There have always been elements of the old conservative movement that I agree with- fiscal restraint, don't spend money you don't have, don't spend money in other countries until we have taken care of our own, a bit of isolationism as well, as little goverment interference in private lives as possible. Conservatives had not been in power since prior to the great depression prior to the 1980 victory of Ronald Reagan. It was then, during my stint in the Army, that I personally left the conservative movment permanently, mostly because I think the conservative movement sold thier soul to religious fundamentalism in order to finally gain power.

There doesn't seem to be any of the original ideals of the conservative movement left fiscal issues wise, and only lip service to the majority of the rest, and the only thing they can come up with when they fail is "Clinton was bad, liberals are bad and they did it"

If someone that formally called themselves Conservative prior to GW DARES question GWs policy, they are immediately labeled "liberal"- and once again, Dayton Rocker exemplifies this issue- his stance is definately anti-liberal in most areas, and his sticking it to GW when he doesn't follow those old conservative ideas get's him labeled "liberal" for not following lock step in the republican party.

So, the modern supporter of the republican party can not be called conservative by the old definitions because IMO:

The republican party has shown worse fiscal restraint than any liberal goverment EVER.

Has become more intrusive than any other party in poeples personal lives than any liberal could have hoped for.

So- my question is:

If you call yourself conservative today, how do you jive that with your current support of this president and his domestic policies?

Do you consider yourself conservative, and if you do, can you say why and what issues are paramount that make a modern conservative?

Is legislating morality part of the very warp and weave of the conservative movement today, paramount over all other issues?

Is fiscal disipline no longer an issue, or is it a WAY back burner issue for conservatives today, unlike the "tax and spend" epitaths that conservatives hurled at liberals in the late 70s?

Perhaps it's not my place to offer any comments, but when did that ever stop me before?

1. N/A

2. N/A

3. Instead of "legislating morality," let me use the less provocative term "social conservatism." I don't know if it's quite "paramount over all other issues." Instead, I would agree that it has become a very important part of modern American conservatism. It was certainly not a big part of the Goldwater movement, for example. It would naive to pretend that modern American social conservatism is not closely linked to the rise of the Religious Right. With the creation of the Moral Majority in 1979, a powerful new phenomenon was seen in American politics. Certainly, the most loyal Republican voters are religious social conservatives, and they are an important part of the GOP's strength:

Link



4. Well, for the powerful coalition of neo-conservatives (or, if you prefer, supporters of a "strong foreign policy") and social conservatives which currently reigns over the executive and legislative branches of the United States, fiscial conservatism is clearly not the most important issue. Certainly, neo-conservative foreign policy requires a lot of money. Social conservatives could also be strongly in favor of fiscial conservatism, of course, but the issues that really matter to them are God, gays, and guns. It seems to me that the people who are most concerned with fiscial conservatism would be drawn more strongly to the Libertarian Party than others.

.

I could not disagree more! I call myself Conservative and I disagree with practically every one of GW's policies and/or actions. And still, no one will call me a "liberal". Being Conservative is more than holding views identical to the administration and I think conservatives understand this.


If you call yourself conservative today, how do you jive that with your current support of this president and his domestic policies?

I don't. Just because someone is "conservative" does not mean that they support all the policies -- lock, stock and barrel. Unfortunately, we live with a two party system. And we are all forced to choose between the two in terms of which one better serves the interests that we hold dearest.


Do you consider yourself conservative, and if you do, can you say why and what issues are paramount that make a modern conservative?

For me, what makes me conservative is that I support traditional values. I am not religious at all. However, I do believe that our traditional values have served us well and any change should be carefully considered in terms of consequences down the road. I also believe fervently in the democratic process and believe that legal changes to social policy must be made through that process and not forced upon the people by the courts.


Is legislating morality part of the very warp and weave of the conservative movement today, paramount over all other issues?

This question makes no sense. All of our laws legislate morality in some way. There are laws that condemn certain conduct by making it illegal. Or, there are laws that exist as incentives to certain conduct as well. All Laws make some kind of judgment call regarding human conduct. You can't single out conservatives on this point at all. You may disagree with what laws they would like to see upheld or enacted, but it all boils down to which particular view of society that you ascribe to.

Conservatives -- do favor traditional values. But that is all it is. It is not legislating morality any more than liberals are happy to do by legislating progressive values. So, the better appellation regarding conservatives would be to say they support, generally, traditional values.


Is fiscal disipline no longer an issue, or is it a WAY back burner issue for conservatives today, unlike the "tax and spend" epitaths that conservatives hurled at liberals in the late 70s?

I think many conservatives still adhere to strict views on fiscal discipline. I know I do. We favor less government rather than more when it comes to a myriad of issues. It just so happens that the War has obscured this goal in the minds of many republicans who favor the foreign policy of GW.

Bravo on the topic! The political landscape has definitely changed on the Republican side, and is in a pretty interesting state of flux on the Democrat side as well. Those of us who have chosen to walk away from both bastions of hypocrisy are enjoying the show, at least until the partisan selfishness begins to negatively effect our lives.

Old definitions of politics no longer seen to apply when dealing with the top two parties. To know where someone really stands you need to listen to them, and then VERIFY that they act in keeping with their words by checking their legislative record (Project Vote Smart) and their "facts" (Annenberg Political Fact Check).


If you call yourself conservative today, how do you jive that with your current support of this president and his domestic policies?

It is because of the current policies and actions of President George W. Bush, and more so the Republicans in Congress that I no longer consider myself a Conservative and no longer support the Republican party. So to answer your question I don't "jive" it at all.

Do you consider yourself conservative, and if you do, can you say why and what issues are paramount that make a modern conservative?

I once considered myself a conservative because I believe strongly in fiscal responsiblity, government reduction and accountability, the least amount of government interference in the lives of individuals and foreign involvement ONLY when there is a clear national interest.

However, the conservative movement has fallen completely silent on all of their issues. Concerned more with maintaining political power, then following political principle the Conservatives of the Republican party have sold their souls simply to keep those in their party in power. This despite the fact that those of their party that are currently in power are governing in a way that runs COMPLETELY contrary to the conservative movement they claim to belong to.

Is legislating morality part of the very warp and weave of the conservative movement today, paramount over all other issues?

The religious right have successfully moved their issues to the front burner. Where once Fiscal conservatives paid lip service to the religious right to continue to secure their donations and votes, now the religious right is doing the same to the fiscal conservatives. Through a well implemented strategy the religious right slowly worked their followers into positions of power and importance within the GOP. As a result, they gained ground over time, securing more support for more of their issues. Now, the party seems to be all but subverted by the RR, to the point that nothing of the original conservative movement seems to exist any longer.

Is fiscal discipline no longer an issue, or is it a WAY back burner issue for conservatives today, unlike the "tax and spend" epitaths that conservatives hurled at liberals in the late 70s?

Fiscal discipline does not exist in the vocabulary of the Republican Party any longer. If Ronald Reagan was still alive and lucid he would have walked away from the party years ago IMHO.

But OS- Reagan was the guy who brought in the religious right, and was the least fiscally disciplined president in history until Bush 2- what are you trying to say? He wasn't in charge? I am not being sarcastic- I really respect conservatives that have walked away or at least been consistant with thier application of thier morals- but Reagan was the one that created this mess for fellas like you!

Not even close. Bush and his cronies are not conservatives, they are neo-cons which is about as far from real conservatism as you can get.



Conservatism demands small government, fiscal responsibility, and allowing individuals to be responsible for themselves. The government has completely failed in all of these, ESPECIALLY since Bush got into office.



Legislating morality is not the job of the government, period. In fact, because personal responsibility is such a strong component of conservatism, it's antiethical to any administration that calls itself conservative.

It is the responsibility of the people to decide for themselves how to live their lives, not for the government to impose it on them.



Reagan was the one who really screwed this up. Instead of 'tax and spend', modern conservatives are using 'borrow and spend', regardless of how much in debt that puts us.

We need to pass a Balanced Budget amendment that forces the government to live within it's means without borrowing money from anyone.

Of course there is a good conservative argument on why "borrow and spending" is better than "taxing and spending". Let me quote the greatest American of the 20th Century.

What Every American Wants
By Milton Friedman



At some point it would be nice to cut the deficit by cutting spending. In the meanwhile, borrowing and spending is better than taxing and spending.

If you call yourself conservative today, how do you jive that with your current support of this president and his domestic policies?

Doesn't apply to me, but I see great cognitive dissonance in conservatives who support the President and his policies, both domestic and foreign. Still, voting for Demos is next to committing a deadly sin, so the support goes on. I do see it erroding in this second term, and I don't see how the errosion can be reversed. It might be stemmed through the skilled use of PR.

Do you consider yourself conservative, and if you do, can you say why and what issues are paramount that make a modern conservative?

I consider myself to be fiscally conservative, but I've never been on the side of those who call themselves conservatives, i.e., pro-business over environment, pro-military action over diplomacy, anti-working class, anti-science, anti-women's rigths and so on. If conservatives kept to fiscal issues and left the social issues alone, that'd be cool. But that doesn't happen.

Is legislating morality part of the very warp and weave of the conservative movement today, paramount over all other issues?

Nope, that's more like sales pitches to get people on board for the greater idea of US economic dominance in the world. Now I can understand how this thinking comes about -- you either dominate economically or fall into second place. This is a tough one for me too, due to the newness of the global economy. I certainly don't want our living standards to creep downward as other world economic forces zoom into first place, but going about it with wars of influence building doesn't seem like the wisest of choices.

Anyway, legislating morality is impossible. It's just sales pitches, and annoying ones at that -- possibly dangerous, as we have our good share of true believers who want to force everyone to their spiritual take.

Is fiscal disipline no longer an issue, or is it a WAY back burner issue for conservatives today, unlike the "tax and spend" epitaths that conservatives hurled at liberals in the late 70s?

Hugo's quote is interesting. Using debt can be a wise fiscal policy if the returns are greater than the expendatures. Businesses use debt all the time, and for a good portion of them, it works out. For others, bankruptcy comes next. This can also work for individuals, where buying work clothes, education, transportation and so forth on credit can lead to greater overall income. But if the income doesn't materialize, or if the gained income evaporates, then the debt can force bankruptcy.

My conservative fiscal side tells me that the US isn't using debt wisely. The Iraq war was supposed to pay for itself, and that got my fiscal conservative red flag up. Since when did war pay for itself? It never has before, and sure enough, the costs of Iraq pile up with no ROI. Another example is the cost of health care. We are sold on the notion that HMOs do health care better than Medicaid, but the numbers don't support that point.

Basically, the current crop of Republicans don't admit to reality and spend money we don't have like irresponsible children with credit cards. Well, no, like irresponsible adults with credit cards. The usual result of this is bankruptcy.

However, and this is a strong point in favor of deficit spending: The nation's overall income keeps on increasing, on average. If the cost of government outstrips the income of government, the price of government can be raised -- just as a retailer can raise prices to cover debt (standard practice). The current government doesn't want to talk about this, but future governments won't have any choice -- unless the income of the nation gains significant ground, and I don't discount this possibility. With the right kind of leadership, big growth is within our grasp.

So maybe a new kind of conservatism will develop, one that annalyzes the nation's economic security in terms of being a retailer in the world competing with other retailers (other nations). Or maybe cooperating in some kind of new model? A little of both? I don't know, but whatever comes of this, it will be different.

It might take liberals to figure it out

If you call yourself conservative today, how do you jive that with your current support of this president and his domestic policies?

Not Applicable.

Do you consider yourself conservative, and if you do, can you say why and what issues are paramount that make a modern conservative?


Not Applicable.

Below, I will explain basically the difference as I see it.

The definition of liberal and conservative is changing every decade. To put it plain and simple a conservative is everything a liberal is not and vice versa.

I see conservatives as persuers of economic freedom from the government (less social programs, more tax cuts...) and social control (abortion, gay marriage, reproductive rights, creationism, patriot act, less reluctance to take away freedom of speech...)

A liberal is the exact opposite, they want economic control (less tax cuts, more social programs, bigger governerment, company regulation...) and less social control (free speech, abortion, gay marriage, patriot act, seperation of church and state)

Hugo- once again, you are not completely wrong, but there is an important component missing- that spending needs to be done in such a manner that the money is ECONOMICALLY beneficial to the country- like leveraged investment- if I invest 10,000 dollars in a 100,000 dollars, my return in on the 100,000 dollars, not on 10,000 dollars- an area that proves your point quite nicely, I have borrowed, spent and got a very nice return, actually increasing my revenue- making your point once again

HOWEVER- if I take that 10,000 dollars, and invest in a nieghbors house with no guarunteed return, except that someday he may really like me in return, I have had no gain, anywhere. If GW borrowed and spent ON AMERICA- I think there would be a very good argument that he is being fiscally conservative, and done what any person with an MBA should know- leveraged investing.

But he didn't do this- he borrowed, and spent on something with absolutely no guaruntee of future revenue- Iraq, and in fact, taking the house analogy farther, angered the homeowner by destroying some of it, barely rebuilding part of it, and forgiving any possible debt the homeowner might have accrued, there could be, possible but doubful, some return on this investment 20 years or more from now, but it is so high risk, no investor would ever touch something like that- NOT fiscally conservative investing.

I find it interesting that no conservative on this board is really defending GW as a conservative- so where are all these conservatives now that voted for him?

SOMEBODY on this board supported this guy in the last election! - and there were a fair number prior to the election that definately supported him LOL

What angers me about both liberals and conservatives, but more conservative, is thier willingness to sell thier soul for a single issue, and stay in lock step with thier party no matter what, and it appears no conservative on this board or elsewhere is willing to punish the republican party. The dems are being defeated because the liberals ARE punishing them for abandoning thier ideals- perhaps it is short term harmful for the party, but someone better get some focus back on thier base!

What also bothers me is there IS an alternative for both ideologies to support thier philosophies, as long as they are willing to compromise on a couple issues. The Libertain party, with some tweaking of it's more quirky platforms, which COULD easily be done with a large influx of mainstream liberals and conservatives- could marginalize both the religious right of the repubs and the socialist far left of the dems.

But the conservatives are just too darn hungry to stay in power for the short term for the long term payoff, and the libs are just too darn self righteous and aggrieved to work with right of center, non religious conservatives. If conservatives quit trying to shove thier so called "traditional values" down folks throat that see that there is no such thing, and libs stopped trying to re-distribute wealth in a socialist manner, there might be some hope from this country yet!

How could a religous right vote and the libertarian party go together?
I thought the libertarian party supported no social control from the government.

How could the socials support the libertarian party?
I thought the libertarian party supported no economic control from the government.

Don't get me wrong but I always though the libertarian party was a milder form of anarchy? I always thought they were against any type of government control at all and only spending tax payer dollars on the most urgent things such as the military.

Thought religious right owns the republican party now, lock, stock and barrell, there is a great many "paleo" conservatives that are not- and OS and Dayton Rocker probably exemplify that to a "T". The libertarian party IS NOT a place for the religious right- and I would abandon it myself if it becomes so.

I know it is a bit off topic, but the libertarian party does have it's problems- and I posted that in the libertarian debate here:
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...?showtopic=9651

But I think if those that were dissatisfied with the extremists in the dem and repub party joined forces, they could temper the wierder edge of the libertarian party quite nicely LOL

That's all well and good in theory, but in practice it doesn't work. You can't reduce the size of the government by reducing taxes if they are allowed to borrow with impunity. The ideal situation, of course, is to have them reduce spending, but we both know that's not about to happen any time soon.

The problem, IMO, is that if they tax the American people, who are they responsible to? The American people, at least in theory. If they borrow money from foreign governments though, who are they responsible to? Foreign governments, especially if they want to keep their lines of credit open for further borrowing. I think it sets a dangerous precident to have the US government financially responsible to other governments as this is certainly going to have some effect on foreign policy.

Friedman's argument is government will spend everything you give them and a bit more. Therefore, giving them more money will simply result in higher government spending and bigger government. Yes, I would prefer a party that will spend responsibly. Sadly, that party is neither the Democrats or Republicans. The Clinton era was an extraordinary lucky combination of divided government and the gift of a peace dividend following the end of the Cold War. Massive government spending is not conservative regardless of how it is financed.

The fact is, despite all the hoolah concerning pork barrel projects government spending can't be cut significantly without cutting defense and entitlement programs. Bush has expanded both. He is no conservative except on social issues.



The theory is that a debt level will be reached that the American voter will be uncomfortable with. At this point pressure will be placed on government to lower the deficit. Small government proponents hope this will be done through spending cuts. I am not arguing that borrowing and spending is conservative. I am arguing big government is unconservative regardless of how it is financed. I agree with Friedman that large deficits do place a limit on government spending.

So- my question is:

If you call yourself conservative today, how do you jive that with your current support of this president and his domestic policies?

N/A

Do you consider yourself conservative, and if you do, can you say why and what issues are paramount that make a modern conservative?

N/A

Is legislating morality part of the very warp and weave of the conservative movement today, paramount over all other issues?

It most definitely is. I believe that Barry Goldwater had some interesting things to say about this himself. The old conservative wing of Robert Taft would've been mystified at the Gary Bauer, Christian Coalition, Moral Majority crowd that has worked its way int othe republican tent the last forty years. I'm not so certain that moral and religious issues aren't placed above economic ones. Abortion, pornography, no fault divorce, and other issues are still legal while this republican administration has undergone credit card reform for major businesses and has expanded tax breaks to those who definitely benefit from the highest tax brackets. I think they just play on the moral and social issues of the day in order to get the votes to push a corporate agenda later on.

[quote=hayleyanne,Jul 3 2005, 07:14 AM]
[quote]

For me, what makes me conservative is that I support traditional values.

[/quote]


Do you care to explain what you mean by "traditional values." Let's get past the vague words and get to some meaning? Usually politically we can expect those to be key words meaning "religious right values." Since you say you are not religious, that's certainly not the case. Please explain. Seriously. This is not bait.

I don't know why the term "traditional values" has to be read to have a religious component at all. It means that I attach great value to traditional marriage and family life. For example, those who support traditional values, do not support redefining marriage. Those who support traditional values, support putting our children first, before the interests and desires of the individuals raising those children. Those who support traditional values believe strongly, that in a household with two parents, one of the parents ought to be home with the children. Work inside the home is just as important (if not more so) than work outside the home. Traditional values means that we teach our children that highschoolers have no business having sex. That they shouldn't be having casual sex. That they ought to get married instead of living with someone. Etc Etc.

While I agree with some of the things people have said, in that the Republican Party as it appears is less of a quality choice but a lesser of two evils for most Conservatives. I believe that the men and women whom best represent most conservatives ideas are neither willing nor able to gain nomination.

However, the idea that abortion, pornography, or streak-free divorces (as I choose to call them) are ever going to by outlawed, regardless of the administration, is absurd. Why play that card? There are far too many Americans that are still proponents of these three grimy aspects of American society.

The funny thing about the Liberal Talking points of the day and their relationship to corporate agendas, as they coin the phrase, is that conservatives do believe that investing in industry pays an economic dividend. You can discuss propensity to spend, etc, but trickle-down economic policy is the back bone of our economy and was during the Clinton administration as well.

Finally, consider how many politicians that you really believe are serving the interests of the constituencies they claim to represent. You're going to be hard-pressed to find many on either side of the aisle. Politicians often get stuck in the trap of serving special interest groups, corporate/union lobbyists (regardless of party affiliation), and minority organizations that often time contradict the good of the whole... in order to get votes. That's why they call it politics.

How is any of that purview of the government hayleyanne? Aside from the marriage thing that sounds like something that you should take up with your spouse and your children.

Do you want to government to roll back women's rights and send them back to the kitchen? I assume you don't because that means you wouldn't be enjoying your own career as a lawyer, you'd never have had that opportunity 50 years ago. If you believe that one parent should stay home and raise the kids then fine, go ahead and get married and run your house that way. The government shouldn't have any role in telling people how to raise their families or earn a living.

Regarding teaching your children about the rights and wrongs of sex - that is your job, not the government's. If your children are running around having sex against your will that is your failure as a parent. The education system has a duty to inform children from an educational and biological standpoint about sex and sexually transmitted diseases. What they shouldn't be doing is saying anything is right or wrong. Of course the bigger problem here is the puritanical attitude most people have about sex so they never have that discussion with their kids and they wonder why they go off and get pregnant

The same goes for living with someone. Once you are an adult you are free to do as you wish, the government shouldn't be in the business of determining who can live with who. If you don't want your kids having live-in boyfriends/girlfriends then it is your job as a parent to instill that value in them.

You may support "traditional values" but I fail to see how any of that is or should be the government's responsibility.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in reality. The national debt is so huge now that most people can't even conceive of numbers that size, but the only way to pay back the debt is to eliminate services and raise taxes, two things that your average taxpayer isn't going to accept. Therefore, they'll watch the debt go up and up, knowing they don't have to be inconvenienced by it.

Seriously, what we need to do is base the salaries of politicians on their fiscal policies. If they don't have a balanced budget, they don't get paid. If they borrow money, they don't get paid. In fact, they need to be FINED for failing to do the jobs that they were put into office to do.

But that'll never happen, will it?

The national debt is peanuts compared to the unfunded medical and pension bill that is due when the baby boomers retire. If you look at interest payments as a percentage of revenue we are not in that bad shape. The debt ain't the problem, big government is the problem. The debt/GDP ratio was much worse after WWII. You don't want to have a balanced budget in the midst of a recession. Keynes was right on that. A balanced budget over the business cycle is a much more rational goal.

Classical economic theory died with the Depression. The proper medicine for economic downturns is deficit spending. Most conservatives adopted this, that is why when I was majoring in Economics the two major economic philosophies taught were Keynesian and neo-classical which came to the reasonable conclusion that you don't cut spending during a recession. This is the effect of a balanced budget amendment.

Well, the reason many of us read it as having a religious element is that those are the same Biblical ideas backed by the religious right. Of course, the Bible also says put people to death for adultry. You also raise a very interesting "trend" I'm seeing of nonreligious people backing the agenda of the religious right.

I'd also agree with the other poster that most of this seems out of the realm of government. I guess my smattering of libertarian leanings are showing...

CJ-- McBob asked what I meant by traditional values-- and I told him. The question in the thread asks what a Conservative is. I responded saying that most conservatives favor traditional values. You're the one trying to turn it into some kind of conservative master plan to force the world to conform to some draconian set of stereotypes. That is not what it is all about with conservatives. We favor traditional values and accordingly support or do no support specific laws based on those values.

Good example of this is how I support traditional values and therefore do not support any law or court case that redefines marriage.

.

There you go again. Trying to paint someone with traditional values as trying to force people into a certain lifestyle. Who said I (or any conservative for that matter) wants to tell people they have to do this? The traditional value that I place on child rearing and one parent in the home is indeed a personal choice. To the extent the government frustrates this purpose-- however --- I will speak out against it, as any conservative would.



You just said it yourself-- the government is in fact in the business of teaching my child about sex. In fact, you say it has the duty to teach them. And as a conservative, if the government is teaching my kid about sex, I want the whole picture conveyed-- not just a piece of it. I want them to tell my child that abstinence is a possibility. And more importantly, that they ought not to be doing it, until they are a whole heck of a lot older.




The government is in the business whether you like it or not, because we have state recognized marriage.

I have done nothing of the sort, I was merely repeating what you said Hayleyanne. You prefer things as they were in the 50s, that's fine. But in the context of this thread the presumption is that you'd like the government to "enforce" these "traditional values". I'm not sure how the government could "frustrate" allowing one parent to stay home with the kids, so I can't really follow your objection here.


The education system teaches kids about sex in a biological sense in the same way you'd learn about other organs in your body such as your heart and lungs. It talks about sexual transmitted diseases in a biological sense in the same way you'd learn about how you catch a cold or the flu. That is the extent of many sex education classes.

What you are really trying to do is get into the business of having the education system tell kids the "right thing to do". Your answer there is abstinence and as we have discussed in other threads preaching that alone is completely naive because it ignores every genetic impulse we have as well as peer pressure. The kids that learn ONLY that practice then find themselves ignorant when they get into a sexual situation. IF we are going to talk about the "right thing to do" regarding sex in the school system then it needs to cover everything - abstinence, condoms, birth control, adoption, consequences of parenthood, etc. That would be the right thing to do.

However, your "traditional values" set would never let that happen because they don't want kids learning about responsible sexual practices because they believe that encourages them.


It most certainly is not hayleyanne. The government has absolutely no position on who I choose to live with nor can they tell me who I can or can't live with. In some states there are laws which declare you to be common law married after a certain period of time, but that's it.

If you don't want your children living with their significant other till marriage then you have to force that upon them, that should not ever be done by the government.

The big problem with having "traditional values" isn't that you have them, it is that the people that espouse these values expect the government to force them on others. That may not be the case for you, but the majority of the people who share these values with you feel that way.

As that relates to this thread, traditionally conservatives have been for less government involvement in our lives. It seems that in recent years that has changed. I suspect that was in part the reason this thread was started.

Back before big nanny government most people practiced traditional values. This is because if you screwed up it was you that paid the price. Society did not subsidize irresponsibility. Have a illegitimate kid? You better take care of it. For the last 70 years government has been attacking traditional values by subsidizing untraditional values..such as single parent families. A neutral approach by government would lead to a return to traditional values without government needing to support traditional values. Traditional values arose because untraditional lifestyles posed a greater burden on the individual. Religion tended to incorporate values that were best for the success of the community.

CJ, I was speaking to any potential future government action that might frustrate this value. In which case, I would not support such action. Such government action might manifest itself in the tax code. An example might be tax incentives to continue working and put your child in daycare or tax penalties if you quit work to raise a child. Currently, this is not the case. In fact, the laws seem to favor and even assume that one parent will be home with the child. Exs. the marriage "penalty" in the tax code assumes a family with one parent home with the child or children; or survivors benefits that are paid to a widow or widower only if he or she has a child and is not working.



My answer is not abstinence alone. It is the complete package-- just as you state. Problem is, we seem to get one version or the other-- both incomplete. We shouldn't shy away from teaching kids that it is wrong to have sex in high school. That doesn't mean we don't teach them about birth control or STDs. But the message that they ought not to be engaging in sex at all at their age, should come through loud and clear.



Some believe this. Some don't.




It doesn't work that way CJ. The government doesn't prohibit people from living with each other-- and it shouldn't. What it does do, is provide a benefits package in the form of marriage, that is meant to entice people to do the right thing.




You are missing the point CJ. The issue is not about the government forcing certain conduct. However, it is about the government providing incentives, one way or the other, that may persuade people to conform to a certain ideal. There is a big difference.

If a conservative is for smaller goverment, but also for "traditional values"-

My first question is which is paramount to a conservative?

If it is smaller goverment- then you support no goverment interference, like criminal penalties for drug use, prostitution, or gambling outside of the usual biz regulations that ensure an honest business climate-

BECAUSE - if you wish to enforce your "traditional values" - using the goverment like a carrot or stick- then you favor BIG goverment- because that is the reality of trying to enforce "traditional values" you espouse.

Alcohol Tobbaco and Firearms
Vice squads
DEA
etc etc-

You can not get away from those very agencies BEING big goverment.


Now- when I was a kid, and someone described themselves as conservative, smaller goverment = smaller goverment- it didn't mean "create huge beauracracies to enforce my set of beliefs"- this is were I see the new breed of conservative and ask the question of how it has changed.

If you are talking of using the goverment to enforce "traditional values" (the ones you describe to, I don't consider them traditional values at all, but a fairy tale utopia for nostalgic fundamental christians) - then you , in reality, can no way set aside that this would cause a HUGE increase in the need for bigger goverment.


Hugo's position is at least consistant- don't promote it through rewarding through tax breaks and support, though don't make it illegal either.

I see a real schizophrenic nature to the entire current crop of conservatives- as with Dayton Rockers quote (nominated as one of the best of the year on AD - "how can you call yourself a conservative and support GW?)

Does the current group of folks that call themselves a conservative favor more the view of hayleyanne or hugo? There seems to be pretty unanimous voting records of conservatives backing the republican party! I mean, someone voted for GW LOL


There is absolutely no way you can seperate big goverment from traditional values if a large part of society doesn't follow, live by or espouse your "traditional values"-

it is all empty talk without some kind of goverment sanction or enforcement, because there isn't enough of the nation volunteering to live under your "traditional values" to make plain social pressure modify behavior- so the only option is goverment pressure.

Excellent point Hugo. I think the traditional values crowd might go for your solution. Take a neutral approach -- and stop subsidizing "untraditional" values. This view limits government but still puts an end to the heavy government involvement.

I would agree from a philosophical viewpoint- but in reality, that old nasty reality, has a way of rearing it's ugly head.

Okay, so we go completly neutral- the classic libertarian position- then we cut all but defense and safety spending, not being insane about zoning and such- so we don't have a brothel operating out of the same building as a primary school-

I love the idea in theory, no goverment intervention outside of investigating criminial behavior that involved fraud, theft, violence etc, and make sure civil contracts are enforced.

That is great for a social liberals viewpoint- no more goverment interference of behavior between consenting adults- same sex marriage, polygamy, drug use, gambling etc.

But it would also have to mean the cutting off of all safety nets for our society.

This means a fair number of childern in the streets begging and starving. No goverment interference whatsoever to financially help others that are poor = this scenario no matter what if there is NO goverment help.

The good side is that we would also stop restricting all trade with the exception of some checks on thier power- such as SEC laws and such preventing insider trading and the like. Just enough regulation to keep the game reasonbly honest.

So which do conservatives prefer? The above scenario, or a nanny state, but instead of a liberal nanny state, it is a conservative nanny state- it seems to me that the latter is in control of what the definition of conservative is today- am I wrong in thinking this way?

First, you do not have to go completely libertarian. I would support public funding for education (though not public education). There are means of private charity that are available. Give a large tax break for charitable contributions to aid the transition back to private charity and we won't have many kids begging on the street. The complete libertarian or status quo position is a fallacy. Our political system produces slow change. That change for the last 70 years has been progressively liberal. Time to reverse that. It won't happen overnight.

The reason the Republican Party is no longer truely conservative is the last true conservative who got the Republican nomination had his rear end handed to him. The American voter has gotten much more liberal since then. That is why the true conservative/ libertarian party only gets three votes out of a thousand. The Republican and Democratic Parties have one main shared agenda: obtain power.

1. I don't call myself a "conservative". I call myself a "progressive". I support Bush because he's not happy with the status quo. He's trying to change our world, both foreign and domestic, for the better. He understands that some of our basic social structures (like social security) need to be reformed. He knows that the status quo with respect to public education is unacceptable. He knows that the head-in-the-sand and/or isolationist foreign policies of the past with respect to the middle east result in disaster. Bush knows that Islamic terror must be stopped NOW before that disease grows into a cancer that kills freedom in our world. I find it ironic that those who used to be called "conservative" are now the progressives pushing for change and those with the traditional "liberal" label, are the reactionaries fighting to preserve the status quo with respect to the failed educational system, relics like affirmative action, and a failed world-view with respect to Islamic terrorists and the states who support them.

2. Can't answer that personally since I'm not a "conservative". But, from what I can see, conservatives are interested in preserving institutions that have been shown to work while the left routinely throws the "baby out with the bath water" in attempting to solve the "problem of the month" that changes like the weather. You know, like "global warming" and the so-called "environmental disaster"; two concepts that are largely "hot air".

3. Legislating morality? As I stated in another thread, ALL laws legislate morality. What the left refer to, however, are almost always related to "sexual" issues. I just don't agree with the premise of your question. All laws are the formalized limits of our society. They DEFINE the morality. I guess you'll have to explain better what you mean here.

4. Fiscal discipline is of course an issue. But our country is at war and during those times, government spending is acceptable. The question is WHAT we spend our money on. Democrats like to pay people not to work and pay them to have more kids out of wedlock. Republicans like to spend money on national defense. Given the fact that we're in a global war against Islamist radical terrorists, I'd say the money is best spent on the latter right now and that its arguably NEVER good to spend it on the former.

Hope this helps you out.

I don't like either in the extreme CR. I certainly don't want to throw out established institutions that favor traditional values. But that doesn't mean I want government taking the place of the individual.

As lordhelmet points out-- conservatives tend to favor the status quo and are very cautious when a political party seeks to radically change that status quo.

Both parties are quick to use the law to further their agendas. As I mentioned before, we can see this most often in the tax code. Conservatives will use it to favor small and large businesses and the liberals use it to achieve wealth redistribution. So I am not sure I can agree with you that conservatives always favor less government. You may be confusing them with classic libertarian views.

Finally, I think Hugo makes a good point (correct me if I am reading your post wrong Hugo). Government has the option to provide indirect incentives to private citizens in order to achieve certain goals instead of taking on the task directly. For example, greater tax incentives to private charities would encourage the private sector to take over and replace direct government welfare programs. I think Conservatives tend to favor this more reduced level of government to further the same kind of goals.

Ahhh, but they already are inconvenienced by it. Paying interest on that debt eats up a huge chunk of the budget. That's money that either wouldn't need to be collected, or that could be spent on other programs. They're also inconvenienced by the risk carrying that debt inherently has....suppose interest rates double? Interest on the debt would then be, by far, the largest line item in the budget...far above military, and roughly equal to all the entitlement programs. Think Joe Taxpayer wouldn't be a mite inconvenienced then? Think interest rates doubling is that far fetched a scenario? As you say, the debt is already so huge as to be inconceivable....interest on such a huge debt adds up in hurry.

I do agree with your solution, though. They should be paid almost nothing if they can't balance the budget...split up a percentage of the surplus if they come under budget. Let's face it...their main job, in Congress, is to balance the budget (manage expenses vs. revenue). If they can't do that....what have they done to deserve getting paid?



Actually, I think the confusion here is between conservative and Republican. Conservatives ALWAYS favor smaller government...it is an inherent belief. Republicans, on the other hand, have a broader tent, which can allow for expanding budgets. Those Republicans who think such views are Libertarian will shortly find the conservative vote split between those two parties....and don't think the Libertarian party might not get the majority of them. In fact, if you look at core conservative beliefs (fiscal restraint, limited government involvement, personal accountability and responsibility)....the Libertarian party already probably carries the conservative theme forward much better than the Republican party. The point being, throughout this and other similar threads, people seem to assume they can use 'conservative' and 'Republican' interchangably. You can't.

So many accusation being tossed around in this thread. So little understanding .

Some people think that being conservative is equivalent to being libertarian. It certainly does not mean that. Conservatives do think that government has a role in certain aspects of society.

As a self-professed Conservative, let me try to answer these (rather inflammatory and accusatory) questions for debate:

If you call yourself conservative today, how do you jive that with your current support of this president and his domestic policies?

When decided between candidates, each must be analyzed as to how close they fit into your personal ideology. No candidate is going to match your views 100% on every subject. That simply isn't going to happen.

So, when asked to judge Bush as a conservative, you need to compare him to his opponents (first Al Gore, then John Kerry). As a conservative, these match-ups are no-brainers. Neither of the Democrat candidates had any appeal to me whatsoever. The choice then became easy: Bush.

Does that mean that George W. Bush is the ideal conservative or that he has exactly the same views as me on every issue? Of course not. To expect him to have all of my views is unrealistic.

Do you consider yourself conservative, and if you do, can you say why and what issues are paramount that make a modern conservative?

I think the Cuyahoga County GOP has a document that closely fits my definition of "conservative"

link

I left out the part about the GOP being the vehicle for these things.

Is legislating morality part of the very warp and weave of the conservative movement today, paramount over all other issues?

No. However, as I said here,



The promotion of freedom is balanced against the promotion of a society in which I want to live. It is my right as a citizen to push for things that I'd like to see happen, just as it is your right (and freedom).


Is fiscal discipline no longer an issue, or is it a WAY back burner issue for conservatives today, unlike the "tax and spend" epithets that conservatives hurled at liberals in the late 70s?

This red herring is an outgrowth of something much more complicated than a banal "the Republicans want to spend more". The party out of power uses "fiscal responsibility" as a wedge issue against those in the majority. It has always been that way, it will alway be that way since the majority controls the purse strings.

Frankly it surprises me that any liberal would complain that Bush has expanded the education budget by double digit percentages every year. Of course, this upsets me, as a conservative, but as I stated earlier, you must take the good with the bad.

The GOP is running deficits due to a number of complicated factors, including war and recession. Also, the fact that it controls two of the three branches of government, which allows it to spend almost unhindered. It is the Democrats' job (as the opposition) to oppose these spending issues if they find them unreasonable. It is also the Republicans job to get us back to even keel.

However, debt itself is not inherently evil. You must always look at debt as a percentage of income, in which case the US isn't in such bad shape as any other western country.

I would not characterize George W. Bush as a true conservative. He said himself that he is a new kind of conservative: a compassionate conservative. He is willing to spend on social issues (and he has) and he is true to some other conservative issues. He is a mixed bag, but far superior to any Democrat alternative that was offered.

I have to agree with Hayleyanne here. Let me quote from the classical liberal, F.A. Hayek's "Why I am not a Conservative."

Why I Am Not a Conservative


By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

In The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960)




Later, same article.

Good topic, CR.

If you call yourself conservative today, how do you jive that with your current support of this president and his domestic policies?

I am conservative only to the extent that restoring the original intent of American government would result in a more libertarian system. I do not believe it is the place of the federal government to take away the People's right to respect their values in their state and local laws, whether those values are socially conservative or liberal. I vote for national politicians who take a hands-off approach to most social issues, and local politicians who support traditional values.

I do not believe Bush is politically conservative. His personal religious beliefs might be conservative, but most of his domestic agenda tends toward FDR-style statism.
I don't support any of GW's domestic agenda on face value.

I do strongly believe that Roe v. Wade legislates morality from the bench, and that abortion and other contentious social issues should be decided at the local level, not at the state or national level.

I think taxes should be much lower, but that spending should be cut to match taxes, not taxes increased to match spending. So, I fault the pork-barrel Republican Congress for perpetuating the "spend" side of "tax-and-spend." No tax cut is going to be big enough-- the whole tax code needs to be replaced.

I oppose much of the Patriot Act. I think the Federal Government should get out of funding public education, but I like some of the goals of No Child Left Behind.

I oppose the way that the Faith-Based Initiative was implemented, although if the federal government is going to be in the business of funding private social services, it should not discriminate against faith-based groups. Bush's plan opens the coffers to religious service, but with strings attached-- no prayer in the soup kitchen, no crediting God for providing aid. Seems more like secularizing religious services than supporting them. Repeal it.

Yet, if there had been no third parties, I would have voted for Bush over Kerry as the lesser of two evils. Kerry-style statist liberals, and perhaps the Secular Left, are far more intent than the Religious Right on forcing their social values on everyone rather than allowing states and localities their Constitutional right to handle most social issues without interference from the federal government.

I generally support Bush's foreign policy. I also generally supported Clinton's foreign policy. In retrospect, there are many deficiencies in both, but overally, they did fairly well on that count. The one glaring exception would be Clinton's bombing of Europe the night before his impeachment vote to sway a few undecided Republicans against removing him from office in wartime.

Do you consider yourself conservative, and if you do, can you say why and what issues are paramount that make a modern conservative?

I think the term "modern conservative" is almost an oxymoron. The issues paramount to being conservative include repealing or privatizing the programs FDR put in place to combat the depression, as occasionally expanded by LBJ. The Great Depression is over-- socialism may not have been necessary in America then, and it is certainly unnecessary in America today. Most of the federal government's bureaucracy is vestigial and would not be missed by most Americans if it were dissolved, privatized or sent to the states. This was part and parcel of paleo-conservatism, now primarily relegated to the libertarian fringe like me.

Fiscal conservatism as formulated by today's left is a kennard and was never a big part of political conservatism. On fiscal matters, fiscal responsibility always mandated cutting spending to match lower taxes, but could never justify raising taxes to cover irresponsible spending, as the left would have us believe. Deficits are bad, but high taxes are worse. All deficits are squarely the responsibility of those who spend irresponsibly, not those who cut taxes (if Bush is intentionally doing both, he's not a real conservative).

Edited to add: Like any political movement, the conservative movement is a coalition of people who agree on some issues and disagree on others. The conservative movement includes people who are conservative in some ways and liberal in others. As far as I am aware, there is no conservative manifesto with which every conservative must agree or be ejected from the movement.

The migration of most conservatives/right-wingers to the Republican Party and most liberals/left-wingers to the Democratic Party is a relatively recent phenomenon often attributed to Ronald Reagan, himself a professed libertarian who welcomed support from those more conservative, as he saw nothing very libertarian about the American left. As a result of this and the Ron Paul migration of many libertarians into the Republican Liberal Coalition within the Republican Party, libertarianism has a stronger presence in the Republican Party than the Democratic Party, and is often disproportionately lumped in with the conservative movement-at-large. The libertarian party also shifted slightly to the left as more centrist and right-libertarians embraced Reagan Republicanism.

The Religious Right is probably more nationalist ("preserve our culture") than libertarian ("let the culture preserve itself"), and more populous within conservatism-- however, I share much more in common with the Religious Right than the Secular Left because the Secular Left, IMHO, seems more intent on enforcing its warped version of morality from the national level. Many in the Religious Right seem more receptive than the Secular Left to using libertarian decentralization of social issues as a reasonable means of achieving its goals on the local level without forcing its beliefs on everyone in the country from on high, as the left prefers to do.

I think my views are probably seen as conservative because I oppose laws that prevent local communities from being as religious and conservative as they want to be, within reason. But that is also not purely conservative, because I also oppose laws at the state and federal level that would prevent local communities to be as atheist and left-wing as they want to be, within reason. On balance, federal and state laws/case law-- at least what we discuss here-- tend to restrict local conservatism more than liberalism, so I'm sure I appear at times to be a card-carrying member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, but the real Religious Right knows better. We might be allies of convenience because, like Reagan, I believe libertarianism has better chances of success via mainstream conservatism than liberalism-- but we have as many differences as similarities.

Is legislating morality part of the very warp and weave of the conservative movement today, paramount over all other issues?

Legislating civil morality is the very definition of legislation-- there is no other role for legislation than to codify civil morality into law when necessary to maintain order and "happiness." Most who rant against legislating morality are really ranting against religious moral standards and in favor of some form of opposing secular moral standard. Roe v. Wade is an anti-libertarian legislation of statist morality from the bench. Legislating anti-traditional morality was the primary goal of the liberal movement until recently, far more than legislating traditional morality is the goal of the conservative movement.

Now that the left is no longer in a position to legislate anything in Congress, the left is focused entirely upon dictating its "perverse" morality from the bench, to borrow a word from Sandra Day O'Connor's critique of the recent imminent domain decision. To pretend like the far left is not trying to do the same thing that the far right is trying to do with regard to imposing a system of morality at the federal level is to be ignorant of reality-- the only difference is that the competing systems of morality are in opposition, not that the left is not trying to impose its beliefs about right and wrong.

Now, there are certainly some on both the liberal and conservative sides who simply want a reasonable civil morality to be used through honest negotiation, enlightened consensus and when necessary, reasonable compromise. But their voices are usually drowned out by the extremes.

Is fiscal disipline no longer an issue, or is it a WAY back burner issue for conservatives today, unlike the "tax and spend" epitaths that conservatives hurled at liberals in the late 70s?

To those confused about "epithets" and "epitaphs," I am assuming you mean "epithet" when you say "epitath." I'm sure the right intended the "tax and spend" slogan to be an epitaph for the American left, and if the left keeps losing elections, it may yet be proven so. However, "Tax and spend" is only an epithet if it is unfair, untrue, hypocritical or biggoted-- and I do not believe it to be. Whenever the left is in power, it taxes and spends. So does the right, but it taxes less and at least tries to spend less. Not much less, but less.

Fiscal discipline is not dead, just on the back burner. There are a lot of Congressional Republicans who don't think they can get re-elected without pork barrel projects and keeping the socialist half of the bureaucracy in place. I wouldn't consider them truly conservative, but to the extent that they help keep the unabashed statist Democrats out of power, they serve a useful purpose for the conservative and libertarian movements.

Anarchy is occasionally called libertarian socialism because it is socially libertarian and economically socialist. The American Libertarian Party is not usually called "anarchist," because it opposes economic socialism in favor of a capitalist free market economy. American libertarianism is occasionally called right-libertarianism, with anarchist libertarian socialism being called left-libertarianism. A similar confusion arises from the Nazi Party of Germany being socially nationalist and economically socialist-- resulting in totalitarian statism rather than anything resembling nationalist or socialist theory.

The part of American libertarianism which many in the LP choose to ignore is the decentralization of social issues-- the idea that national and state governments should not set a social agenda, but it is okay for local governments to do so. For example, the Pennsylvania Dutch and other Amish-Mennonite communities routinely have their local ordinances overruled by state and federal courts-- recently a local ordinance against foul language. Libertarianism would allow local communities who formulate freedom as "the freedom from hearing foul language" to impose a small fine for swearing.

The Religious Right can certainly exist within libertarianism by opposing contentious social agendas being enforced at the state and national level, while supporting local ordinances that encode traditional moral values. Part of achieving such a system involves opposing laws at the state and federal levels that restrict a local community's right to set its own standards for behavior, consistent with order.

The genius of the Republican movement has been its ability to gather together a wide variety of people who are focussed on a particular aspect of modern society. The party makes some sort of promise or show of concern about this issue and the person involved is satisfied enough to support the Republican candidates.

Because this one issue is so important they minimize their differences or are unconcerned on the other issues. Thomas Frank analyzes the effect in his book "What's the Matter with Kansas".

This used to be the technique used by the Democrats, but they seem to have been beaten at their own game.

The result is you get a thread like this where many people are partly happy and partly unhappy, but mostly happy enough to continue their support of the Republican party at election time.

As for the specific issue of fiscal policy. In another reversal of tradition the Republicans have now become the Keynesians and the Democrats are calling for balancing the budget. Fifty years of evidence have shown that deficit spending boosts the economy (at least in the short term) and that has been the present administration's policy. The two issues that can be raised are: is the deficit being spent on the most socially beneficial projects, and is there a plan for restoring fiscal responsibility after some growth goals have been met?

Greenspan originally went along with the administration's plan, but even he is now getting worried that things have gone too far. Historically rampant deficits are handled by devaluing the money so that the debt gets paid back with watered currency.

For my modest contribution on this topic:

Coming Crash

Nah, they just borrow more money to make up the shortfall. If we actually had the money we spend on the debt to spend on programs and tax reductions, we'd be a lot better off.

Then again, we're really only paying interest on the national debt, we're not paying much, if anything, on the principle so it's just keeping the problem goint and growing forever.



Nothing, but the American people are, sad to say, too stupid to vote them out. If you're in office, you're going to stay there until you screw up too badly or die. You don't have to do your job, you just have to sit in an office and kiss the backside of special interests.

Welcome to the US political system.

This may sound like an overly simplistic answer, but my belief is that a conservative is someone who believes he/she is a conservative. The same goes for liberals and any other sort of political label. Some democrats consider themselves 'conservative' because they are conservative in relation to what they consider to be the typical Democratic platform (and vice versa). Some people consider themselves conservative (and vice versa) because of one issue that they feel very strongly about that coincides with a "conservative outlook".

I don't think it's really necessary to qualify what that means because it really only matters to the person who is defining him or herself in the end.

I personally am about as far from conservative as I can be (based upon my personal definition of conservatism), so I can't really answer the debate questions with any sort of authority.

That said, I don't think conservatives can be lumped into a group any more than liberals can - a great many conservatives are not at all concerned with legislating morality and are just as opposed to it as the staunchest liberal, but on the national scale, I'd say our more conservative politicians seem to be VERY concerned with it. I think because so much of the legislation in recent years has been related to defining and legislating morals, it certainly seems like these leaders are trying to define conservatism in this way.

Edited to add: I also think conservative and liberal are more of a state of mind than a way to define one's politics. Before I knew much about politics, I would say I was a 'liberally-minded' individual. Ha, I probably just made that even more confusing

This is VERY TRUE!

However, according to traditional politically scientific thought, there are some staunch differences in ideology referencing size of gov't, states rights, etc.

In current American politics, issues such as state's right to intervene in trade, fiscal policy, gun control, abortion, seperation of church and state, military spending, foreign affairs, taxation, and minority related issues are often dividing lines that may not make it into our political science texts, but are they less important???

I would lean towards the idea that we cannot accurately define a conservative anymore, and agree with KM on the idea that people often times fall into a "group" based upon affiliation.

Consider Black Americans today. There is a largely religious component of the black community that would often have a split decision when it comes to contemporary political platforms (i.e. gay marraiges, abortion, military spending, etc). However, you'd be hard pressed to find many black Americans at a Republican event. Why?? Well, because, in my mind, it's a socially driven association to the DNC and the stigmas driven by the parties. On the other hand, Southern Caucasian College Graduate Men, are often self-proclaimed republicans. I am confident that it has a lot to do with social pressure, community beliefs, etc.

So, to answer the question... Do we know what a conservative is???
Of course, but realistically there are very few staunch conservatives that get elected and most of associate ourselves with one side or the other... which may not necessarily mean that our values don't "ride the fence", so to speak.

Ok Amlord, those are all fine values indeed. However, you don't feel that that document of values is high hypocritical given the things the Republican party in general (not just Bush) is trying to do? Let's take a look at some of these:


This is great, it is basically the belief in the bill of rights. Yet if you look at the actions of the GOP they are completely contradictory in a lot of instances. The Patriot Act is a fine example.


Unless you are gay... and then you are going to hell and deserve to be a second class citizen.


Fiscal responsibility? You have to be kidding me right? In the last 5 years the GOP has created the largest deficit in the history of our nation.


Another "classic" Republican value - small government. That sounds great in principle until your actions prove you don't really believe in it. The size of the government has increased almost 30% since Bush took office.


What is that supposed to mean exactly? Does that mean that people are supposed to have a voice and access to their elected representatives? It would seem that someone proclaiming this value would be a big supporter of election reform and they'd also be a huge supporter of campaign finance reform. Politicians don't listen to the people that elect them, they listen to corporations and special interest groups - all politicians, not just republicans.


Ah, innovation definitely something I believe Americans excel at and we should continue to strive for. Why then is the GOP so resistant to helping along the industries of the next century - genetics (specifically stem cells) and alternative fuels?

That is the main point of this thread (and yes it does tend to put you on the defensive about your party) is to examine if your values really fit. Given those values I'm not really sure why you aren't protesting many of the decisions that are made daily in congress. The fact that your county's GOP says they hold those values and then does something completely different is highly hypocritical.

I guess you missed the part about Bush not being a great example of a conservative. And my explanation of why I chose Bush over the other guy.

I guess you forgot that the Patriot Act passed virtually unopposed.

I guess you are being overly dramatic about the "plight of gays" in this country. Are conservatives for rounding these people up? Firing them from their jobs? Forcing them to pay higher taxes? No, no, and no.

I have already pointed out that the budget deficit in today's standard compares favorably to many other nations when taken as a percentage of the national income.

Government closer to the people means that local government is preferable to state government, which is preferable to federal government. People can easily move away from localities that pass laws against their liking. They can move from states who pass laws against their liking. It is quite difficult to move from the country, however. I favor local government (close to the people) over federal government.

Conservatives are not averse to alternative fuels. Please provide some evidence that they are.

Many conservatives are averse to certain stem cell research techniques, because it violates their concept of the sanctity of life. Please allow these people the freedom to have their own views. In fact, I know of no efforts to ban stem cell research. It is simply a ban on federal funding of such research. Such a ban prevents us from spending money we don't have....isn't that consistent with fiscal responsibility?

We need to differentiate between Conservative principles and Republican actions. They are not synonymous. Not all Republicans are really Conservative, as I have already stated.

The Patriot Act is a perfect example of how the GOP behaves under Bush. It was pushed through in the middle of the night and hardly anyone read it before voting on it. It was a purely emotional package, based not on rationality but on fear and now, most of those who voted for it think they probably shouldn't have.



Actually, unless you are a rich, white Christian you're treated as a second class citizen.



And let's not forget that Ronald Reagan, posterboy for the GOP, is responsible for creating the largest national debt in the history of the planet. If the Republi