posted on December 16, 2000 04:50:59 PM new
Seeing that it will be the official moniker of the next four years. Could someone explain to me what exactly is it supposed to mean? While that's being explained could I get some clarification on what exactly are these conservative values that Republicans seem so intent on shoving down my throat? What are some of these conservative values? What seperates a conservative from a liberal? Why are these values supposed to be so much more loftier than liberal ones? Do these values apply in the same manner as they apply to economics, financial matters, and matters of the Church? Or are they more sinister in nature as I have come to view them? Heck if I got it wrong help me out here.
posted on December 16, 2000 05:21:37 PM new
Borillar - I just some conservatives to tell me what exactly are conservative values. For some strange reason no admitted conservative will tell you what those values are. In another thread I spoke about the "Return to Conservative Values" in America cry of Republicans. So I asked in what time frame did America hold these values. And I pointed out the fact that with the exception of Civil Rights and the Womans Movement. Nothing else in America has changed value wise.
Now I was hoping that some of these conservatives would educate me on the values. Heck they might be something I might want to embrace. But my take on such statements as
"Return to Conservative Values", means a return to at a minimum pre 1967 America, at the worse pre-1955 America. So it would help me if these values were explained and a time reference as to when the country held them would also be nice.
My issues were worked out long before November 7, 2000.
posted on December 16, 2000 06:08:11 PM new
Oh, come on. You know exactly what they're talking about. It has nothing to do with 1955 or 1967 or civil rights. It means an America without Howard Stern, without nudity and cursing in movies, without kids having sex etc. etc. We can pile on a whole bunch of other things, but you get the drift. Norman Rockwellesque picture-perfect. Although I'm not part of that crowd (by far), I am also not paranoid enough to think that when they say they want to eliminate Howard Stern they really mean Jim Crow time. How the two might tie in aside from you throwing out years like "1955", I'm not sure.
edited to change a with to without
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Dec 16, 2000 06:15 PM ]
posted on December 16, 2000 06:10:53 PM new
Of course... a case could be made that in order to make America, which has a Howard Stern and sexual activity, one without those evil and nasty things, civil rights would need some dumping on...
posted on December 16, 2000 07:11:15 PM new
Well jamesoblivion thanks for that take on conservativism. Now for clarification that's Civil Liberties that need dumpimg on not Civil Rights. There is a HUGE difference between the two. I knew you meant Civil Liberties and not Rights. However, some of our other posters here at auction watch would have taken the post at actual wording. Coming from you I know better.
But if we back up how far back do we go? And if we continue to go forward how far do we stretch. That's why I can't swing total conservative because of their refusal to place a historical time reference to how far back they intend to go. I refuse to swing total liberal because of my belief in the basic freedoms allowed under the Constitution.
But let's address your take on where the Conservatives want to go back too.
Howard Stern hasn't done a single thing to undermine the Constitution.
Nudity on TV hasn't done a single thing to undermine the Constitution.
Kids have always been having sex. In fact you nor I wouldn't have noticed it if there wasn't blantant disregard of responsibility. Those kids having sex used to get married. Now they just go their seperate ways.
In fact many of the problems that conservatives under your definition want to fix can't be fixed by politics. They are individual acts of individual responsibilty, or lack thereof. People don't have to watch shows that have nudity. Howard Stern has been rejected by listeners in several major markets, Chicago being one of them. Kids having sex since they always have been doing that so conservatives can't fix it.
With that said; I am still stuck that conservative values still relate to something far more reaching than liberal interpretation of certain civil liberties.
posted on December 16, 2000 07:50:53 PM new
I'm sure you don't need it explained to you that conservative values is a term that has no real meaning relative to values.
You've all but said it. No one can answer you because there is no answer.
With deference to Daniel Boorstin, substance means nothing in politics. To a great extent, it means nothing in our society. Conservative values is a catchphrase, a buzzword, a spin doctor's inspiration, and nothing more.
posted on December 16, 2000 07:56:06 PM new
Yes, but they (meaning true believers) have something in mind with the term. Something that excludes modern American pop culture in almost its entirety.
Networker, yes, I meant civil liberties, thanks. This type of thing is part of what I believe is meant by "conservative values", not "conservatism". I think it's entirely possible to be a Republican and enjoy a nice raunchy movie. The many Republican politicians who espouse "conservative values" are speaking to a constituency that would like those values to be the predominant American culture.
posted on December 16, 2000 08:15:15 PM new
Consider this. In a culture and legal enviroment that drugs students to produce acceptable behavior now, how long will it be with the advances in biological sciences before it is possible to force compliance with the sexual behavior desired and push the use of such control through in the interest of public safety? How long before surveillance
and lie detection make it impossible to cheat on your taxes or steal company secrets? When it will become impossible to spend illegally obtained money because it will show in your spending that will be tracked and timed to the dime? Technology is going to make control possible that was not dreamed of previously in a very close time frame. People have always been able to lead a double life tp some degree. That could easily end soon. It may take a great deal of effort to have any private life at all if you make enough money to be of interest or are active in anyyhing that the government considers vital to it's well being. All done compassionately of course.
posted on December 16, 2000 08:27:53 PM new
True believer's apply there own subjective interpretation to the phrase. It means what they want it to mean and they assume that all like minded people share their view. This assumption may be based on nothing more than agreement on one issue or a shared disagreement on some other.
To a certain extent, James, I believe you are right. The phrase does serve to lend an identity to those who are offended by the more piquant aspects of popular culture. But even on that point there would not be universal accord. Some embrace the appellation because of their singular views on race, immigration laws, foreign policy, abortion, law enforcement, etc., etc.
The "Silent Majority" was the first of many such political terms that I clearly recall. Who were they? Have we yet to identify them? Do they now enjoy the comedic stylings of Stutterin' John?
I don't believe the "Silent Majority" really existed as a unified entity then and I don't believe in "Compassionate Conservatives" now.
Perhaps someday, in a more enlightened time, a historian will review the events of the late 20th Century and clearly explain the social forces that plotted the course of this nation.
The truth will be painful. Of that only, I am sure.
posted on December 16, 2000 08:59:00 PM new
Okay, I'll give it a shot. I don't understand what "compassionate" conservativism is, but I think if you want to find the type of Federal government conservatives are looking for, you'd have to go back a bit farther than 1954, say around the early 1930's.
FDR made the Federal government much bigger than it had been, and it kept getting bigger.
I guess Hoovervilles are what happens if you don't add on the "compassionate" part, so maybe that alliteration makes it completely different.
posted on December 16, 2000 09:22:18 PM new
Xardon is closer, but it's the 'moral majority' now. I'm already seeing an increase in the number of Christian advertisements on television.
I think that groups which fall under the blanket which is the 'moral majority' believe that they've received in this election the charter to proceed in their mission. If it grows it may have the power to reelect this clown.
However, I think that the moral majority, like the gun rights groups, are in danger of extreme disappointment if they should be perceived as politically expensive to bush. Neither group bought his way in. The corporations, the mutual fund vendors, did that. He's got to pay them back first and probably never will to their satisfaction. In his attempts to do that, the relatively minor but vocal interests will have to be set aside.
posted on December 17, 2000 04:43:58 AM new
Despite a superficial resemblance to the previously mentioned terms, I think the "Moral Majority" is an entirely different animal. There seems to be, among those who espouse that affiliation, a somewhat more clear unity of ideals and purpose. I believe they are, as a group, more like the "National Socialists" of the 1920's. Given the right circumstances, they could be equally dangerous.
posted on December 17, 2000 08:57:36 AM new
I haven't given this phrase much thought, but hearing it again on Meet the Press this morning made me think about what it means to me.
My conclusion: "Compassionate Conservatism" is an oxymoron.
posted on December 17, 2000 09:14:17 AM new
Since, it looks like this board is mainly comprised of Democrats, conserative, moderate, and liberal. Could someone define liberal? Or moderate Dem, or a conserative Democrat? I think I know what they mean, but I really would like to know what you mean, when you say something like 'I'm a moderate Democrat' or 'I'm a conservative Democrat'.
posted on December 17, 2000 09:33:35 AM new
"I don't believe the "Silent Majority" really existed as a unified entity then and I don't believe in "Compassionate Conservatives" now."
xardon, You are right on target here.
It is my opinion that both of these groups are one & the same. Code words for untapped voters.
I look at it this way. Most American's of voting age never vote. You can give out many reasons as to why they do not. But yet, they hold the key,motivation & survial for All political parties.
The last person to tap this group of Americans, was Harry Truman. They were then known as the forgotten American.
If you take the word conservative, what does it mean? In the political sense, it means more of: 'no more change' however, change, as you know, can be good. Also on the other hand, no change can be good.
Compassionate Conservatism, I would believe the Republicans were trying to say is 'more middle of the road', not a staunch conservative, but given to changing, leaning more to the middle. As the real conservative Republicans, don't really care for Bushs centrist view, which leans a tad to the left, but not all the way.
Then you have conservative Democrats, yes there are those old guys still there in D.C. that lean more right.
posted on December 17, 2000 09:46:55 AM new
HJW...I can't speak for all the Republicans that used to populate the RT, but I've been avoiding the political threads because of the incessant bashing that has now become SOP around here.
posted on December 17, 2000 10:06:32 AM new
njrazd
Thank you for that info. I just discovered this board and, after posting
for the first time, I was falsly accused of lying. So I can understand
the trepidation that posters may have.
This is a tough question and I am very interested in reading
networkers conclusion from his viewpoint.
posted on December 17, 2000 10:41:40 AM new
for "compassionate conservatism" to be a "new" concept, the implication is that previous conservatism was not compassionate. whereas conservatives have advocated fewer government programs for the people- health, education, welfare, etc., does the new "compassionate" approach imply that there is a conservative faction that is moving to the "middle" and advocating more social programs? or does it mean that they will publicly display more compassion for those who suffer from the lack of the very programs they don't want the "sufferers" to have?
posted on December 17, 2000 10:58:19 AM new
I honestly have no idea who Marvin Olasky is beyond the little blurb at the bottom of this article, but this is how he defines "compassionate conservatism":
***does it mean that they will publicly display more compassion for those who suffer from the lack of the very programs they don't want the "sufferers" to have?***
You hit the nail on the head with that question. Generally, they
rely on the church to clean up their mess and offer compassion.
So this is indeed a new approach.
posted on December 17, 2000 12:12:42 PM new
I can honestly say that I don't blame any conservative from making an answer here in this forum, or any other forum where the rest of the posters are both educated and intelligent. No matter how you try to bait them to come out and explain their weird, non-factual political fantasies, most of them have learned not to get embroiled in an online debate.
>>SIGH!<<
Guess we'll have to find another way to pick on them.
posted on December 17, 2000 01:26:44 PM new
Borillar no baiting required. I am Not Pro choice (sorry, very unpopular) I am for ALOT of welfare reform. (I thought it was intended as a hand UP not hand out, though there are always exception to that rule)
I belong to the NRA (another UNpopular)
and don't go along with a lot of the 'gun control' bills that are going on. I do not like being 'politically correct'. I believe there is extremist in everything; enviormentilist, feminist, et al. All these have there places, but some take them to the extreme. Ex: In Northern WA state there is a tribe that hunts whales once every 70 years. The animal rights, save the whale, greenpeace and all those groups were there, trying to prevent this. This Native American tribe do these hunts as a ritual within their tribe. It was very hard for them to be able to, with these groups out there in jet skis circling their boat ..... thats extreme, even when the LAW told these groups to get out of there, they refused and kept trying to prevent them from doing what they had been doing for many more years than most of us have been in this country.
But ok, since any conservative, Republican are just 'weird in their political fantasies' or whatever it was....
Then do you believe that we should try to rid the nation of them? Do you believe their should be one party? Or 2; Democrats and Independants? (but remember with Independants your not sure, you may get some kind of conservative nutcase in there )
