have gladly accepted the nanny state ,and work instead to position themselves to be moderators acting as speed bumps to the advance of the socialist agenda /and ,or more efficient managers of the nanny state.

That would give us a purpose in life beyond the nihilsm they think we offer. He wants the conservatives to embrace what Reagan called pale shades of pastels instead of bold colors. He admired Eisenhower, Ford, and GHW Bush because they “respected the established boundaries of constitutional precedent, even if it meant carrying out actions imposed by hostile congressional majorities and adversarial courts.”

Meaning instead of trying to reverse the march of the progressive agenda ;to respect it as inevidible and don't take any actions to try to reverse it.
In his view conservatives do not offer an alternatives vision but are only out to destroy the progress of the statist.
He assumes that the statist agenda is here for good and we should just shut up and accept it.

Gee, didn't we learn this same lesson back in 1976 under President Jimmy Carter? How soon we forget!


Indeed ! After Nixon and Ford I think people identifying themselves as Republicans were close to single digits.

Meaning instead of trying to reverse the march of the progressive agenda ;to respect it as inevidible and don't take any actions to try to reverse it.
In his view conservatives do not offer an alternatives vision but are only out to destroy the progress of the statist.
He assumes that the statist agenda is here for good and we should just shut up and accept it.[/QUOTE]


What does conservative America believe in other than stopping governments impinging on individual freedoms? This is intended as a serious question.

Conservatism has ups and downs but it will never die. I hope that economic and law and order conservatism will rise but I prefer moderation on social issues.

TUT ;liberty;along with personal responsibility is of course a major aspect of the conservative principle ,and we believe that cannot be obtained through the authority of an expanding centralized government.

In fact the Constitution was not designed to have an all powerful central government (except in the area of national defense ). The roles of the government were limited ,and enumerated and in the division of power ,anything not covered was the sole authority of the "people" (ie the states... ie 'republicanism' ).

We believe that decisions that affect our lives should be decided at the most local level of governance possible.We believe that capitalism is the only economic theory today that is best compatible with individual freedom. Conversly we believe that this creeping Fabian socialist course the US has taken since the 1930s is incompatible with liberty ,because you cannot separate individual freedom and economic freedom. We believe that it is in our best interest to preserve national sovereignty .

So taken with that view ,Tanenhaus' big government conservatism is not conservatism at all because conservatives do not believe in a big central all powerful government . We believe the founders got it right in placing restraints on what the national government can do.

Elliot will recommend a book and so will I... 'Liberty and Tyranny :A Conservative Manifesto' by Mark Levin.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51hXi969pvL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg

There are many new books out about conservatism;some get it right ,and some like Tanenhaus are off the mark. Levin's book is the best I've read that explains our philosophical principles and how they apply to the 21st century.

Elliot will recommend a book and so will I ...'Liberty and Tyranny :A Conservative Manifesto' by Mark Levin.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51hXi969pvL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg

There are many new books out about conservatism;some get it right ,and some like Tanenhaus are off the mark. Levin's book is the best I've read that explains our philosophical principles and how they apply to the 21st century.

I haven't gotten to Levin's book, so tell me: what does 'conservatism' propose to do about Medicare, Social Security, and public education?

Hello Elliot:

I notice your poll cites CONSERVATIVES and NOT REPUBLICANS.. Assuming the accuracy of the poll, why do only 20% of Americans identify themselves as Republicans? http://www.zyz.com/survivalcenter/foodstor.html.

Could it be that most conservatives are of the somewhat centrist brand who Republicans have been throwing under the bus?

excon

Could it be that most conservatives are of the somewhat centrist brand who Republicans have been throwing under the bus?

excon

That sounds like Glenn Beck.

What does conservative America believe in other than stopping governments impinging on individual freedoms? This is intended as a serious question.

First of all, if that were all that Conservatives believed in, wouldn't that be enough?

Second of all, for a detailed explanation of what we believe, I give you this excerpt from Mark Levin's "Liberty & Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto". It is from the final chapter of the book, in which he states what Conservatism believes and what we call on the people to support.


A CONSERVATIVE MANIFESTO
1. TAXATION
Eliminate' the progressive income tax-replace it with a flat incometax or national sales tax-for its purpose is to redistributewealth, not fund the constitutionally legitimate functions of the federal government.

All residents of the country must be required to pay the tax so they have a stake in limiting its abuse.

Eliminate the automatic withholding of taxes, for it conceals the extent to which the federal government is confiscating income from its citizens.

Eliminate the corporate income tax, for it is nothing more than double taxation on shareholders and consumers, and penalizes wealth and job creation.

Eliminate the death tax, for it denies citizens the right to confer the material value they have created during their lives towhomever they wish, including their family.

All federal income tax increases will require a supermajority vote of three-fifths of Congress.

Limit federal spending each year to less than 20 percent of the gross domestic product.

2. ENVIRONMENT
Eliminate the special tax-exempt status granted to environmental groups, since they are not nonpartisan charitable foundations.

Eliminate special statutory authority granting environmental groups standing to bring lawsuits on behalf of the public, since their main purpose is to pursue the Statist's agenda through litigation.

Fight all efforts to use environmental regulations to set governmental industrial policies and diminish the nation's standard of living, such as "cap & trade" to regulate "man-made climate change."

3. JUDGES
Limit the Supreme Court's judicial-review power, which far exceeds the Framers' intent, by establishing a legislative veto over Court decisions-perhaps a two-thirds supermajority vote of both houses of Congress, not dissimilar from the congressional override authority of a presidential veto.

Eliminate lifetime tenure for federal judges, given the extra constitutional power they have amassed and their routine intervention in political and policy decisions-which the Constitution leaves to the representative branches.

No judicial nominee should be confirmed who rejects the jurisprudence of originalism.

4. THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE
Sunset all "independent" federal agencies each year, subject to Congress affirmatively reestablishing them.

Require federal departments and agencies to reimburse individuals and enterprises for the costs associated with the devaluation of their private property from the issuance of regulations that compromise the use of their property.

Eliminate unions for federal government employees, since the purpose of a civil service system is to promote merit and professionalism over patronage, and the purpose of federal unions is to empower themselves and promote statism.

Reduce the civilian federal workforce by 20 percent or more.

5. GOVERNMENT EDUCATION
Eliminate monopoly control of government education by applying the antitrust laws to the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers; the monopoly is destructive of quality education and competition and is unresponsive to the taxpayers who fund it.

Eliminate tenure for government schoolteachers and college/university professors, making them accountable for the quality of instruction they provide students.

Strip the statist agenda from curricula (such as multiculturalism and global warming) and replace it with curricula that reinforce actual education and the preservation of the civil society through its core principles.

Eliminate the federal Department of Education, since education is primarily a state and local function.

6. IMMIGRATION
Eliminate chain migration, which grants control over immigration policy to aliens and foreign governments, and which the Statist defends to expand his electoral and administrative state constituency.

Secure the nation's borders and discourage those who violate them-illegal alien and citizen lawbreaker alike-by enforcing the immigration laws.

End multiculturalism, diversity, and bilingualism in public institutions, which beget poverty, animosity, and ethnic balkanization; promote assimilation and unity of citizenship, allegiance to American culture, and English as the official national language.

7.ENTITLEMENTS
Social Security is going bankrupt. Medicare is going bankrupt. Medicaid is going bankrupt. These programs and others have accumulated more than $50 trillion in IOUs due and payable by subsequent generations. Educate the young people about the intergenerational trap the Statist has laid for them-which will steal their liberty, labor, opportunities, and wealth-and build a future electoral force for whom the elixir of entitlements is understood as poisonous snake oil. These programs were created in politics and will have to be addressed in politics. Only in this way can they be contained, limited, and reformed.

Fight all efforts to nationalize the health-care system. National health care is the mother of all entitlement programs, for through it the Statist controls not only the material wealth of the individual but his physical well-being. Remind the people that politicians and bureaucrats, about whom they are already cynical, will ultimately have the final say over their choice of doctors, hospitals, and treatments-meaning the system will be politicized and bureaucratized. Remind them that this human experiment has been tried and has failed in places like Britain and Canada, where patients have been subjected to arbitrary treatment decisions, long waiting periods for lifesaving surgeries, antiquated medical technologies, the denial of high-cost pharmaceuticals available elsewhere, and the inefficient rationing of health care generally.

And remind them that despite past utopian promises, the Statist rarely delivers.

8. FOREIGN POLICY AND SECURITY
Ensure that all foreign policy decisions are made for the purpose of preserving and improving American society.

Reject all treaties, entanglements, institutions, and enterprises that have as their purpose the supplantation of America's best interests, including its physical, cultural, economic, and militarysovereignty, to an amorphous "global" interest.

Ensure that America remains the world's superpower. Ensure that at all times America's military forces are prepared for war to dissuade attacks, encourage peace, and, if necessary, win any war.

9. FAITH
Oppose all efforts to denude the nation of its founding justification- that is, God-given unalienable, natural rights that the government can neither confer on the individual nor deny to him. The Statist seeks the authority to do both, which explains his contempt for, or misuse of, faith. Moreover, faith provides the moral order that ties one generation to the next, and without which the civil society cannot survive.

10. THE CONSTITUTION
Demand that all public servants, elected or appointed, at all times uphold the Constitution and justify their public acts under the Constitution.

Oppose all efforts to "constitutionalize" the statist agenda. Eliminate limits on and rationing of political free speech through unconstitutional "campaign finance" laws, which benefit incumbent politicians, the media, unions, and other Statist related groups. Any American citizen or group of American citizens should be free to contribute to candidates as they wish, as long as the source, amount, and recipient of the contributions are made known.

Defeat all efforts to unconstitutionally regulate the content of political speech on broadcast outlets, such as radio. The Statist now seeks to consolidate the power he has accumulated by silencing noncompliant voices through a variety of schemes that would regulate broadcast content.


President Reagan said, "Freedom is never more than one generationaway from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

We 'Conservatives need to get busy.

You want to know what Conservatives in America believe in? This is a good start. The list is fairly comperhensive. There may some disagreement on specific issues, but this serves as a good starting point for what we generally believe.

Elliot

Hello Elliot:

I notice your poll cites CONSERVATIVES and NOT REPUBLICANS.. Assuming the accuracy of the poll, why do only 20% of Americans identify themselves as Republicans? http://www.zyz.com/survivalcenter/foodstor.html.

Could it be that most conservatives are of the somewhat centrist brand who Republicans have been throwing under the bus?

excon

Actually, it is exactly the opposite.

The Republicans have thrown Conservatives under the bus by being more moderate than most Conservatives are. You can see how, on an issue-by-issue basis, most Americans are to the RIGHT of the Republican party. The McCain Middle has lost the support of the Reagan Right majority.

So the bottom line is that if the Republicans want to start winning elections again, they are going to have to go back to their Conservative roots and move back to the right where they belong. Or else they will continue to lose elections until a new crop of conservative leaders take over the party and move the party to the right. It's just a matter of time. Either way, the Republican party will HAVE to move back to the right because that's where most Americans see themselves on the issues.

Elliot

Hello again, Elliot:

Let's look at that, shall we?? According to your poll, 76% of the people are conservative or moderate. According to my poll, only 20% are now Republicans...

Then, according to your argument, 56% of these identifiable conservatives and moderates either dropped out of the Republican party or never were members. They did it because, according to you, the Republicans aren't rightwing enough for them, and these people are just waiting for the Republicans to catch up with them..

Meanwhile, these 56% of conservatives aren't members of any party. Is that what you would you'd have us believe? Dude!

excon

Hello again, Elliot:

Let's look at that, shall we??? According to your poll, 76% of the people are conservative or moderate. According to my poll, only 20% are now Republicans...

Then, according to your argument, 56% of these identifiable conservatives and moderates either dropped out of the Republican party or never were members. They did it because, according to you, the Republicans aren't rightwing enough for them, and these people are just waiting for the Republicans to catch up with them..

Meanwhile, these 56% of conservatives aren't members of any party. Is that what you would you'd have us believe? Dude!

excon

Or, it could mean that the pollsters only gave them ONE OPTION... EITHER Republican OR Conservative... and they identified with the ideology more than they did with the party. Personally, I am a Conservative first, and a Republican only a distant second. I think that most of that 76% see themselves the same way. There's your 56% of Conservatives... they identify as Conservatives first and Republicans only a distant 2nd... because the party that they belong to has moved too far to the left.

Sorry, excon. Your wishes for the demise of the Republicans and Conservatives is undone. Ain't going to happen.

Elliot

I mean, just think about it: If the nation knew today what Obama was all about, would he win a national election for POTUS? No

Conservatism as we understand it - the love of liberty and the constitution - will never die nor be in a minority. The challenge is to keep the intellectuals, politicians and press in line. They are the ones wanting to buy into all the progressive crap. I'm not saying there is no evolution within society: I have no problem with a woman president nor my wife supporting me. But freedom and liberty are written within the breast of every person; and Obama does not represent that. Neither does McCain.

I mean, just think about it: If the nation knew today what Obama was all about, would he win a national election for POTUS? No

Conservatism as we understand it - the love of liberty and the constitution - will never die nor be in a minority. The challenge is to keep the intellectuals, politicians and press in line. They are the ones wanting to buy into all the progressive crap. I'm not saying there is no evolution within society: I have no problem with a woman president nor my wife supporting me. But freedom and liberty are written within the breast of every person; and Obama does not represent that. Neither does McCain.

George, don't forget it was intellectuals that gave you the constitution in the first place e.g.. John Locke.

Elliot, You seemed to have summarized "Liberty and Tyranny" very well. I attempt to get a copy and read it. However, I have the feeling I have read something like this before in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.

George, don't forget it was intellectuals that gave you the constitution in the first place eg. John Locke.



Today's intellectuals don't consider Locke, Washington, Jefferson, the Adamses, Madison, Franklin et al, intellectuals, either; they were racists, bigots, and homophobes.

Hello Elliot:

I notice your poll cites CONSERVATIVES and NOT REPUBLICANS.. Assuming the accuracy of the poll, why do only 20% of Americans identify themselves as Republicans? http://www.zyz.com/survivalcenter/foodstor.html.

Did you miss this part? "Although Gallup polling continues to show the Democratic Party leading the Republican Party in Americans' party identification, that lead has been narrowing since the beginning of the year and now stands at six points, the smallest since 2005."

Sounds to me like Americans are saying both parties suck. But since conservatism is on the rise and the gap in party affiliation is narrowing, it sucks more for Democrats. I think they know that, and has something to do with why they're trying to ram as much of their crap down our throats as quickly as they can - as surreptitiously as they can.

However, I have the feeling I have read something like this before in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.

The philosophical basis has not changed. Levin's book works because it makes the conservative message relevant to today;and he lays waste to some of the false assumptions about what conservatism means... and for that matter exposes the left argument for what it is ;a road to tyranny. .

Elliot, You seemed to have summarized "Liberty and Tyranny" very well. I attempt to get a copy and read it. However, I have the feeling I have read something like this before in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.

Liberty and Tyranny is very much a distillation of Locke, Burke, Jefferson, Smith, Lincoln and all the other great conservative thinkers throughout history. Much of what you see in the book will be repetitive of those great thinkers. Levin admits that he hasn't created anything new with his book, he has simply retated the old thoughts in a new way and applied it to modern issues. The one great advance that the book makes over its predecessors is in its clear contrast between conservatism and statism, a contrast that, to my knowledge, has not been made in such a clear manner before.

It's STILL a terrific book for understanding the genesis of conservatism and how conservative thought can be applied to solve today's issues.

Elliot

Hello T:

If you want to read about conservatism WITHOUT the moral/religious overtones, read Harry Browne's "How To Live Free In An Unfree World". Read Robert Ringer's "Restoring the American Dream", or read any of Ayn Rands stuff.

Read about the conservatism of Barry Goldwater, the Republican nominee for president in '64. His nickname WAS Mr. Conservative. Check out Ron Paul, Republican/Libertarian from Texas.

These sources'll give you a far broader idea about what conservatism is rather than the modern day narrow view presented on these pages.

excon

These sources'll give you a far broader idea about what conservatism is rather than the modern day narrow view presented on these pages.

excon

The modern-day view, huh...

Like citations from Locke, Jefferson, Lincoln, Smith, Franklin, Burke, etc.

Perhaps you ought to read it before rejecting it.

But then again, by your own admission you don't read what WE write before rejecting it, so why should we be surprised that you would reject Levin's book that way?

Elliot

But then again, by your own admission you don't read what WE write before rejecting it, so why should we be surprised that you would reject Levin's book that way?Hello again, Elliot:

What I read was your synopsis of it above. That was enough. It's swill.

excon

Hello again, Elliot:

What I read was your synopsis of it above. That was enough. It's swill.

excon

Actually, it wasn't my synopsis. It is taken verbatum from the final chapter of the book, from Levin's site.

But you don't seem to have any response to any of it. So all you've got is name-calling.

Sux being so badly outclassed, don't it.

Elliot

Or if you want to read where socialist liberal statism leads to I suggest Friedrich von Hayek (recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1974) The Road to Serfdom (1944)

But you don't seem to have any response to any of it. So all you've got is name-calling.Hello again, Elliot:

I believe I mentioned above the moral/religious aspects of his/your conservatism. I believe any one who is capable of reading the kings English will be able to find them in your/his screed. They're glaringly obvious.

I was simply suggesting some conservative resources where those things are ABSENT.

That's what you could call a pre emptive response.

excon

Hello again, Elliot:

I believe I mentioned above the moral/religious aspects of his/your conservatism. I believe any one who is capable of reading the kings English will be able to find them in your/his screed. They're glaringly obvious.

I was simply suggesting some conservative resources where those things are ABSENT.

That's what you could call a pre emptive response.

excon

Conservatism, REAL Conservatism, not the wishy-washy stuff that the moderate Republicans call conservatism, has morality and G-d at its core. At its core, Conservatism is about the G-d-given inalienable rights of man that is spoken of in the Declaration of Independence.

If it doesn't have G-d and morality at it's core, it isn't Conservatism. It MIGHT be libertarianism. It might share some opinions with Conservatism. But it ain't Conservatism.

That would be why you had to choose noted self-proclaimed LIBERTARIANS like Ayn Rand, Robert Ringer, Harry Browne, and RuPaul, instead of finding real Conservatives for people to read. You couldn't find any Conservatives, especially not classical ones, that don't mention G-d and morality. They don't exist.

As for Goldwater, here's my favorite Goldwater quote:

“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ``needed'' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests,'' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”

That quote pretty much matches the Levin citation I posted above.

Game, set and match.

Elliot

You couldn't find any Conservatives, especially not classical ones, that don't mention G-d and morality. They don't exist.

Game, set and match.Hello again, Elliot:

It pains me to keep reminding you of what I said. I mean, it wasn't more than a couple hours ago and you forgot already... Oh well, its my job.

I believe I DID mention the Republican candidate for president in 1964, Barry Goldwater, who was nicknamed MR. CONSERVATIVE. I don't expect that you'll accept him as a REAL conservative, however, simply because he doesn't share your bigotry.

But, no matter what you say, you don't get any more Conservative than Senator Goldwater...

As a matter of fact, much of what you call conservatism today, is really LIBERALISM is disguise. You believe in using the power of government to enforce YOUR social agenda. You don't get more liberal than that. The DEA that your standard right wing Republican thinks is great is a good example, but is as LIBERAL a program as you get.

REAL conservatives, on the other hand, don't believe in imposing their morality on the masses.

excon

Actually, I edited my comments above... I quoted Goldwater for you. And his citation pretty much matches what Levin wrote.

So what Goldwater believed and what Levin writes are EXACTLY THE SAME.

Which would mean that your "real conservative" and Levin believe the same thing. Which means that what Levin wrote is "real conservatism" even by YOUR standards.

Another one bites the dust.

Keep it coming...

Elliot

Hello again, Elliot:

Here are some of my favorite Goldwater quotes:

''I see no harm at all with having gays in the military,'' Goldwater, the 1964 GOP presidential nominee, said on CNN's Larry King Live talk show.

''I think that if you left it up to the American people, the attitude would be, 'What the hell, there's nothing wrong with a gay as long as he doesn't misbehave himself,' '' Goldwater said.

"When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."

In response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell's opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, "Every good Christian should be concerned", Goldwater retorted: "Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the a$$."

excon

[QUOTE=ETWolverine;2058759]Conservatism, REAL Conservatism, not the wishy-washy stuff that the moderate Republicans call conservatism, has morality and G-d at its core. At its core, Conservatism is about the G-d-given inalienable rights of man that is spoken of in the Declaration of Independence.

If it doesn't have G-d and morality at it's core, it isn't Conservatism. It MIGHT be libertarianism. It might share some opinions with Conservatism. But it ain't Conservatism.

That would be why you had to choose noted self-proclaimed LIBERTARIANS like Ayn Rand, Robert Ringer, Harry Browne, and RuPaul, instead of finding real Conservatives for people to read. You couldn't find any Conservatives, especially not classical ones, that don't mention G-d and morality. They don't exist.

What you have said about some classical thinkers is probably correct, as far as Smith is concerned I am sure he would say that the,"invisible economic hand" which operates in the world comes from God. For Smith the, 'invisible had' works to create economic prosperity and there human happiness. This is pretty much Smith concept of morality.

The idea of religion and ethics being necessarily dependent on each other appears to have popped up again. In earlier posts I pointed out they don't have to be mutually inclusive, you can have one without the other.

Any economic theory which includes the rest of the world must have a naturalistic content.
Why? Because when dealing with the rest of the world we need to consider issues of economic morality and not just our God given right to economic freedom. I am not saying our God given right to economic freedom is not important, but it needs to be considered within context.

Adam smith wrote some 300 years ago when in a society which was less complex in terms of economics and politics. Smith was part of a minority who had wealth and privilege. Most people had very few rights afforded to them. The 'invisible hand' may have worked well in the past but this type of teleological approach can create problems when applied to modern society.

Why is Smith's 'invisible hand' teleological? In our experience the 'invisible hand' moves with a purpose towards a goal (economic prosperity). It does so without human interference. If we want to we can interfere with this process e.g.. Government restrictions. No doubt you would say that this is unnatural interference with the process and economics should be left to develop naturally.

This teleological approach leads to 'a means justifies the end' outcome. Why? Because positive interference needs to be implemented in order to redirect economic theory on its correct course.

As Smith would argue economic prosperity is derived from a set of circumstances through the work of, 'the invisible hand'. These circumstances promote freedom and happiness. Therefore, it seems to follow that individuals will pursue economic freedom.

If you actively work towards undoing what ever restrictions are in place in order to achieve the "true" outcome then you are saying that the means justifies the end.

If you actively work towards undoing what ever restrictions are in place in order to achieve the "true" outcome then you are saying that the means justifies the end.

No, what I'm saying is that the restrictions themselves are justified by "the end justifies the means".

Take health care reform as an example. The supposed purpose of health care reform is to fix the injustices of the health care system in America. The means to do so is nationalization of health care in America. The ends, however, as shown in every case of health care nationalization around the world, is decreased wealth through increased taxation, decreased personal liberty in choosing medical coverage and medical procedures, rationing of assets within the medical system, higher costs and lower efficiency. This is UNIVERSAL in government-run health care systems. Additionally, the way it has been proposed here, it would result in small businesses being driven out of business, higher unemployment and negative economic growth. These are the means that are justified by the end of "universal health care".

By contrast, the Conservatives have proposed a number of methods of reforming health care to cover those who are not currently covered WITHOUT government intervention, and by limiting government interference that ALREADY exists. All of these solutions would serve to make health care more affordable, more accessible and more competitive across the board. And taken together, they would result in universal coverage without government interference. They are free market solutions to the problems of health care. They don't have to be forced... they occur naturally as long as nothing interferes with it.

So I disagree with you when you say that the Smith-style, invisible-hand, free-market economics needs to be justified. It simply happens of its own accord, as long as nothing interferes with it. The interference with the natural order is what needs justification, not the natural order itself.

Elliot

Hello again, Elliot:

Here are some of my favorite Goldwater quotes:

''I see no harm at all with having gays in the military,'' Goldwater, the 1964 GOP presidential nominee, said on CNN's Larry King Live talk show.

''I think that if you left it up to the American people, the attitude would be, 'What the hell, there's nothing wrong with a gay as long as he doesn't misbehave himself,' '' Goldwater said.

"When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."

In response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell's opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, "Every good Christian should be concerned", Goldwater retorted: "Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the a$$."

excon

None of these quotes disagrees with anything that Levin says in his book. And Goldwaters other quotes make it clear that he agreed with every single thing that Levin DID say in his book.

Sorry, you are wrong AGAIN. Aren't you getting tired of that?

Elliot

It simply happens of its own accord, as long as nothing interferes with it. The interferance with the natural order is what needs justification, not the natural order itself.Hello again:

The world has shifted, as I find myself in agreement yet again with my right winged friend...

In his insular world, nothing HAS interfered with it either... In theory, he's absolutely right. It used to be that the men who ran corporations ran them so that they offered the BEST product at the BEST price, and did their BEST to drive their competitors out of business...

When that happened, we ALL benefited...

But, of course, it DIDN'T happen. Somewhere along the way, corporations found out that they could make MORE money by lobbying congress to change the rules, than they could by competing in the free market. And, congress did just that.

Clearly, the corporations wouldn't be spending the billions they are on lobbyists if they weren't getting something in return... Nope. They'd be spending it on R&D, or customer service or one of those other old fashioned things they used to do to compete in the marketplace...

When corporations do that, we ALL get screwed. Of course, it's happening. The only who doesn't know about it, is the Wolverine.

So, when "free" market rules are BENT, government has to BEND 'em back.

excon

One thing that is needed is 'reform' of the onerous tax code. Where is Obama, Pelosi, Reid? They resemble the Three Stooges, don't you think?

So, when "free" market rules are BENT, government has to BEND 'em back.

excon

Why not let the PEOPLE bend them back? What is it in our 200+ year history that makes you believe that the cure for government intervention is MORE government intervention?

The REAL solution is to go back to the rules set forth in the Constitution.

If you eliminate the extra-Constitutional powers of the government, there will be nothing for lobbyists to lobby for because government won't have the power to grant them what they are lobbying for, and they will simply DISAPPEAR FROM EXISTENCE.

If you eliminate the extra-Constitutional powers of the government, THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO INTERVENE.

Both of these will bring back the true free-market system. And all it takes is following the Constitution as it was written.

Whereas INCREASING the extra-constitutional powers of government is what created this mess in the first place, and therefore cannot possibly be a solution to the problem.

Excon's solution is more of the same. The definition of "insanity" is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. That makes excon's solution insane.

Elliot

Why not let the PEOPLE bend em back? What is it in our 200+ year history that makes you believe that the cure for government intervention is MORE government intervention?

The REAL solution is to go back to the rules set forth in the Constitution.Hello again, Elliot:

We agree once again... Your solution, however, isn't going to happen in the real world. It's good in theory, but it's never going to happen on the ground. Once the corporations have congress's ear, they're NEVER going to let it go.

But, where I live, in the real world, good tight corporate regulation IS possible. Will it happen? I don't think so. I think corporate American hasn't had it's way with us enough yet.

excon

Hello Elliot,

"So I disagree with you when you say that the Smith-style, invisible-hand, free-market economy needs to be justified. It simply happens of its own accord, as long as nothing interferes with it. The interference with the natural order is what needs justification, not the natural order itself."

I agree with what you are saying here in terms of how the free- market economy should work in theory. However, I have a problem with the theory itself. I am prepared to argue that this classical formulation is a teleological explanation of economic cause and effect. What is the problem with teleological explanations? Nothing, except when they are applied to cause and effect.

Teleological explanations explain "WHY" something has happened but don't deal very well with "HOW" something works. In other words, this type of classical theory explains why economic theory works in terms of psychology. In this case the psychology appears to be, what people naturally desire.

Economic theory needs to be more than just an expression of economic interest or desire. If not then it becomes an emotivist theory of economics. Emotivist theory also does not deal with facts ( the "how" of economic theory). Teleological explanations were still popular 250-300 years ago. There is nothing wrong with teleological explanations, but modern theories tend to incorporate facts, or the "how" as an integral part of theory.

There is also the possibility that such an approach will lead to an insular outlook in terms of politics and economics. Perhaps that is a matter for later discussion.

Hello again:


Clearly, the corporations wouldn't be spending the billions they are on lobbyists if they weren't getting something in return... Nope. They'd be spending it on R&D, or customer service or one of those other old fashioned things they used to do to compete in the marketplace...

When corporations do that, we ALL get screwed. Of course, it's happening. The only who doesn't know about it, is the Wolverine.

So, when "free" market rules are BENT, government has to BEND 'em back.

excon

It is the government that has the power to make and bends the rules. Corporate lobby money is there to influence the governing to bend the rules in their favor. If the governing never bent the rules in the first place, then money to lobby, buy political influence, would be wasted.


G&P

If the governing never bent the rules in the first place, then money to lobby, buy political influence, would be wasted.Hello in:

Seems like we could outlaw lobbying in about two minutes. Lets do it!

excon

Hello in:

Seems like we could outlaw lobbying in about two minutes. Lets do it!

excon

'Lobbying' is an exchange of ideas, like sales. The exchange of money - campaign contributions - is the sticky part.

Seems like we could outlaw lobbying in about two minutes. Lets do it!


Except it would be unconstitutional.

except it would be unconstitutional.Hello again, tom:

I'm all for lobbying with your MOUTH - NOT your pocketbook. We COULD stop the checkwriting.

excon

What you advocate is incumbancy protection. They have tremendous advantages like name recognition, media attention constituency services paid by the taxpayers ,including gvt. Paid for newsletters where the incumbent freely self promotes. Challengers on the other hand need to do a tremendous amt. of advertising and fundraising to come close to levelling the field . Even worse ;without the resources the challenger is dependent on the press and media to compete . That leaves too much power in the hands of the press to decide who our leaders are.

What you advocate is incumbancy protection. Hello tom:

You got me mixed up with some righty. I'm the guy who WANTS term limits.

Look, we could STOP all this crap by a series of several reforms... You can't do one without doing the other..

We COULD finance our campaigns publicly, thereby REMOVING the advantages of the rich. We could LIMIT the terms our congressman can serve. Then maybe they'll represent the people who they're elected to represent instead of making ALL their decisions based on the next election...

If we did that, then YOUR influence on YOUR congressman would carry the same weight as Dow Chemical company... THAT'S the way it SHOULD be.

excon

Congressional term limits would require a constitutional amendment... don't you know that ?

Hello again, Elliot:

We agree once again... Your solution, however, isn't going to happen in the real world. It's good in theory, but it's never going to happen on the ground. Once the corporations have congress's ear, they're NEVER going to let it go.

But, where I live, in the real world, good tight corporate regulation IS possible. Will it happen?? I don't think so. I think corporate American hasn't had it's way with us enough yet.

excon

The only reason that "it won't happen in real life" is because we keep electing people who won't let it happen.

Thus, our goal has to be to elect REAL CONSERVATIVES who will reintroduce the CONSTITUTION as the rule of law, limit the power of government, and thus end lobbying by ending the government's ability to give "gifts" to the lobbyists.

Your response that "this is the way it is, so we should just elect more of the people who made it the way it is" can only result in a self-fulfilling prophesy. The system perpetutates itself because we keep electing people who perpetuate it because people like you are trying so hard to be "realistic" that ignore the possibility of SOLVING THE PROBLEM.

If you put a bit more effort into the solution instead of trying to get us to increase and grow the problem, you might see some results.

Elliot

Hello in:

Seems like we could outlaw lobbying in about two minutes. Lets do it!

excon

And how, exactly, would you do that.

If people have the ability to talk to a member of Congress, they have the ability to lobby. If people have the ability to talk to the family members of a member of Congress, they have the ability to lobby.

Unless you are prepared to lock every member of Congress up in a room for the 4-6 years of his holding of the office he was elected to, you cannot stop lobbying. You can only stop the passing of MONEY for the purpose of lobbying. Lobbying itself will continue. It can't be outlawed. You can't stop people from passing ideas to each other.

The only way to stop it is to eliminate the power of the government to give the lobbyists what they want. That means decreasing the power of government to that which was granted them in the Constitution, and no more.

Elliot

Hello tom:

You got me mixed up with some righty. I'm the guy who WANTS term limits.

That would require an amendment to the Constitution... which would require lobbying efforts to get it done.

And of course it would require that those who have the most to lose vote to limit their own power. What are the chances of that happening.


Look, we could STOP all this crap by a series of several reforms... You can't do one without doing the other..

We COULD finance our campaigns publicly, thereby REMOVING the advantages of the rich.

So you want the government to spend MY tax dollars to support candidates that I don't support. All under the guise of "free speech". Yeah, there's an idea...


We could LIMIT the terms our congressman can serve. Then maybe they'll represent the people who they're elected to represent instead of making ALL their decisions based on the next election...

See above for the problems with that.


If we did that, then YOUR influence on YOUR congressman would carry the same weight as Dow Chemical company... THAT'S the way it SHOULD be.

Excon

Except that we know it won't happen.

On the other hand... we could eliminate the power of government to grant Dow Chemical what they want by limiting the power of government in general just by voting the right people into Congress and making sure that they in turn appoint the right people to the courts.

That gives US all the power and puts the ball back in our court where it belongs.

Elliot