Conservatives?

[oggbashan]

Although you wouldn't know it from some news organizations, the correct grammatical form is "Democratic" Party. Referring to it as the "Democrat" Party is a pejorative form promulgated by many on the Right, including the imbecile currently in the Oval Office.

[eta]: Of course, being an imbecile affords Bush the plausible deniability that he simply doesn't know any better. The fantasy that he does know better, but pretends otherwise simply to get in a dig at the opposition, gives the Right wing both amusement and further proof of the Leader's omniscience.

Thank you for that correction. Democratic it is.

Over here, the Labour Party doesn't now like being called "Socialist", "Reds", "Pinkos" etc.

The Conservative (formerly Conservative and Unionist) doesn't like being called "Tories". "True Blue Tory" is shorthand for someone who wants to reintroduce public birching for delinquent teenagers and hanging, drawing and quartering for burglars.

The Liberal Democrats do not like being shortened to Libs and even less Whigs. Lib-Dem is acceptable.

Og

 

[keeblercrumb]

Problem arises where and as it always does.

There is an objective, rational, and objective definition to 'Conservative', and you folks don't want that; you want a relativistic, flexible, changing definition that fits your life style.

The problem you have in understanding is the method you use, not the issue itself, which is always the case.

Conservatism, as with Classical Liberalism, are almost one and the same, but you cannot have it both ways and expect comprehension.

Unless....unless...you define your terms and adhere to those definitions as absolute and final and finite, not infinitely changing.

Amicus...

This was classic Amicus. Thank you.

The irony, of course, is that McCain is seen as transgressing on certain, very specific, very topical, very fleeting issues.

But again.. thank you.

-KC

 

[trysail]

Spic
Dago
Wop
Kyke
Nigger
Liberal
Polock
Raghead
Conservative
Mick
Limey
Wetback
Kraut
Frog

 

[keeblercrumb]

Spic
Dago
Wop
Kyke
Nigger
Liberal
Polock
Raghead
Conservative
Mick
Limey
Wetback
Kraut
Frog

Is this one of those "Find the word that don't belong" things? I was going to guess "conservative" but that is what they call themselves too...

Hmmmm. I give up. Which word is it?

-KC

 

[keeblercrumb]

Is this one of those "Find the word that don't belong" things? I was going to guess "conservative" but that is what they call themselves too...

Hmmmm. I give up. Which word is it?

-KC

You know what? Forget that last post....... I actually started this post with a sincere question and I promised myself I would not fall into the ugly debate thing that keeps cropping up here. I was trying for a sincere answer without insults and rancor but that may not be possible....

I got lots of definitions for what a "conservative" was but that was not what I was asking for.....

We ALL know what a "real conservative" thinks about certain issues... the whole McCain thing which triggered this question made that excruciatingly clear.... ("Amnesty", "Pro-choice", etc.) But I never found out who or where it is written that these were "Real Conservative" views on issues....

As in the two examples I gave, the "Big Government Bad" "philosophy would seem to suggest that McCain's view was "conservative" and we all know that it is not.

So who or what? I guess it IS Rush Limbaugh....

Cool. That simplifies things.

-KC

 

[trysail]

Cool.

-KC

Cool.

I'm not 100% certain that you got it (very few people do, in fact, "get it"), but...

I do think you're closer than you were when you started.

 

[DesertPirate]

Every political thread on this site turns into a rant that make the Daily Kos look intelligent

 

[oggbashan]

Every political thread on this site turns into a rant that make the Daily Kos look intelligent

It isn't?

Og

 

[rgraham666]

Had to Google The Daily Kos because I'd never heard of it until the usual suspects started citing it.

I looked at it, and wandered away again. Too partisan for my liking.

I wonder why people think I'm influenced by something I'd never heard of recently.

Oh right. Never mind. Everything and everyone that disagrees with them comes from a single source, Satan.

 

[trysail]

Words like these defy definition. They are grab-bag generalizations most suitable for use by manipulators or the lazy.

After someone comes up with infallible definitions for "conservative" and "liberal," I'd be greatly obliged if they would immediately begin work on a universal mathematical definition of "risk."

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Words like these defy definition. They are grab-bag generalizations most suitable for use by manipulators or the lazy.

After someone comes up with infallible definitions for "conservative" and "liberal," I'd be greatly obliged if they would immediately begin work on a universal mathematical definition of "risk."

It doesn't make shit for difference what is "conservative" or what is "liberal" these days. Remember, the Republican Party is "The Party of Lincoln". I'm sure he's rolling over in his grave, as is Andrew Jackson, who founded the Democratic Party.

Liberal and Conservative are terms that get bantered around at election time. The differences between "mainstream" Liberals and Conservatives is ideologically very small. In practice, the differences are almost non-existant.

The problem we have in the US now is the conservatives in power are not "mainstream" - they are far right wing. So far right, in fact, they need passports to get to congress because of the new Bush/Homland Security travel rules.

The conservatives claim to be rugged Constitutionalists, yet they suspend much of the Bill of Rights without thought of the impact on the citizenry. Conservatives believe that making the very richest people in America much richer helps the middle class who gets stuck with the burden of paying to support the fabulously wealthy. Conservatives hate what Eisenhauer called, "Creeping Socialism" and defund OSHA, EPA and most entitlement programs that see to the safety and welfare of the citizens. That bill themselvs as the "forward looking" party, but long for the days of the Robber Barons like Vanderbilt, James Hill and E.H. Harriman, who lead and unfairly profited by the Industrial Revolution, on the backs of the lower and middle class citizen.

There is really only one word that discribes a conservative - FRAUD.

 

[Pure]

i think jenny is right. the far right, represented, say, in Coulter, are not conservative by any reasonable definition.

supposing that LIMITATION of government is a central principle, this leaves out most self said conservatives, who as jenny says, are willing to suspend the BR permanently during a hundred year war on 'terror.'

i define 'far right' as follows. while seemingly 'conservative' in affirming certain 'family values', they embrace AUTHORITY in one or both forms: government power or social pressure (as in the South during the years of lynching, post civil war). all basic rights--e.g. regarding arrest, trial-- are subordinated.

in the US, of course, people do not use accurate labels: hence amicus, alleged 'libertarian,' is a defender of guantanamo, torture, etc. we could perhaps coin the term 'guantanamo libertarian.'

de fact theocrats in the US, while talking 'conservatism,' envisage a number of goverment measures to enforce their values: e.g. law prosecuting abortion providers, laws against 'sodomy,' laws protecting those who fire homosexuals, laws against porn, laws affirming the Christian nature of the US government.

the far left,too, is not without authoritarians, as represented in the phrase 'dictatorship of the proletariat.' Lenin comes to mind.

'what's the diff,' you may say. well the far right usually defend propertied and corporate interests in so far as they 'fall in' with state policy. the far left authoritarians make inroads into the property structure of the place, and suspend basic rights.

 

[rgraham666]

Past a certain point, the differences are only aesthetic. The practical matter is that under any sort of authoritarian structure most people are well and truly fucked.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I think the extremes are anarchy and totalitarianism. License to do as you please or total control of your life.

Liberals and conservatives hold the middle ground. So the so-called Far Right is more like the Far Left or Totalitarians. It really doesnt matter if its Marx or Jesus pointing a pistol at your head.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Cool.

I'm not 100% certain that you got it (very few people do, in fact, "get it"), but...

I do think you're closer than you were when you started.

Okay..... Remember back to my original post.....

It should come to no one's surprise that I pretty much agree with Jenny and Pure's opinion of what a conservative is and it portends for us.

But clearly that is not something a person who considers himself a “conservative” would agree with... just as I find laughable the odious comparisons of liberals with Stalinism etc... as have been repeatedly offered up by .... well you know who you are.

Having said all that, I was sincerely struck by the degree of consistency in the dogma being bandied about by "real conservatives" and everyone, including Liberals, etc.. seemed to know exactly what the detail issues views were.... for a “real conservative”.

Whatever shared "philosophical" views liberals have, there is no analogous issue "litmus test" for us that I am aware of.... No one has ever told me that I am not a real "Liberal" because I disagree with someone or something on some specific issue..... And I sure as hell would not give a rat’s ass if they did.

Now I am not suggesting that all "Conservatives" agree upon all issues... that is preposterous, of course. Many who consider themselves generally "conservative" clearly have independently derived and held views... There are many here on AH who certainly fit this category.

But they, along with most other people are keenly aware of when their view on any issue strays from the "base"....

And the mere fact that there is a "base" that seems to agree on all these topical and transitory issues (McCain-Feingold, for instance), suggests there is something else at play here and that was what I have been trying to get to....

I was being somewhat tongue in cheek, when I first suggested it was Rush Limbaugh who defined this dogma...

But I think perhaps it is really true... and not so outrageous as it may seem at first glance. The man clearly has a devoted and unwavering fan base who dote on his every word. This whole McCain "almost fiasco" for the Republican Party has only brought this into clearer focus...

I have been substantially out of the country for some 10 years, now, and in all that time I have not even accidentally stumbled upon Rush. And what seemed to me a minor pop phenomenon back then may have clearly taken on near mythic and oracle status among his following who now consider themselves to be the Conservative base.

I think I liked it better when they called themselves "ditto heads" and he was just "a conservative", not The Conservative, but there you go. Poor Ron and Barry must be rolling over in their graves to find their mantle is now being defined by a loud mouth, opinionated, pill popping nut case…..

So that's it.... I will now return you to your normal rant and anti-rant channel.

Have a good day....

-KC

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

it seems there are several kinds:

small government economic conservative--wants 'minimum government' and maximum latitude for entrepreneurs and those seeking a profit without committing fraud; this would imply the lowest level of taxation. SOMETIMES this type also believes in "libertarian" ideas, e.g. that the government should not try to go into moral areas, like prostitution, dope, and porn. SOMETIMES this type also believes in maintaining, in peacetime, a SMALL ARMY only, e.g. to deal with invasion threats.

economic conservative, 20th century variety--believes government should be medium sized and have low taxes, but should be friendly to--e.g. stimulate, aid-- business, and generally defer to it; and government should be run like a busines, e.g balanced budget.

social conservative--two extremes, tolerant and intolerant
--believes in some standard list of 'traditional values,' e.g 'pro family.'
also against 'rights' for homosexuals, rights to abortion, etc. how far they will go with government efforts to promote 'virtue,' e.g impose criminal penalties against immoral behavior, varies; some are tolerant.


military might conservative; wants a mighty defence establishment, as a main area of government spending. large and technologically superior armed forces. sometimes this type of conservative is a vehement 'super patriot.' there are differences as to how often to use this might (in foreign, or overseas areas), see 'neo conservative.'

neo-conservative, e.g. imperial conservative (subvariety of military might conservative) believes US should routinely flex its muscle in the international scene, use its preeminent power--sometimes with men on the ground-- to advance morality and democracy--aka US interests (e.g. obtaining control of oil in Iraq)

paleo conservative seems to be a mix of small gov economic conservative and social conservative.

'wet' or pink conservative ('red tory') is an economic conservative, 20th century type--e.g in Canada or UK--who wants government--for the sake of businesses--to have certain 'social welfare' functions, e.g unemployment insurance, old age benefits.

---

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

conservative 'answer' and challenge to wikipedia, with its liberal leanings:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservatism

Pretty good round-up on the political side. I would add "Christian-Democrat" conservative, like Huckabee and possibly GWB, who have no problem with big government, but who are motivated (and want the government motivated) by an explicitly Christian agenda.

~~~~~~
The above categories are political. They partially overlay philosophical tendencies, but not perfectly so. I distinguish between two rough categories, Burkeian conservative and "reactionary" conservative. As you might imagine there's a normative component to this description - I respect the former, not so much the latter.

wiki, burke article: Burke is often regarded as one of the fathers of modern conservatism, and his thinking has exerted considerable influence over the political philosophy of such classical liberals as Friedrich Hayek and Karl Popper. Burke's 'liberal' conservatism, which claimed to oppose the implementation of governing based on abstract ideas and supported 'organic' reform, can be contrasted with the autocratic conservatism of such Continental figures as Joseph de Maistre.

wiki, conservative article: This classical conservative tradition often insists that conservatism has no ideology, in the sense of a utopian program, with some form of master plan. Burke developed his ideas in reaction to the 'enlightened' idea of a society guided by abstract reason.

Some people, argued Burke, had less reason than others, and thus some people will make worse governments than others if they rely upon reason. To Burke, the proper formulation of government came not from abstractions such as "Reason," but from time-honoured development of the state, piecemeal progress through experience and the continuation of other important societal institutions such as the family and the Church.

"We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason, because we suspect that this stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and ages. Many of our men of speculation, instead of exploding general prejudices, employ their sagacity to discover the latent wisdom which prevails in them. If they find what they seek, and they seldom fail, they think it more wise to continue the prejudice, with the reason involved, than to cast away the coat of prejudice, and to leave nothing but naked reason; because prejudice, with its reason, has a motive to give action to that reason, and an affection which will give it permanence."

Burke argued that tradition is a much sounder foundation than 'metaphysical abstractions.' Tradition draws on the wisdom of many generations and the tests of time, while "reason" may be a mask for the preferences of one man, and at best represents only the untested wisdom of one generation. Any existing value or institution has undergone the correcting influence of past experience and ought to be respected. Also, Burke claims that man is unable to understand the many ways in which inherited behaviours influence their thinking, so trying to judge society objectively is futile.

However, conservatives do not reject change. As Burke wrote, "A state without the means of change is without the means of its conservation." But they insist that further change be organic, rather than revolutionary. An attempt to modify the complex web of human interactions that form human society, for the sake of some doctrine or theory, runs the risk of running afoul of the iron law of unintended consequences. Burke advocates vigilance against the possibility of moral hazards. For conservatives, human society is something rooted and organic; to try to prune and shape it according to the plans of an ideologue is to invite unforeseen disaster.

Colleen Thomas reflected Burkeian conservatism in much of her discourse on these boards, although she never used the label. I lean a bit more libertarian, but have great respect for the Burkeian tradition.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Us Liberals do not have that problem. If there is a Liberal created dogma full of yes/no issues, I am not aware of it . . .

Hah!
Minority preferences
Pro-abortion
Support making the tax code even more steeply progressive
Implicit faith in the efficacy of government "programs" intended to address social problems
Implicit rejection of the reality of "moral hazard" in welfare programs
Deep suspicion of capitalism and private enterprise
Rejection of "American exceptionalism"

The above applies to the modern American liberal wing. It differs in many respects from liberalism as defined a generation ago, embodied by figures such as Hubert Humphrey.

This is just a quick treatment - gotta run.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

That always makes me think of Bill Mauldin.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f224/spitfiregriffin/Mauldin.jpg

 

[Pure]

a note on Burke

conservativism, defined in terms of respect for tradition, is described by Burke, in Rox's quotation/wiki summary

wiki, conservative article: This classical conservative tradition often insists that conservatism has no ideology, in the sense of a utopian program, with some form of master plan. Burke developed his ideas in reaction to the 'enlightened' idea of a society guided by abstract reason.

Some people, argued Burke, had less reason than others, and thus some people will make worse governments than others if they rely upon reason. To Burke, the proper formulation of government came not from abstractions such as "Reason," but from time-honoured development of the state, piecemeal progress through experience and the continuation of other important societal institutions such as the family and the Church.

"We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason, because we suspect that this stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and ages. Many of our men of speculation, instead of exploding general prejudices, employ their sagacity to discover the latent wisdom which prevails in them. If they find what they seek, and they seldom fail, they think it more wise to continue the prejudice, with the reason involved, than to cast away the coat of prejudice, and to leave nothing but naked reason; because prejudice, with its reason, has a motive to give action to that reason, and an affection which will give it permanence."

Burke argued that tradition is a much sounder foundation than 'metaphysical abstractions.' Tradition draws on the wisdom of many generations and the tests of time, while "reason" may be a mask for the preferences of one man, and at best represents only the untested wisdom of one generation. Any existing value or institution has undergone the correcting influence of past experience and ought to be respected. Also, Burke claims that man is unable to understand the many ways in which inherited behaviours influence their thinking, so trying to judge society objectively is futile.

----
It can be seen that this burkean conservative is NOT wedded to minimal government. for instance, in his time, Burke was a monarchist. he is likely against 'pie in the sky' utopian dreams implemented with lots of government intervention, but that's different. he was against the monarch doing stupid things to the US colonists--ie, abusing power. he, like Adam Smith, might have NO problem with 'anti-adulteration' legislation--pure food and drugs as it's known in the states.

the "minimum government" theme is an old anarchistic one, and somewhat found in 'classical liberalism,' e.g. Adam Smith.

some follow it sincerely; others like Rand, are quite inconsistent, ignoring the problems of the power of corporations to set up de facto government, e.g in 'company towns.'

in any case, sincere examples [of belief in minimal gov't] are as rare as hen's teeth. you'd find amicus, for instance, *talking* minimum government while saying, "of course, to defend our nation, some arbitrary arrest and detention is necessary," and he'd likely favor or go along with, a federal 'man/woman' marriage amendment.

secondly, the Burkean conservative has no problem *in principle* with something like government directed old age insurance. many 'social welfare' schemes originated in Germany with the Kaiser.

the closest to a Burkean, these days, would be British conservatives before Thatcher, such as Churchill, who do NOT object in principle to some such government programs. Stephen Harper, current prime minister of Canada, might fit, as well as previous one, Joe Clark.

---
it's unfortunate that the 'wisdom' of Burkean conservatism is lost when the label is picked up by various radical right wingers with exactly the pie-in-the-sky and authoritarian themes condemned by Burke.

reasonable example of burkean conservatism might be wm f. buckley.

 

[trysail]

Do you understand that the United States of America is bankrupt?


Balance Sheet
The United States of America

Assets.....................................Liabilities

..............................................Social Security.....$11,000,000,000,000
..............................................Medicare.............. 66,000,000,000,000
..............................................Treasury Debt.........9,000,000,000,000

.........................................Total Liabilities......$86,000,000,000,000

Source:https://personal.vanguard.com/VGApp...0252006_ALL.jsp
(pasted below)

Against these known liabilities, the government has the ability to tax:

The whole stock market.........................~$17,000,000,000,000
All of the privately owned real estate.........~35,000,000,000,000
(basically, that's the net worth of everybody in the whole country)________________________________________________

November 2, 2006
Interview: Can you count on Social Security?
Olivia S. Mitchell is the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. She is also a professor of Insurance and Risk Management at Wharton and serves as director of the Pension Research Council and Boettner Center for Pensions and Retirement Research.

Professor Mitchell recently spoke with Vanguard.com® about the future of Social Security. The statements and views expressed in this interview are Professor Mitchell's and do not necessarily reflect those of Vanguard.

"We have a few years left to fix Social Security, but if we don't fix it now, the huge claim that will also be made on the economy and on our resources by Medicare will undo the possibilities for Social Security reform."

– Professor Olivia Mitchell

There's a lot of confusion about the state of Social Security. Is the system in trouble?

Professor Mitchell: Social Security is currently taking in more money than it needs to pay Grandma. That surplus is being delivered to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which in exchange gives the Social Security Administration an IOU in the form of special nonnegotiable bonds. There are about $1.9 trillion worth of these government bonds in a file cabinet in West Virginia.

Then what is the crisis facing Social Security?

Professor Mitchell: The time will come, probably within about a dozen years, when there won't be enough revenue from payroll taxes to pay the benefits currently promised.

So in 2018 or so, retirees will get letters telling them, "Sorry. There's no more money to pay you"?

Professor Mitchell: No. When tax revenues going into the Social Security system start to fall short, the Social Security Administration will have the right to go to the Treasury and start cashing in those IOUs.

If Social Security can lay claim to $1.9 trillion, what's the problem?

Professor Mitchell: The problem is that Treasury has already spent those funds. There's no money sitting around waiting to be given back. As a result, when Social Security starts cashing in its IOUs, Treasury is going to have to figure out how to raise the funds. It will have to raise taxes; cut expenditures for things such as education, roads, and warships; or issue new bonds and pass the debt on to future generations. Someone is going to pay.

Suppose, though, that Treasury does find the money to redeem those IOUs it gave the Social Security Administration. Does that put the system back on solid footing?

Professor Mitchell: No, because in about 2040 that Treasury file cabinet in West Virginia will be empty. There will be no more IOUs. At that point benefits will have to be cut by about one-third, or taxes will have to be increased by 50% to 80% to keep the system going.

And there would be no way to avoid that?

Professor Mitchell: One solution would be to change the way benefits are calculated. Under the current formula, benefits are raised every year at the rate at which wages are increasing. That is about 1.0% to 1.5% higher than the cost-of-living indexes.

I served on a recent presidential commission that recommended benefits be tied to cost-of-living increases instead of being tied to wage increases. You would always have the same purchasing power under this formula. At the same time, this simple change would bring the system back into solvency, with money left over to raise benefits for people at the bottom of the economic scale, to give more to elderly widows, and to make the system more equitable for low-wage workers.

What happened?

Professor Mitchell: Congress refused to consider Social Security reform seriously, unfortunately. What concerns me deeply is that postponing the decision is just wasting time. We have a few years left to fix Social Security, but if we don't fix it now, the huge claim that will also be made on the economy and on our resources by Medicare will undo the possibilities for Social Security reform.

How does Medicare fit into the Social Security problem?

Professor Mitchell: The current unfunded liability of Social Security is about $11 trillion. That is the additional money needed to pay current promised benefits. By contrast, Medicare's unfunded liabilities are gargantuan, about $66 trillion.

It is ironic that when Medicare Part D, the drug bill, passed, this boosted Medicare's underfunding problem by about $35 trillion. Yet this was never mentioned when the bill was passed―by either political party.

Many other countries ration health care for the elderly based on age. That is not something we have wanted to do, so far. But if we are unwilling to ration supply, we will have to raise taxes to pay for the rapidly mushrooming health care costs. Yet again, neither political party has confronted this certainty.

So little or nothing is being done to fix Social Security. Medicare will present us with its own huge bill or force us to ration health care. All that sounds pretty bleak.

Professor Mitchell: I agree that there seem to be huge risks and few degrees of freedom. Yet there are some factors under your control.

One of them is to keep working—if possible—until you are age 70 or 75. This boosts eventual retirement income because your assets are saved and invested longer.

Another is to invest in your human capital. Get new training. Educate yourself. If you are 50 years old, realize you might have another 25 years in the workforce. So there is no earthly reason to refuse to learn the newest version of your computer software "because I am going to retire soon." That is not likely to leave you in a good position to get a job in your next life.

You can also invest in your own good health. People who make an effort to stay in good health in their 50s are much better off in their 70s and 80s. Not only will they need less money to take care of their health, but they will also feel better.

Save more. Some people think that it's too late to start when they are in their 50s. Naturally, starting younger is better, but you can make a big difference if you save another few years.

If you are a retiree already, consider unretiring. Go back to work, even part-time if you must.

You can also cut back on consumption. The first reaction is, "That is terrible." But it is a viable and sensible thing to think about. Recent surveys show that after retirement, consumption tends to fall by about 20%. You don't have to pay for parking. You don't have to pay for expensive work clothes and the long commute. You can spend more time cooking gourmet meals rather than going to restaurants.

Other options are also worth mentioning for those who are not intending to return to work. You can buy annuities to avoid the worry of outliving your money. You can buy long-term-care insurance if you are worried about being bankrupted by going into a nursing home. Inflation-linked investments are now available for the retiree concerned about inflation's drag on spending.

At the end of the day, though, you should think broadly about the resources you carry with you into retirement. Financial capital is only one part of the picture. There is also health capital, of course, and intellectual capital. And let's not forget social capital, by which I mean your relationships, your community ties, your networks, your hobbies. Retirement is not just about money.

Thank you, Professor Mitchell.

 

[rgraham666]

It's odd that Burke should be considered a conservative as he was a loud voice for reform and social balance.

As this little quote of his shows.

Freedom is not solitary, unconnected, individual, selfish Liberty. As if every Man was to regulate the whole of the Conduct by his own will. The Liberty I mean is social freedom. It is the state of things in which Liberty is secured by the equality of Restraint… This kind of Liberty is indeed but another name for Justice…but whenever a separation is made between Liberty and Justice, neither is, in my opinion, safe.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ROB

Burke, my guess, didnt spend all his time screaming 'TROLL!!!' at his opponents, and this is the distinction that places him in the conservative camp.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

TRYSAIL

Generally speaking, economies are saved by significant techological innovations that conserve labor yet increase production.

We're at the ass-end of the computer revolution. It's time for some new innovation to appear that propels the economy. Maybe something that makes energy a cheap commodity. Though I think the innovations will involve how we use space for commerce/housing, and inexpensive/effective transportation.

 

[colddiesel]

'Conservative' is merely a label and what it means changes constantly.

Example. 1 This woman was a constant environmentalist from her days as a research chemist in the 1950's
2 As Minister for education she executed the most radical change in policy for 100 years by driving through the move to centrally controlled comprehensive High Schools(Socialist policy of the previous government)

3 She was in favour of choice for women on abortion.(regretably she did not apply it to her own son)

4 Though brought up as a nonconformist christian she rarely attended or took an interest(publically) in religion.

Her name - Margaret Thatcher

Conservative is a label applied to a person usually to distinguish them from more doctinaire thinkers. The so called 'real'conservatives in the US are doctrinaire, radical fundamentalists, or to use a more old fashioned and strictly accurate term they are fascists.

 

[Pure]

i think that's a good point, cold. from a little reading of Burke, he was NOT doctrinaire. he didn't believe you could REASON your way to the solution to a social problem (as the Ayn Rand folks do).

although there are a handful of somewhat 'burkean' conservatives, the usual self labeled "true conservative [US]" holds various doctrines, e.g. that the only sales tax, not the income tax, is valid; that the state should never sanction a marriage what was not man-woman traditional one.