Where Did All the Real Conservatives Go?

[RolandCuthbert]

It is funny. Real conservatives are always rational, always reasonable and logical. Think about real conservatives like George Will. He actually stands for something. He actually understands conservative principles. There is Peggy Noonan and David Brooks. People don't seem to understand about the past of the Conservative movement. Traditional conservatives embraced women and non-"Whites" like Russell Means or Ben Nighthorse Campbell. Also one of my favorites, Tony Brown.

But nowadays, we have these pretend-conservatives who have no idea what the conservative movement was even about. For them it is about a culture war which is a totally divisive issue. These fake folks don't care about classic conservative issues like debt or fiscal responsibility. They don't seem to understand real conservatives don't don nazi regalia, carry the confederate flag, the whine about Kaepernick taking a knee during the national anthem. Because real conservativism hates hypocrisy. I voted for Bush, but I am not going to claim he was a protector of all conservative ideals. But he did understand empowering non-"White" communities to find ways to resolve whatever issues they deem as important to themselves was a winning issue for everyone. I would remind liberal posters about his faith-based initiatives. Real conservatives know the nation has to be united not divided. They always speak to unifying issues and try to point to common ground because it is important.

Real conservatives understand the need to debate using objective facts, finding truth, and using rational thinking.

We are in the era of Trump where the cry has been "America First". But basically his policies reflect the need to put a foreign power first over American people. And fake conservatives are fine with that. Real conservatives stress not only the second amendment, but everything in the bill of rights. All ten are sacred. Real conservatives are not dogmatic. They may be cautious when it comes to change, but they are open to it when it is a reasonable alternative.

Real conservatives know the U.S. has to be engaged with the world. I point you to voices like John McCain and Bob Corker. Real conservatives know that creating 20 trillion dollars in debt is a bad idea. I point you to voices like Rand Paul and Colin Powell. Real Conservatives are fine with non-"White" and/or women empowerment for as long as it does not require additional investment from the government, I name George Will and Tony Brown. Real conservatives understand that we must have a framework for debate with a foundation in respect for each other, the ability to listen and to disagree without malice, I name David Brooks.

But fake conservatives are hypocrites when it comes to these types of issues. They call out the supposed cultural failings of various groups, but let those groups unite to resolve those issues, they scream "reverse racism". Fake conservatives fear empowering women because they fear they could hurt their fake movement. But the reality is women support the Republican party at the same rates they vote Democrat. Fake conservatives have no real concern about the U.S. debt unless it can be used as a political issue. They shun respectful dialogue grounded in logic and facts.

They are fake people, who stick to fake talking points. They cannot think for themselves or form their own opinions. The truth is they believe in an irrational hypocritical ideology. And they need someone clever enough to put together the rationale for their beliefs. Then once they are given those marching orders, they repeat it like they are parrots.

When challenged, they break off debate. Here are GaG they block you because they are unable to defend backwards logic and "alternative facts". They simply wait for the next soundbite to repeat in their next debate, which usually just devolves to name-calling since they have nothing intelligible to say.

They claim "liberals" are snowflakes, yet they are sensitive to the extreme. Your very life's struggle could be offensive to them. If you were raped, their feelings are hurt. If you have experienced racism or prejudice, they feel so much pain because they have been insulted by what you went through. They claim kneeling during the anthem is disrespect for the flag, then they champion the cause of long dead racist theocracy.

Their hypocrisy knows no bounds. Their thinking owes nothing to facts or logic.

And fakers, sorry but no anonymous posts for this take. Too bad, so sad.

[Bombidil]

It started happening back with the "Reagan Revolution" when the evangelical Right reared its ugly, ignorant head. Although, I did not follow or agree with William F Buckley, George Will and the like, I could understand the path of logic. There was some intellect and respect in their ideas. William F Buckley typically had "liberal" guests on Crossfire. He was respectful to his guests. He used his wit and debate skills to to provide discourse. The intellectual end of the conservative movement no longer exists. It's a lot of yelling over people, making unsubstantiated assumptions, outright dishonesty, racism, fundamentalist jive and so forth. I have no respect for the current "conservative" movement. We need "thinking" people in public service, good discourse among the differing groups and enhanced listening skills.

[RolandCuthbert]

Yeah William Buckley was one of a kind. He was just one of those guys who was extremely hard not to like, no matter what your political persuasion. I have always followed George Will. But I cannot bring myself to call these fake folks Conservatives. They can call themselves anything they want. But to me they are everything but. They may be Trump supporters, they may be Breitbarters, but they do not stand on principle. They have no real values.

[Bombidil]

I completely understand

[GayHowellMeme]

They disappeared.

[madhatters4]

i think the real conservatives are out there but they like many real liberals are being muted to an extent by the fringe left and right groups. the fringe left and right groups say such inflammatory things that those subjects and opinions become the talking points.

the reality is there isn't a terribly huge difference between most liberals and conservatives but in today's political landscape you'd think the gulf was a chasm rather than somewhat minor ideological differences

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh, I think there is a real big difference between what passes for conservative thinking today and what passes for being liberal. But in terms of the actual principles, well perhaps not as much. And of course certain things championed by one group may become adopted by the other.

[madhatters4]

was there really a huge difference between obama and mccain? obama and romney? clinton and bush (the older one)?

i don't really think so. i mean there difference in terms of perhaps their beliefs of taxation or government welfare and social programs but the differences are rather marginal and they are far more similar than say Bush (the older or younger) and trump or other far right or far left people

[RolandCuthbert]

Right, but you are talking about someone who was perhaps mostly liberal. . . Obama and someone who did believe in conservative principles Romney. Clinton and Bush, well. . . if you call Clinton a champion of liberalism, that's your call. The older Bush was a decent conservative. His son not so much. But I still voted for W.

[madhatters4]

it's just to point out that there isn't a huge difference in liberal/conservative or democratic/republican beliefs when you are talking about the majority of people.

[Belgie]

"the reality is there isn't a terribly huge difference between most liberals and conservatives"

As a liberal, that's been my experience also. A good friend of mine is in the military, and quite senior in rank. We have had many a frank discussion over beer about how the US acts in the world. We disagree on many things, but I've never known him to deny reality or the facts. If a Republican policy failed, we might disagree as to how and why it failed, but he's never looked me in the eye and maintained it worked when it didn't. To me, that's the key difference. What is it they say down south, where he's from? Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

[RolandCuthbert]

@Belgie That's all I am looking for. I was talking to a Republican in the other thread about the current tax bill.

1. It isn't fair that I have to pay a higher rate on taxes than other large corporations who will benefit from this bill.

2. It isn't deficit neutral unless the middle class pays for it.

3. If it isn't deficit neutral, why is it being considered in the first place. . . unless it is a huge boon to the middle class and small business owners?

[Belgie]

The answer is, of course, it benefits the wealthy. This isn't even in question. Watching Trump lie about how it's the biggest tax cut in history, is just bizarre. Like watching Bizzaro Television.

[madhatters4]

yeah the tax bill is a classic bait and switch. 'hey look middle class you'll get a larger rebate' but the wealthiest will pay less, corporations will pay less, we reduce or eliminate other reductions that benefit the middle class, and we'll add trillions of debt because we've added no new sources of revenue... but we hope you stopped paying attention after we said you'll get a larger rebate'

[RolandCuthbert]

I think the thing is that it adds to the deficit. These new guys don't care about the debt. Everyone knows the specter of the debt looms over everything.

[madhatters4]

seriously. 1.4 trillion added to the debt over 5 years is what i've heard.

[JimRSmith]

I ask the same question in relation to my own country...

[RolandCuthbert]

I don't fully understand the situation in the UK. Please feel free to summarize if it is convenient. I know that the old nationalist spark is back again in Europe. It is surprising to see that it has begun again in Britain. It that a product of the Conservative movement there?

[JimRSmith]

No, it's a product of the liberal elites pushing their pet projects too far down people's throats.

The Conservatives contain plenty of those elites, as do the other main parties.

It has to be understood in the context of rejection of those elites, and their pet project, the EU.

[RolandCuthbert]

I don't understand your view. Are you saying that Brexit is not enough? Britain needs to go farther in isolation and that's real conservatism. . . or?

[JimRSmith]

No, Brexit's enough.

A lot of Conservatives were anti-Brexit, though.

[RolandCuthbert]

So perhaps you can break down the political situation in the UK. I don't understand it.

[JimRSmith]

There are two main parties, Labour and Conservative, represented in Parliament.

Both contain pro and anti EU elements. But the Brexit vote was largely driven by a grassroots party that doesn't have any seats in Parliament.

[RolandCuthbert]

So Brexit wasn't a Conservative or Liberal issue? It was colored that way in the U. S.

[JimRSmith]

No, not at all.

As a big generalisation, cities voted to remain in the EU. Country and poorer areas mainly voted to leave.

[RolandCuthbert]

But what about the divide between regular English folks and Scots/Welsh/Irish, etc?

[JimRSmith]

England and Wales voted to leave, Scotland and NI voted to stay, but turnout was pretty low in Scotland

[RolandCuthbert]

So what about the Conservative movement in the UK has you angry?

[JimRSmith]

Because it's not really proper Conservatism - it's just part of the same establishment spectrum as the Labour Party.

They each have MPs who could easily belong to the other party - they represent a political liberal elite.

[RolandCuthbert]

So the Conservatives in your nation are too "Liberal"?

[JimRSmith]

Some of them, yes.

There's no clear dividing line between them and Labour, on many issues.

[RolandCuthbert]

I guess, it is just too difficult for me to fully understand. In the U. S. the situation is a lot less complicated. For example, a simple issue like debt reduction. Conservatives used to talk about how important it was for economic growth.

But what passes for Conservatism nowadays could care less about deficits. And that started with the last Republican I voted for, George W. Bush.

[JimRSmith]

On that issue, we have the same problem here - both parties believe in a very large state.

[RolandCuthbert]

Ah. . . okay. Maybe things are similar. We just don't have politicians who care about actual principles anymore.

It is all about the "culture" war.

[JimRSmith]

Very much so, yes.

[Belgie]

Real sane conservatives have been edged out of the arena by the neo-cons and crazies. Anyone who was of a sane or moderate persuasion stopped being invited on tv after 9-11, because they weren't advocating for nuking the middle east, or they insisted on pointing out that the PATRIOT act was anti constitutional, or that the department for Homeland Security was very much the anti-thesis of Republican small government idealogy.

You have to be barking mad to get on TV these days. Or to get a book deal.

Anyone who knows me knows I'm very liberal/left, but not neo-liberal. I believe in freedom of speech. I believe in the right to own guns, though I think gun control laws are sensible. I have actual conservative friends and we agree on some points, disagree on others. I maintain that a conservative is someone I can talk to, and a neo-con is someone I can't talk to. And a neo-liberal is an authoritarian loving fuckwit who drags the political left into disrepute.

[RolandCuthbert]

I guess I can get with most of what you say. But when it comes to the Patriot act, consider this. Hillary voted for it. And Obama signed legislation that kept portions of the act in place.

[Belgie]

No need to get so defensive, Hilary and Obama are hardly paragons of perfection in my book. Hillary is a Wall Street whore with an absolute pathological aversion to the truth, and Barack "Drone Strike" Obama was less of a dream for the left than a waking nightmare. Neither one of them would have done anything about PRISM, Echelon IV, Karnivore, or the PATRIOT act. Nightmares, all of them.

[RolandCuthbert]

I am not defensive. Just pointing out that Bush was no where near the monster liberals made him out to be.

[Belgie]

Sorry, it sounded like you were leaping to the Hillary and Obama were also bad, defense.

I've said elsewhere on this site that W Bush was far from a monster. He did more for Africa than any other President since Carter, I think. Possibly more than anyone ever. It doesn't get him much play in America of course, because no one gives a shit. But outside America, it's known. And you can bet in Africa, they know it.

[RolandCuthbert]

Cool. . . I guess we agree on something.

:D

[oddwaffle]

Yeah, it's the same deal with liberals. I am a liberal and I can't seem to find anyone who called themselves liberals and not some sort of extremist, intolerant and crazy about feminism.

Liberals is supposed to be about freedom. The right to choose. The right to speak out regardless of the content. It's about equality. It's about choice. Free trade, privacy, pro-comsumers... etc.

Nowadays, if you are different then they hate you. It's toxic.

Even the conservatives are going into crazy mode. What happened to the guy who used to believe in protecting their economy? The guy who thinks about security for the people and not for some corporation to sell customer data for profit? What happened to the guy who actually spend money to build useful infrastructures?

Nowadays, conservatives bend forward and backwards for corporate interests and extreme racism. Liberals turn into some crazy intolerant tree hugging nazi feminists following the latest internet trend.

[oddwaffle]

I am a liberal so I like the idea of welfare, universal health care and all that support for the poor thing.

What I do have respect for the conservatives is their beliefs in individual prosperity. They believe that if you work hard enough then you will succeed. I think it's crazy but I know countless of people working and saving and they made it. That's the conservative mindset that is supposed to be treasured.

[RolandCuthbert]

I don't know if Conservatives actually believe in individual prosperity. I think the issue was that local jurisdictions should factor more into people's lives than federal oversight. That might be a cultural difference between you and I. Whenever someone talks personal responsibility, I just let it in one ear and out the other. The Conservatives I am talking about understood that strong communities built strong families. And empowering them was more important than trying to build some universal welfare system.

But our politics are too weird to have that conversation intelligently. We talk about race/culture in weird ways. We can't seem to get a handle on a discussion that leads us to a better place.

[oddwaffle]

Back when I was fresh in University. It was a simple split between what they think is best economically. Everything else are mere addition to the core economic and political stance.

Liberalism is all about better welfares, larger role of government in society, more government responsibility (and power to dictate the rules), free trade deals, more government regulations and quality control, high government budgets but lower spending on military and other non-bureaucracy stuff and lower taxes.

Conservative is all about businesses support, less government interference in public, government budget cuts in bureaucracy, less red tapes, more project spending in large infrastructures, higher taxes, and a bunch of other military spending.

You get something of a wave for each generation of liberal or conservative. The liberals lowers debt but slows down economy while the conservatives increases debt but boost economy.

[RolandCuthbert]

I don't know if I would say that either. I do agree that Conservatives abhor federal government interference. On the economic front, that picture is mixed. You see, I don't think Conservatives lack the ability to understand investment in people. But you can't do that in a welfare state.

You must empower people. I think if you look at Conservatives like Russell Means or Tony Brown, they talk about that in great, great detail. They do not want welfare. They want empowering initiatives for different communities that are good for the nation. If you are making investments which turn out to just be giveaways, that is different than investing in education or in re-training. Just giving away healthcare, welfare, or services and not focusing on what can be done to empower people is not good for the economy whether you do it for a corporation or for an individual.

[oddwaffle]

That's one of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives.

Conservatives want local initiatives. Like a local business or community. This requires the reductions in government interference into these initiatives. Sort of like the public helps public work.

The fastest and easiest way to do it is to encourage local businesses. Small to medium sized businesses are the best. A lot of conservative policies are aimed to protect these businesses.

Liberals prefer the idea of tons of government investment into public goods. They prefer the idea that businesses alone will doom themselves and require supervision from the government. From regulating the % of pork in pork sausages to environmental assessment requirements for a new road.

That means they prefer large companies under heavy regulations. Ideally state run corporations for most public goods such as utilities, transportation, healthcare, education and similar sectors.

[RolandCuthbert]

Hey some regulations are fine. Many are not. Many are outdated and do nothing but restrict business. It isn't that I care much about businesses. Big corporations have always found ways around paying taxes or undermining regulations. But those same regulations and taxes hit small communities and small businesses like me. We have to contend with the same thing. Here is where my questions start.

Think about the current tax bill. To get around certain taxes, I created an LLC, and pay myself as an employee. But one of the things floated around in the new plan is eliminating the ability of small business owners to do that.

And as a person who has voted Republican I have to ask. . .

what happened?

This new legislation is entirely owned by the Republican party. Not one Democrat is involved in creating it.

Where did the Conservatives go?

[oddwaffle]

Not too sure about tax since I am not a CPA.

LLC and S-corp as passthrough tax entities. They are useful for freelancers and professionals selling their skills to the public. What people usually do is put all the business expenses into the LLC and take the remaining profits and pay personal income tax on what is left. You can also (for LLC) keep some of the profits for future business while paying a salary to yourself. You will have to pay the income tax on the LLC profits though but you can take the profits out later on.

Now the 'new' tax bill cuts the companies taxes to 25% which is lower than the 39% personal tax rate.

So if you are a a guy making a 1mil profits (after paying everything) a year and you take everything out as a salary then you will pay 390k in taxes. However, if you only take a bit of the money as salary and leave the rest in the LLC then you only pay 250k (plus whatever income tax on your salary).

You can use said money to save for a retirement or a rainy day.

[oddwaffle]

You can even let the LLC pay all the taxes (25%) and take the money out as profits and skipping the personal income tax all together.

To avoid abuses, the new bill force you to split the work in your LLC into what is 'labor' and what is actual business. This is extremely complicated for a lot of people.

Most LLCs and S-corp are either investment companies, real estates, small businesses (s-corp) and professional practitioners (doctor's office). The 1st 2 are ok as they only collect money and do little work. The last 2 is what will hit a lot of people.

They now have to go through hoops to demonstrate which part is labor and which is business.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, I am not a millionaire if that is what you are alluding to. And maybe I did not understand it as my accountant explained it. I thought there was confusion about what could be claimed under the corporate tax rate. Understand I am a technology consultant. I thought there was no flexibility for me as a single member LLC. Depending upon what I do for a business, I could not qualify for that rate.

[oddwaffle]

LLC is very suitable for consultants since they are freelancer-ish. You are practically your own business.

Under the new scheme, you could have claimed a mere 25% tax rate in oppose to the really high 30-ish rate (since you have a bunch of other taxes to pay) if you are making something like 200-300k a year (can't remember the rate which you have to 39% tax).

So now you will. have to tell the tax man which part of your income would be a business income - e. g. generated by tools and business practices (searches, paper sales, products) and which would be labor & expertise. In your case, you're most likely taking the whole thing personal income tax rate.

[RolandCuthbert]

So I was right. I can't get that rate on my entire income.

[oddwaffle]

Also, I am an economist. The numbers I gave isn't the correct number because people talk about marginal tax rate (% of tax you pay for every extra dollar you make) while I just want to calculate average tax rate (total tax you have to pay vs all of your income).

I have to say... the US tax system is getting more and more complicated by the day. Ordinary people need to employ experts to do their taxes.

Compare that to other rich countries where you can probably get away with 2 pages.

[oddwaffle]

You're right. That 25% number is for real estate (Trump) and investment companies (every other rich guys).

You, professionals, are going to pay whatever personal income you are going to get. The whole LLC thing will only be there for when you want to squeeze out some sort of deductions and hope you can get a lower tax rate on a portion of your income.

[RolandCuthbert]

And that is what sucks. That's what I do not get. Small businesses are the engine of this economy.

[oddwaffle]

Hahaha yeah the one getting squeezed in the last 30 years or so are small businesses.

It's because how politics work in America. Large companies lobbies for favorable conditions. They would claim this is business friendly (to Republican) and it is. However the ones with the most benefits would be the big guys. Then they grow into larger size and just use money to beat the small guys - without government interference.

Pick Comcast for example. As a monopoly they can do whatever they want. They can charge you $1000 a month for internet and you can't do anything because you have no alternative. Small businesses can't beat this guy since you need heavy investment. Even large businesses get blocked (Google fiber) with enough "business friendly" regulations.

Even the copyright trolls picks on the small businesses. They send you some letter telling you violated some of their patents and have to pay 5-10k. Not enough to lawyer up but heavy enough to make a small business suffer.

[oddwaffle]

Canada has the same problem but it's a socialist government so it has this ability to force big companies 5o whatever it wants.

Bell (Canada internet company) was getting all monopolistic a couple years back and they got something from the government. It boils down to something like this "Play nice or we will force you to." It was very direct and public too.

They also got the price control forced on to all pharmaceutical companies. It's as anti-business as it can get.

[RolandCuthbert]

But I don't want the government to force anything. I want it to pass policies that will grow the economy. Making it easier for people to open small businesses and become entrepreneurs is what Conservatives used to be about. Cutting taxes for small businesses is an immediate boost to growth.

[oddwaffle]

The thing about it is that as a liberal, I strongly believe the government must take control or the one suffers will be the people with little power.

The US has a monopoly problem. I am an investor so I know it. Large companies are growing at 20% profits for several years. It's practically crazy rate. The only hope for small guys are this: #1 Start up #2 Sell out #3 Bro down #4 Cash out.

Large techs companies are buying up small ones like mad. Drugs companies keep jacking up the prices into hundred times the normal. Patent trolls are suing small businesses using blackmail tactics. Telecoms are charging customers at cutthroat pricing and even forcefully overcharged people and refuse to pay back. Even hospitals are overcharging people into multiple times higher than what it costs.

[oddwaffle]

Sometimes, you want government control.

The housing market in Canada was over heating. Prices was growing crazy since the 2008 crash. People couldn't afford homes while houses are left empty by real estate investors. Personal debt was growing into dangerous levels.

The government slammed the hammer. Forced foreign ownership tax. Empty house tax and a bunch of stuff to force the price down and cool the market.

Sales growth went down -40% over a month. House flippers was dead in the water. Real estate agents starved out of business. Prices dropped rapidly. Some even fell 30% overnight.

It's practically crazy if you do that in the US. The backlash would be unimaginable.

Still the market is rebounding. The price is dropping enough for people to afford the housing or maybe foreigners don't care about the tax that much.

[sketchy]

The smart ones are keeping their heads down, waiting for the Trump disaster to be over, and basically doing exactly what you're doing - trying to distance themselves (and the Republican party) from Trump and his buddies, by claiming that they're not "real" conservatives. It's a case of damage limitation...

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, perhaps. I think this may go to show that people are not really "conservative" or "liberal" in terms of principles or ideals. Maybe they are just meaningless terms we throw around.

[goaded]

Your "real conservatives" invented trickle-down economics, illegally sold weapons to the country's enemies and started wars on false pretences, but I suppose at least they pretended to care about people.

The Republican party nowadays is all about just sticking it to the other guys, which is worse.

[RolandCuthbert]

You speak as though liberals are blameless. I agree there was an element of conservatism that tried to export free market capitalism around the world. But I don't understand how Democrats make the claim their foreign policy would have been radically different given Hillary supported the Iraq War.

[goaded]

I didn't mean it that way, I just didn't want it to sound like this isn't an consequence of things that the Republican party have been doing for decades.
Today's establishment wing of the Democratic party is now the 1980's Republican party, and they're fighting like hell to keep the progressives out.

[RolandCuthbert]

Perhaps. There are some supposedly progressive ideals that I do like. I say that because it is difficult to define that based on our current politics.

But I do like the idea of investing in education and creating more engineers, scientists, technicians, and designers. I feel that is what we need to focus on for economic growth. As for other concerns, I don't really understand a lot of the liberal movements other issues. What do progressives really want?

[goaded]

It's fair enough to be against progressive ideals and have a conversation about it and hold elections where people choose whichever side convinced them of their vision of how things should be.

Today, it's the other way around, where they, particularly Republicans (sorry, but look at the thread about voting for Trump twice, where various people have said they would, just to spite the other side), choose sides first and argue whatever they're told to (like the Republican's Heritage Foundation's healthcare plan from the 1990's, implemented by a Republican Governor, somehow became bad because the Democrats were willing to accept it as the ACA).

I wouldn't like to speak for all progressives, but I'd say they were for more inclusion, so, for example, poor people have access to education, and more freedom to do and think and behave as you will, provided it doesn't harm other people (and having to see people not bow down to your ideas of how things should be doesn't count as harm).

[RolandCuthbert]

But Trump supporters are not conservatives. I think they freely admit to that. They are just angry. Some are angry over the culture war. Some think they are being left behind. Some are just racists looking for a grievance outlet.

There nothing conservative about Trump. Not from a religious angle, not from fiscal angle, not from a foreign policy angle. This is the age of Trumpism.

Now if you wish to criticize Bush or his father before him, okay we can have that conversation. But I will not, cannot defend Trump, his followers, or his policies. I just remember arguing with liberals over George W. and listening to them actually weep because he was elected. Only now do they understand where I was coming from.

media4.s-nbcnews.com/.../...today-inline-large.jpg

[goaded]

Trump supporters are not conservatives, but they are Republicans. If you want conservatives, go to the DNC. (52% of the democratic party want it to move to the left.)

I think your friends were right to weep; do you think Al Gore would have started a war in Iraq?

[RolandCuthbert]

I didn't think the Iraq war was a good idea either. I think it hurt more than it helped. I am not saying W was perfect. He got some things wrong. As for moving to the left, exactly where is that?

[goaded]

Somewhere near where most European country's moderate right parties are?

[RolandCuthbert]

Yeah, these terms right and left.

It is funny how different the meanings are in Europe.

:D

[goaded]

Well, the left are till to the left of the right. :)

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

I am a Liberal and OMG I wish there were more true Conservatives like yourself.

I think there's a certain group of people who frankly aren't too good at being rational or using logic to further their goals. I think this group of people have infiltrated both sides of the contemporary political landscape and made everybody look dumber for having done so.

[MidnightCowboy]

What kind of conservatives, the religious ones? No one wants them; their views are full of hate. Just look at Roy Moore. There is nothing different between him and someone who belongs to ISIS expect for his skin color and his religion.

[RolandCuthbert]

Roy Moore isn't a Conservative. He is the product of Trumpism.

[Bananaman177]

90% of kids these days don't even know what a conservative is, they don't know what a conservative thinks, you ask them to name a conservative principle, they think, "Oh man, like, those are those guys who like hate poor people, and they're like, ray-cist."

And they literally actually believe that because their cultural marxist public school teachers literally actually taught them that shit for 12 years when they were kids.

[Juxtapose]

They're around, just like sane, classical liberals.

The media props up extreme examples on both sides.

[RolandCuthbert]

You may be right about that. George Will used to be on the Sunday morning news show. David Brooks used to be a regular on many talk shows as well as Peggy Noonan. Tony Brown would never get air time with the left or right, because he talked about "Black" empowerment a lot, even though he fully embraced conservative ideals.

I guess these folks don't make the news entertaining enough.

[yulbsari]

I am not a Republican, but I have also wondered what has happened to the intellectual conservatives of the GOP. They are sorely needed.

[HamAndCheese]

I agree to some extent but I think you're engaging in a bit of a No True Scotsman fallacy here. Finally, John McCain makes my blood boil. But whatever.

[RolandCuthbert]

Nah, no I am not. Conservativism is a list of ideas and values that anyone of any ethnic, cultural, religious, etc. group can subscribe to. Conservatives actually have principles. Hey, you can hate John McCain, but you do realize that you know what John McCain stands for. Rand Paul actually said he would have opposed the voting rights act in 1964. He says and does a lot of things I totally disagree with.

But Rand Paul stands for something. He actually has principles and though he may compromise, he is not a hypocrite. I know where Paul stands on taxes. I know where he stands on foreign policy. I know what he thinks of entitlements. And it does not change depending upon the group he is speaking too.

[HamAndCheese]

Right but what are those principles? What principles are inherently Conservative? I think it's unfair to say, "if you don't believe X then you're not a Conservative." For instance, I believe in social welfare, and taking care of our poor and needy, and making sure that the basic needs of all citizens are met. That's an idea that generally is more associated with Liberals. Am I suddenly not a, "real Conservative" because I care for my fellow countryman?

[RolandCuthbert]

Really? What Conservative votes for tax increases? Which Conservatives support increasing the federal debt? Which Conservatives like federal government intervention?

Many non-"Whites" thought Conservatives were racist because the resistance to Federal government intervention during the Civil Rights era or when American Indians fought for the return of property. Yes, many were racist. But many others simply rejected the idea of federal intervention and actually would have made the same decision if things were different.

What kind of Conservative does not like communities empowering themselves independent of government assistance? Does Tony Brown seem like the type who likes his community dependent upon welfare checks?

So if these are not "Conservative" principles, then what are they? And if "Conservativism" isn't about a list of principles and values that anyone can choose to accept. . . then what is it?

worldonline.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/.../brown2_t440.jpg

[HamAndCheese]

Ah, I see what you mean. Okay. Well to better answer your question, people are losing faith in Conservatism because it's failing it its mission. The purpose of Conservatism is, as the name implies, to conserve. The modern Republican Party (Conservatives) have failed miserably at conserving and instead have been fighting a constant retreat giving ground to Democrats/Liberals/Progressives (whatever you want to call them) on all fronts. As a result, many former conservatives now believe that the Republican Party no longer has the stomach to properly conserve, and thus turn to more radical parties for answers.

[HamAndCheese]

I thought you were using Conservative in the broad fashion that most people use it which is to just denote something/someone who's right wing.

[RolandCuthbert]

So in this conversation, you have defined "Conservatism" totally different than any definition I have run into. Have you studied William Buckley? George Will? Non-"White" Conservatives like Russell Means, Tony Brown, even Malcolm X?

I don't recognize the definition "to conserve". I have no idea of what that could mean.

My point is that principles are principles. And people don't abandon them for political convenience. What "ground" are you talking about?

[Maxemeister]

I'm a moderate liberal, I would at least say. I don't know how others see it, but in America right now would you say there are more fake or real conservatives?

[RolandCuthbert]

Good question. I don't think there are less real conservatives. I think there actually are more. They don't want to vote democratic, so they stick with Republicans they trust, stay at home or they vote third-party.

I think the fake conservatives as merely more vocal.

peopledotcom.files.wordpress.com/.../...-435-1.jpg

[Maxemeister]

I think the fake conservatives came about slightly in 2012 but it's obvious the culture became founded with Donald Trump.

Both parties have come farther and farther from what I view as practical decisions and more as just pure polarizing decisions

[RolandCuthbert]

I can't really blame Trump. Or even claim this was the onset. I think for me it started long before that. Born in the culture of our politics was this weird partisanship model. And it has simply grown out of control in the Republican party. Way back when, when the Dems took on the culture wars and were singing these songs of the great American melting pot and public welfare. Conservatives of all colors were talking about empowerment and and a right for everyone to have cultural integrity if they wanted.

But I guess the people I thought who actually stood on principle, actually only took positions they thought would help them gain political goals. They never believed in conservative philosophies. And simply used the posture to gain a political advantage.

Remember, neo-conservatives or whatever they are called believe in a concept called "the end of history".

[Ronin514]

The left went nuts the libertarians got corrupted by feminism and the Republicans have always been hit or miss. Most of the sane one's either ended up as alt-right or alt-lite

[jacquesvol]

Who needs them?

[RolandCuthbert]

I am not saying that I embrace every conservative principle my fine friend. But there is plenty in the traditional conservative movement are good sound governing principles.

[jacquesvol]

I prefer the Truman like conservatives over the Tea party and the Trump self serving bunch

[RolandCuthbert]

And I understand that sentiment perfectly.