If conservatism is dead, it sure looked pretty healthy earlier this week when The Supreme Court handed down a series of rulings that demonstrated under Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Sam Alito, there is now a solid conservative majority in place with Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.

With the most likely vacancies on the high court to be among the "liberals" (either John Paul Stevens or Ruth Bader Ginsburg), the swing to the Right of the Supreme Court looks to be continue in that direction for some time to come even if a Democrat takes the White House back in 2008.

President Bush's conservative credentials may be in doubt, but not those of the judges he is placing on the federal courts.

1.)Is conservatism dead?, who is most responsible for it's demise or at a minimum, its illness?

The answer to this question depends on what you are calling "conservatism". To me, conservatism means solving society's problems with the least amount of government interference as possible and even then solving them as close to the local level as possible.

I prefer the summary that is on my local GOP's website


http://www.cuyahogacountygop.org/platform.asp

No, it is not dead. The confusion comes from the fact that George W. Bush is not a classic conservative. He is a self-proclaimed "Compassionate Conservative". Translation: he is willing to use the power of the government to achieve conservative objectives. This flies in the face of my definition of conservative, especially the bolded section above.

2.)How can conservatism regain it's "small government" emphasis?

Certain Republicans (including the President) are not for small government. When they lose power in the party, the party will shift back towards smaller government.

3.)How will conservatism look ten years from now? What issues might take center stage?

The issues are not related to conservatism. Conservatism should examine each issue within its philosophy of how government should deal with the issues. It should be consistent in its application from issue to issue. The government which governs best governs least.

I have never discussed "everyone thinking alike," and furthermore, have no intention of doing so. The idea of everyone working together is no more a utopian vision than the idea of people not killing each other. You and I seem able not to kill each other, therefore others are, as well. So then, goes everyone working together. Do you know what makes it possible for people to work together? The simple concept of them having a common goal. I am saying that traditional concepts of Liberalism and Conservatism are outdated, and are doing no one any good. I am unable to quote anyone, because my ideas are my own. You may characterize my thinking as an illusion, however you have misunderstood me if you do so. You are pigeonholing something with which you are unfamiliar into something with which you are. Nowhere have I said there is no room for opposing views. And whether something is progressive or regressive isn't about perception. It is based on reality. Taking something back to an earlier time is regressive. Moving something forward to something new is progressive. The two concepts are diametrically opposed, and not defined by perception. If you wanted to roll back Civil Rights, that would be regressive. No one can make a realistic argument that it is not. If I want to grant MORE Civil Rights to MORE people, that is progressive.

Ending war is considered a Utopian vision or fantasy, and yet it is a goal we should be working towards. War does not serve a useful purpose. It is a waste of resources, and a crime against humanity. It is destruction, and in all cases, it is needless. You can argue the need for defense against an agressor, but you will not be able to argue the need to be that agressor. Therefore, eliminating agression eliminates the need for defense.

I have not assumed that progress is always a good thing. I have simply stated that Conservatism today often involves progressing away from the status quo, and thus Conservatism is technically dead.

We already have common goals. What has been the difficult part is discovering a method at achieving them. Everyone has different views on how to achieve common goals and that's why there are problems. You can't make people work together unless everyone sees a vested interest in doing so. If they have different ideas of how to achieve a goal, then they will fail to see that vested interest.



Absolutely it is about perception. For instance, a libertarian who is a proponent of less government wouldn't mind having a couple of social programs and federal agencies ended. By this logic, the libertarian is advocating a regressive policy. However, a libertarian may see it as a progressive policy because they believe those programs/agencies were hurting more than they were helping and hindering progress.



Whether or not war is "good" or "moral" is different than saying that war serves no useful purpose. There is only about, the entirety of human history that contradicts that. Furthermore, your stance begs a number of questions about just war and wars for humanitarian reasons (genocide, ethnic cleansing). And saying that eliminating aggression eliminates the need for defense is a bit idealistic no?

War serves no useful purpose. I am fully prepared to defend that concept. Just because things have been achieved through war doesn't mean that it served a useful purpose. War can gain territory for a nation. Is that a useful purpose? I've heard the tired, and ridiculous rhetoric that "war doesn't solve anything, -except for slavery, fascism, communism, nazism, terrorism..." or whatever they say in that silly and cartoonish line. War didn't solve any of those things. War can end something that is happening, in the short term, but it doesn't solve the problem.

But that's a completely subjective view. What you mean to say (instead of "it doesn't serve a useful purpose") is that it didn't serve a useful purpose to you. Furthermore, I submit that the line that "war never solves a thing" is just as cartoonish as the statement you presented. You would be reaching the height of naivety if you think that war or violence never served useful purposes. American revolution, French revolution, Russian revolution, US Civil War, rise of Mao in China, Fascism in Japan...history is filled with examples where it was violence that affected great change. Whether or not the change was "good" or "useful" is, once again, subjective.

A revolution is not the same thing as a war. The Revolutionary War came as a result of a revolution, or revolt. England made the revolution into a war, and they lost. So for them, war didn't serve a useful purpose at all, unless that purpose was to lose.

The Nazis started a war. That war's purpose was to invade and occupy nations that didn't want to be invaded and occupied. It served no useful purpose. Fighting them was defensive. Expelling the Nazis may have been waging war, but it was a war that had already been started by them when they invaded.

War serves no useful purpose to anyone.

Not to me, not to England, not to the Nazis.

Invading Iraq certainly doesn't serve any useful purpose. If the purpose had been to not have an evil dictator in charge of Iraq, that purpose could have been better served through diplomacy, which to my knowledge, was never even tried. Get some allies on board, enlist the help of Iraq's nearest neighbors, and get the news to the people of Iraq, and you've got something. Or how about not arming the heck out of him in the first place? Or how about not leaving the people of Iraq high and dry after the Gulf War, thus crushing any faith they could have had in the US?

War serves no useful purpose. That is not subjective. It simply is never necessary, PERIOD.

The only purpose war serves is destruction, and destruction is not a useful purpose.

Destruction is not a useful purpose to any sane person.

War serves no useful purpose.

Your logic is alarmingly convoluted. Let's analyze line by line:



And if they won, then war would have served the purpose of maintaining their territories...no?



The United States was not attacked by the Nazis, they were attacked by the Japanese. We were never on the defensive against them, attacking them in North Africa, Italy, and France. And the Nazis invaded because they thought it would have served a useful purpose...or they wouldn't have invaded!



And if the war was completely successful and a peaceful democracy was established than it would have served a purpose. War can serve purposes, its just a matter of whether that purpose is realized.



And history contradicts you. EDIT: Furthermore whether something is necessary or unnecessary has no affect on a debate about war. You are asking is it serves a purpose in which it has many times throughout history. Whether that purpose is necessary is irrelevant.



Destruction is not a purpose, it is a consequence or a result of.

No it isn't.



When has that ever worked? That's a pretty big if. Practically speaking, that doesn't tend to happen.



The Nazis were destroying United States shipping, and the Nazis declared war on the United States. The Nazis were attacking our allies, and were themselves allied with the Japanese who were attacking us. So whose logic is convoluted now?

And the Nazis were wrong, just like England was wrong. Invading nations doesn't serve a useful purpose, because no nation wants to be invaded, and usually will fight to their last man. Look at what happened when the Nazis invaded the USSR. The Soviets burned and destroyed everything in the Nazis path, rather than let the Nazis have their objective. The Nazis intended purpose was rendered useless, so this is still not an example of war serving a useful purpose.



War can have an ideological purpose. War does not serve a purpose. That war wasn't successful, and a peaceful democracy will likely never be established. If the purpose is not realized, then no useful purpose was served. War serves no useful purpose.



In modern history, war has served no useful purpose. There may have been a time when it did, but that time is long past. In the world of today, war serves no useful purpose. You cannot accomplish anything useful by war.



And knowing no useful purpose can be served, and knowing destruction will always be the consequence, destruction then becomes war's only purpose, and destruction is not a useful purpose.

Let's try this again.



When has a nation put down a rebellion through war? The US Civil War is probably the best example. But I could go as far back as the Roman Empire with that one.



I was only following the logical guidelines that you set out. The US took an offensive approach to fighting the Nazis whether you want to admit it or not. The British and the USSR were fighting defensive wars because their territory was directly attacked. But this point is not important which I will get to later.



But again, because a purpose was not fully realized, doesn't mean that there is NO purpose to war. Hitler wanted Stalin's oil fields so he invaded the USSR. Its that simple. The purpose of the Nazi's fighting the Soviets was for oil. The purpose for the Nazi's invading France and the rest of Europe was to increase their own power. Whether or not that qualifies on your scale for a "useful purpose" is irrelevant.



See now I have no idea what you are saying. At first you make a bold statement that war has never served a useful purpose. And two posts later you amend that statement to modern history. Perhaps you should make up your mind first.



The only thing I can reiterate is that your entire point is subjective. You are telling me that war has never served a useful purpose and you know what? It has probably never served a useful purpose to you. If war has never served as useful purpose as you so claim, then wars wouldn't be fought. But obviously if wars are being fought, people see a purpose.

Kindly forgive me if I rehash somebody else's points, as I've not read the thread.

1.)Is conservatism dead?, who is most responsible for it's demise or at a minimum, its illness?
No, it is neither dead, nor ill. Not only are there many varieties of conservatism, some thriving, some not, but there are also a variety of vehicles that carry conservatism into the marketplace of ideas and policies. To those who equate conservatism with the Republican Party, then it would seem to be in decline at the moment. But the GOP is simply the one party in our two party system that is most in tune with conservatism. If anything, many conservatives will argue that the GOP's current misfortunes are due primarily to their abandonment of many conservative principles, rather than due to the application of those principles.

2.)How can conservatism regain it's "small government" emphasis?
Conservatives can get more traction on their "small gubmint" emphasis by putting much more pressure on elected officials at all levels, including running the bums out of office. Loudly and firmly articulate the conservative messages of personal responsibility and small gov't in popular culture. Don't forget the practical aspects as well, namely, that politics is the art of compromise. Make sure though that when compromising, that the other guys are also making meaningful compromises. Also, take a page from the lib's playbook. Start challenging in court the myriad of Big Gubmint policies and programs that lack Constitutional legitimacy.

3.)How will conservatism look ten years from now? What issues might take center stage?
The principles of conservatism will be the same as they are now. As for what will be the big issues for conservatives? Big Gubmint, the deletrious effects of radical individualism on society, Islamo-fascim, education, abortion, national sovereignty. That's my guess.

Are you in the habit of relying on strawman arguments to make your point? Make up my mind? Point out where I used the word "never." Your interpretation was subjective.

In modern times, war serves no useful purpose. You are struggling to define a useful purpose served by war. The Roman Empire? The Civil War? That was a defensive war, and it is from a time before air power, and any type of modern warfare. You don't appear to get it. War is obsolete, and those who use it to solve today's problems are committing murder for no good reason.

We citizens of this world tire of greedy and crooked people making up reasons to send people to their deaths.

War serves no useful purpose.

Gee, survival seems like a mighty useful purpose to me. Freedom's pretty useful as well, as the Kuwaiti's and South Koreans will likely agree.

Again, not so. I'll give you another example; the drug war. Social conservatives would argue in favor of the drug war's continuance, the status quo whereas libertarians and some liberals argue for it's abolition. Think of it this way, recreational drugs were legal in America in the early 1900s. One could argue that liberals and libertarians are arguing for a "regressive" policy by wanting to return the country to policy it implemented in the early 1900s. Using your argument, one could say that social conservatives arguing for the drug war's continuance are in fact, taking a "progressive" stance. In another case, the death penalty, one could make the same argument. Social conservatives argue that the death penalty should continue to be used, thereby defending the status quo. Liberals and libertarians argue for it's removal. The death penalty was temporarily abolished in the 60s and 70s, therefore, liberals and libertarians are advocating turning the clock back on our policy to conform to the past; is that not then regressive?

CP

Social conservatism has to be discussed here, because it has always been the strongest branch of conservatism.

It is simply the biggest, possibly only, area of populist appeal the ideology has.

That said discussion of regression vs. progression is pointless. One could argue anyone that favors a change in law is progressive. One could argue back that anyone who chooses to change to law back to similarity with another time, no matter how short or uncharacteristic, is regressive.

No dice. No point.

Social conservatism, unlike small government conservatism is not under threat because it plays to age-old fears and it morphs constantly.

When people finally calm down about the gays and the Mexicans (my guess, they will never calm down about the gays) a new vision of a parasitic population will take its place.

I mean from the now-Nothings to the Minute-Men this is an unbroken chain.

CP- I think that the ever-morphing nature of these labels is what makes it so hard for these debates- it has always been better to simply list off some top "issues" and go from there- when labeling yourself. Labeling is human nature- indeed, it is part of our very developement- Piaget and Viagotsky both did some pretty big work on "schema's and labeling"- but politics is all about labeling yourself and your opponent before they label themselves and YOU.

Like I said- all these regulations and nanny-state-isms didn't come about in a vacuum- some serious wrongdoing had to occur for citizens to get outraged and then go to some ill-advised law as a remedy- patriot act is probably the single biggest example.

Also- as populations grow, and there is less and less room for us to expand, we, as humans, end up needing more and more complex rules to live next to one another without killing or exploiting one another.

This is the REALITY that the libertarians ignore too often, and why it doesn't get the total broad appeal one think's it should get- follow me here?

I think the conservatives of the last 30 years are the most profoundly anti-freedom movement that this nation has ever seen- but make no mistake, as far as the definition goes, they defined themselves as conservative, and are in firm control, as an ideology (if not party) for the last 27 years. Reagan pretty much signalled the end of libertarian/conservative ideals- oh sure, he TALKED about smaller goverment- but bloated it bigger than anyone before him as well. War on drugs anyone?

I think "smaller goverment" probably won't work UNLESS there are some serious checks on corporate power- possibily eliminating corporate person-hood would be the best and most effective single step- but right now, big goverment is the only check against big business- and those checks and balances go away when we have a wholly owned subsidiary in the white house

It is interesting to me, on the idea that "conservatism is dead"- about how opposite the next "voting generation" feels from BDs list

Abortion is pretty much accepted in the 30 and unders
So is gay marriage
So is legalizing or decriminalizing various drugs
okay with universal health care
okay with gun control (this is the only one that really scares me, the rest, I am mostly cool with)


so, what form will the definition "conservative" take on our very Euro-leaning generations of voters coming up in the US now?

Is the entire ideology, well, just plain stupid? One has to ask- because, I mean, dang, whatever conservatism is supposed to be- well, it CLEARLY doesn't work in the real world, and the younger generation coming up will have nothing to base thier dislike of todays conservatism against- If you are of voting age today- 18-27, you have known nothing BUT conservative rule- and it hasn't been a good thing.

Small government is a means to checking corporate power. The reason why corporations have as much influence in government is because the government controls the regulation and engages in other legal actions which affect corporations. If the government has less control [actually, as little control as possible] over corporations, the need for corruption would minimize. Why contribute 2 million dollars to Senator A's campaign fund if the government barely regulates your industry in the first place? Could corruption still exist? Yes, but I would be willing to bet it would be on a much smaller scale and would be far less effective.
And as such, laws must evolve to continue to allow government to secure our basic rights [which, in my view, is it's purpose].

Beyond those few caveats, there isn't much of what you have said that I take issue with, CR.

CP

That, actually doesn't make much sense. Influence comes from what you can give, not what to other side can do to you.

Corporations have influence because they have money.

What you mean to say is corporations have reason to exert their influence in Washington because of regulation, though that isn't the whole picture either. There are always government contracts and local political issues and the like.

...and history shows that they can do plenty of damage if no one is watching and regulating.

Well, I think this would make a good thread elsewhere, so let's create one, rather than going off topic here.

I will say this though, if government was, if not completely removed, 99% removed from the marketplace...Corruption would be far less pervasive. Having money is all well and good, but if the government cannot help nor harm corportations, there would be no reason to use that money to sway the government.

As I said though, we'll have to start a new thread on this.

CP

Good point, CR. Add in there those who are approaching voting age and have a war to face, college costs out the roof, job markets either shrinking or losing value (little or no health insurance, anemic wages, zero security, what do you mean "career path"?), and no stinking vision at all. I imagine it's worse than when I was a junior in high school with a brother in Vietnam, a mining industry rolling onto its back -- at least we had people taking walks on the Moon. Shoot, just saw a History Channel rerun about how the world is supposed to end in 2012! Oh yeah, great message for the kids. You've got four and a half years, children. Enjoy!

Here are two of the so-called conservative things that are dying off, and rightfully so:

- The US should dominate the world (neo-cons)
- The end of the world is imminent (Religious Right)

This might be stronger in younger people, but older people have plenty to be upset about too. For example, I'm taking another tech contract in early July that is not contract-to-hire. Seems this has become corporate policy -- hire as few as possible, do the contractors instead. Why? Because it advances an illusion that the economy is actually doing well with low unemployment. That is an illusion because contractors are not counted in the numbers. Once the contract is over, that's that. You aren't unemployed, can't claim unemployment insurance, you're just between contracts. It's a way of rigging the books to fool investors, and oh by the way, voters.

A conservative will likely point out that I'm free to look for regular employment. Yep, been doing that. I suppose I could go pan for gold in the hills too, and the payback would be about the same. That's just the way things work in a capitalistic system, a conservative will likely argue. Yep, and another way to put it -- sucks to be me.

It's not that conservatism is dead. Ideas don't die. They just stop working, and that's what is happening to make it look like conservatism is dying. No, the ideas still float about, they just don't work any longer for a growing number of people, and across all age groups and most socio-economic backgrounds.

Basically, the conditions in the US have degenerated since voters bought these conservative ideas: welfare should be dismantled, unions should be busted, corporations should be protected (as a rising tide lifts all ships), and free world trade should be encouraged. These ideas were bought and what the US citizen has been getting in return is the loss of safety nets, zero rights in the workplace, concentration of wealth at the top, and loss of income due to outsourcing and worker importation.

No amount of propaganda can fix this mess. People have become weary of the conservative ideals that don't work for them. The Iraq project might have been the catalyist that brought the dissatisfaction to a head, I'll grant that possibility. However, my take is that too many people have been screwed. Payback time is approaching, not the end of the world.

There is little question of whether or not the US should dominate the world, simply because we do. There is a lot of discussion on what we should do with our dominance. Do we use our vast resources to eliminate AIDS in Africa, or do we bomb them back to the Stone Age just for the heck of it? Do we deliberately try to spread "the American dream" through our culture and economic policy, through accidental military policy, or deliberate military policy, or just let the rest of the world stew in its own often putrid juices? Do we maintain the safety of the global tradeways (i.e. the oceans), or do we reduce our Navy to the same size as Mexico's and watch what happens?

Uh, sorry to disillusion you, but the Global Warming Faithful have picked up the banner on that one, along with their co-travellers the Overpopulation Posse. Also, it should be noted that few of the Religious Right believe that the end is imminent. Coming, yup. When? Don't know...

Conditions in the US have degenerated??

Let's see, incomes up, unemployment down, federal tax receipts (especially from corporations and the wealthy) way up, federal deficit declining. Federal debt as a share of GDP is falling.

Pessimism as demonstrated above is not part of my conservative philosophy. If I'm not succeeding, it's MY fault, not somebody's conservative philosophy's fault. I must be doing something wrong (for example, not in an in-demand field or perhaps in an over-saturated job market).

Federal Defecit declining? That's a good idea, since it has been increasing over quite a few years, and that it's down to a mere $172 billion (estimated by your source) is not really all that much to crow about, considering the Bush administration had estimated as a $269 billion surplus for 2005. (A year when our deficit was a staggering $318.62 billion. So I don't see how this falling (previously record) deficit is much of an argument against the previous post.

I suppose you are going to call this pessimism:

June 26 (Bloomberg) -- Consumer confidence in the U.S. dropped more than forecast and two other reports signaled that demand for houses is still falling in the second year of the home-building slowdown.

The New York-based Conference Board's index of consumer confidence fell to 103.9 in June from a revised 108.5 the prior month. Purchases of new homes fell 1.6 percent last month to an annual pace of 915,000, the Commerce Department reported in Washington, and housing prices in 20 cities in April fell by the most in at least six years, according to S&P/Case-Shiller.

Dwindling property values may further erode the confidence of shoppers, whose spending kept the economy afloat for the past year. Further declines in sentiment would call into question forecasts for a pickup in economic growth by the Federal Reserve, which is likely to keep interest rates unchanged following its two-day meeting beginning tomorrow.

``There are some pretty significant negative risks for economic growth,'' said Carl Riccadonna, an economist at Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. in New York. ``We are not at the bottom yet in housing. One of the biggest questions is how much longer can the consumer hang on, given the strong headwinds.''

Stocks surrendered gains after the reports, while Treasury notes fell. The yield on the benchmark 10-year bond was 5.10 percent at 3:49 p.m. in New York.

The Conference Board's index was forecast to fall to 105, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg survey of 69 economists, from an originally reported 108.

Labor Market

More Americans said jobs were getting harder to find, the survey showed, while gasoline prices have held near $3 a gallon after reaching an all-time high last month.

The share of consumers who said jobs are plentiful declined to 27 percent, the lowest since November, from 29.1 percent. The proportion who said jobs are hard to get rose to 21.1 percent from 19.7 percent.

The Conference Board's measure of present conditions fell to 127.9 from 136.1. The gauge of expectations for the next six months declined to 87.9 from 90.1.

``The housing market will be a damper on the consumer,'' said Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist at Maria Fiorini Ramirez Inc. in New York. ``Mortgage equity withdrawal won't be a contributor to consumer spending.''


Overall, you may be able to point to short-term gains, but over the past decade, conditions in the US have, indeed, been declining.

The conservatives who are currently in power in this country are like people who stuff themselves with Doritos while proudly proclaiming themselves members of Weight Watchers. The "real" conservatives are not in power.

It is probably no surprise that I agree with AuthorMusician that conditions in the United States have degenerated. But to accuse you, Amlord, of seeing things through rose-colored glasses would necessarily mean having to admit that I view things through jaundiced eyes, especially since I live in Michigan, the state with the highest rate of unemployment in the nation. People are leaving my state because they cannot find work that would pay a living wage. Sure, there are still jobs at places like McDonald's, but the foreclosure rate on homes is rising and there are far more houses on the market than people who are willing or able to buy them. Go back to school? Sure, but federal grants don't cover too much these days, and many are too strapped for cash while trying to raise kids and keep a household together.

Under Bill Clinton and a dynamically-balanced Congress, the budget was balanced and there was a surplus. Somehow that changed, and while I'm not going to go into details, I submit that under true Conservative leadership the nation would not have gone so heavily into debt.

Throughout the country, cities are cutting back on police forces and other essential services because they can't afford them, and the federal government is not providing the funds that these cities were accustomed to receiving. At the same time, there are hundreds of FEMA trailers parked in Arkansas that were ostensibly intended to provide temporary housing for the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

There is a federal trade deficit that is rising, especially in the case of China. China and Japan are buying up our debt so that we can continue to finance a foreign war that is bleeding us of lives and money.

The tax cuts that were instituted by the Bush administration benefit only the wealthiest, who arguably need it the least of the members of society.

And this speaks glowingly of Conservatism how?

------------------

You do get points for acknowledging personal responsibility in your life circumstances. But what if the deck were heavily stacked against you as it is for so many Americans right now, thanks to events beyond their control?

I've been meaning to respond to this thread but I guess I'm gonna start with this first. This is wishful thinking of the sort both parties are guilty of when they filter economics through their rhetoric. Deregulating the media industry for example has resulted in a handful owners, ending competition and diversity of viewpoints (bad, bad for democracy), and sensational Paris Hilton news. You don't need to compete when you can cross-promote products since you own every level of production and promotion. You don't need to innovate because you know between yourself and the other five media owners you are guaranteed to get a slice of the pie every year.

When it comes to the economy big government can respect laissez-faire ideals on paper. Small governments may or may not respect the same ideals, they just won't bother putting it on paper. Accepting limited competition doesn't require government sanction. There is always, always incentive to lie; to offer less and take more, to crowd out independent services and/or buy them out. CEOs simply wouldn't need to shell out 2 million dollars to continue slouching towards oligopoly/monopoly.

Does this mean we can't dismantle government regulation in some markets? Actually, yes we can, but I think this is a case-by-case basis such as the government's railroad regulation someone posted. Original government intervention in that market during the progressive era was due to owners charging exorbitant prices and halting the shipment of farm goods from the Midwest to California and commerce in general. Today, farmers have more than one option for transporting goods, so the regulation's justification is obsolete.

You continually made the bold statement that war serves no useful purpose. You then amended that statement to saying that in modern history, war serves no useful purpose. You never mentioned a difference between the different epocs of history in previous posts so I inferred that you were unsure when/where war has served a purpose. I apologize if I was incorrect, but it had to do with the the way you are wording your arguments.



I really think you need to make out a set of guidelines so that I can fully understand the point you are trying to make. A modern war of aggression that does serve an ideological purpose is obselete. Hence, only a war of defense is acceptable? Well how about the First Gulf War? Kuwait was attacked by Iraq and a coalition of nations who were seperate from the conflict interfered. Did that war serve no purpose?



Every action has a purpose. Just because a certain action doesnt fall on your spectrum of "usefulness" doesn't mean it didnt have a purpose. I would really not like to derail this thread any more than we both have, so if you could create a new thread on the subject, I would be more than happy to continue the debate there.



Even if this were true, the question is why it is declining? many would contend that it is Republican governance. And they are half right. It is governance itself that is the cause. We wouldn't have such a ridiculous deficit and out of control spending if we didnt give the federal government so much money in taxes. Republicans talked a big talk about managing the economy but they didn't actually apply any economics to their management. You can't cut taxes and increase deficit spending. The purpose of cutting taxes is so that the consumer is provided more funds to spend and so the government is forced to balance the budget. The Republicans failed and the Democrats will also fail. They wont control spending, they will just attempt to tax people at a higher rate to make up the difference. The government screws up our money and the solution is to give the very same people MORE money?

Furthermore, unemployment is so low that it is no wonder that those who are unemployed would have trouble finding jobs. The poll questions have an inherent bias because they do not differentiate whether it is hard to find a job or whether it is hard to find a job you like. It takes a while for some to realize that they are unskilled workers looking for work in skilled jobs.



Wages are (in most cases) determined by the market. The supply of labor and the demand for jobs. If a person has no marketable skills, they will not be very competitive in getting good jobs.



Agreed, the Bush Administration's spending has been out of control.



A trade deficit isn't necessarily a bad thing. It isn't a good thing either. Our currency is currently low which means that our products are more appealing to foreign markets and is being bought at a much higher rate. That gives us the high trade deficit. If our currency was high, the cost of our products would discourage people from buying.



This Democratic talking point has been debunked numerous times.



Whats important is whether the obstacles before you are a result of government hindrance of if they exist beyond anyone's control. I do not think that the government should use its coercive power to "right the wrongs." This would make the state pass down arbitrary moral decisions about who should get what.

First off, I have already said that George W. Bush is not a conservative in the classic (fiscal) sense. He has expanded the government, both in terms of power and in terms of size in terms of GDP. Taking this as a premise, we can say that he lack of conservatism ticks some people off (mostly conservatives but also those that refuse to acknowledge that he has expanded such departments as Education, Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Veteran's Affairs, ah heck pretty much every department.) Bush has done some fiscally conservative things, most notably the across the board tax cut (not the "tax cut for the wealthy" garbage term that some people use) which has resulted in HIGHER tax revenues especially from the wealthy and from corporations.



As far as getting into this anecdotal debate on local conditions, we can be pretty sure that is wasn't conservatives that are causing problems in Michigan, just as it isn't liberals that are responsible for the boom in Nevada.

Why is there a disconnect between economic upswings and people's expectations? How about the incessant drums of doom being sounded in the press? Talk of "jobless recoveries" and "McDonald's economies"? Why do people continue to insist that the government provide the means for their personal success?

Link
Americans Hate the Economy

Did you ever consider what happened to the economy at the end of the 20s and the early 30s? How much reduction in the national debt may or may not have contributed to the market crash and Great Depression is an open question, but our worst economic years followed the 20s and three "conservative" administrations.