It's NOT over for Conservatives!

[flaja]

Bingo to the latter part. I think starting a new party is a total non-starter. We need to throw our support behind the Libertarian or Constitution Party. With any luck, the Republican Party will go the way of the Whigs within the next decade.

Unfortunately, neither the Libertarian Party, nor the Constitution Party is a legitimate conservative party.

A few months ago I contacted the head person in several “conservative” 3rd parties and point blank asked certain questions such as: how many states does the party have ballot access in? Does the party have a written charter that explains the rules whereby the party is organized, its leaders chosen and its candidates nominated? And- does the party have any mechanism whereby its platform can be altered? Only a few of my emails were even acknowledged and in all cases I was simply told to consult the parties’ respective websites- which did not have the information I asked for in any easily accessible manner. Any party that does not have concrete answers to these questions likely is just astroturfing or merely vehicles to stoke the egos of certain party leaders.

[marinejcksn]

Remember around 1998, it was National Review that started purging out traditional conservatives when they started kicking out the Paleos like Buchanan and the old guard Welch conservatives...because they didn't believe in bigger government, globalization and didn't like the idea of projecting the military into E. Europe after the Cold war. Some stuck around in 2000 and 2004 because Bush at least talked like those guys.

You just saw an election that reflected what happens when Conservatives don't vote for who the Republican's put up.

Last week National Review completed it's mission and expelled Christopher Buckley. For god's sake...William F. Buckley's son???!!!:eek:

It's going to get harder and harder if this continues. Looks to me like the Republican's haven't learned a damn thing.

I'm confused, because what I read in NR doesn't seem to sound Big Government to me. Maybe it depends on the pundit but I enjoy their stuff with Tom Sowell and Jonah Goldberg.

Chris Buckley on the other hand....he gets no love from me. To me he's a Faux Conservative, out there with Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, C.C. Goldwater and all those other fakes. I seriously doubt his dad would've endorsed Obama. What a joke.

[marinejcksn]

Seriously, Christopher Buckley....I read his endorsement article of Obama...he's either insane or incredibly stupid, and I'm leaning towards the latter. What a doofus.

[Molon Labe]

I’m only 40, so I wasn’t around for Goldwater’s 1964 effort. However, conservatism does not have any libertarian roots. To me the intellectual founders of Anglo-American conservatism are Edmund Burke and Alexander Hamilton. Conservatism’s main goal is to preserve a stable, functional society that can insure its future by drawing on its past. Conservatism is not compatible with the libertarians’ dog-eat-dog, do-your-own thing philosophy.

You're right about Burke's contributions, but Alexander Hamilton's? Seems to me that his beliefs are part of the problem. I would argue with his naive belief in federal power and city life that he is the reason we have blue states. More the godfather of Anglo-American liberalism to me.
It was Jefferson that preached individualism. Modern conservatism as it's been practiced today has more to do with the Kirks, Tafts, Goldwater's than a simple adherance to Locke and Burke.
When people say Conservatisms roots are in libertarianism they don't mean the anarchists
Goldwater always said that he had a staunch libertarian streak. I'll defer to their expertise.

The heart and soul of conservatism is libertariansism - Ronald Reagan

That about says it all.

Couldn’t the start of the Religious Right be traced to Nixon’s 1969 Silent Majority? Also note that many of the issues that are important to the Religious Right (such as abortion and the stability of the nuclear family) didn’t come to the forefront of American politics until the early-mid 1970s. With Ronald Reagan’s 1980 election with the support of Christian social conservatives, that group didn’t have long after it materialized to split its vote.

The Silent Majority mostly Christians?....Maybe...., but it was Baptist Christians that led the Civil Rights movement in the 60's. I know too many that were still voting Democrate well into the 90's.

I'm confused, because what I read in NR doesn't seem to sound Big Government to me. Maybe it depends on the pundit but I enjoy their stuff with Tom Sowell and Jonah Goldberg.

Chris Buckley on the other hand....he gets no love from me. To me he's a Faux Conservative, out there with Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, C.C. Goldwater and all those other fakes. I seriously doubt his dad would've endorsed Obama. What a joke.

Here's the deal for me.
I canceled my subscription to NR last fall after nearly 14 years because what the majority of them say about big government and what they do are two different things. When they started attacking Buchanan, and the Cato institute after years of praising them...I knew things were amiss. I have yet to ever see the website present a George Will column.
I also like Goldberg and Sowell. I don't think they are as militant about the GWOT as others. I think they keep some of them around to appear honest. But the majority of articles at NR more closely resemble what you find at Frontpage magazine today. It's the Funds, V.Hansons and Krauthhammers that drink the neocon koolaid that I have trouble with. That's just my obsevations.
I think that Buckley's support of Obama was protest. Was it stupid...yes. Was it worthy of expultion..No. We just nominated the Democrats favorite Republican and NR endorsed him. I'm thinking he thought "what's the difference".
I'm not saying he's a saint or the best of the bunch...but his ouster has more to do with those in charge than him letting go of his ideals.

[Ree]

You're right about Burke's contributions, but Alexander Hamilton's? Seems to me that his beliefs are part of the problem. I would argue with his naive belief in federal power and city life that he is the reason we have blue states. More the godfather of Anglo-American liberalism to me.
It was Jefferson that preached individualism. Modern conservatism as it's been practiced today has more to do with the Kirks, Tafts, Goldwater's than a simple adherance to Locke and Burke.
When people say Conservatisms roots are in libertarianism they don't mean the anarchists
Goldwater always said that he had a staunch libertarian streak. I'll defer to their expertise.



That about says it all.




The Silent Majority mostly Christians?....Maybe...., but it was Baptist Christians that led the Civil Rights movement in the 60's. I know too many that were still voting Democrate well into the 90's.




Here's the deal for me.
I canceled my subscription to NR last fall after nearly 14 years because what the majority of them say about big government and what they do are two different things. When they started attacking Buchanan, and the Cato institute after years of praising them...I knew things were amiss. I have yet to ever see the website present a George Will column.
I also like Goldberg and Sowell. I don't think they are as militant about the GWOT as others. I think they keep some of them around to appear honest. But the majority of articles at NR more closely resemble what you find at Frontpage magazine today. It's the Funds, V.Hansons and Krauthhammers that drink the neocon koolaid that I have trouble with. That's just my obsevations.
I think that Buckley's support of Obama was protest. Was it stupid...yes. Was it worthy of expultion..No. We just nominated the Democrats favorite Republican and NR endorsed him. I'm thinking he thought "what's the difference".
I'm not saying he's a saint or the best of the bunch...but his ouster has more to do with those in charge than him letting go of his ideals.

Why would these peeps be votin Dem?

[flaja]

You're right about Burke's contributions, but Alexander Hamilton's? Seems to me that his beliefs are part of the problem.

I think Hamilton shared Burke’s mistrust of human nature and a knowledge that that nature makes government necessary. They also agreed that government must be both strong and answerable to the governed. Compare Burke with Hamilton:

Burke: "...Is it because liberty in the abstract may be classed amongst the blessings of mankind, that I am seriously to felicitate a madman, who has escaped from the protecting restraint and wholesome darkness of his cell, on his restoration to the enjoyment of light and liberty? Am I to congratulate a highwayman and murderer who has broke prison upon the recovery of his natural rights?"

Burke: "I should, therefore, suspend my congratulations on the new liberty of France until I was informed how it had been combined with government, with public force, with the discipline and obedience of armies, with the collection of an effective and well-distributed revenue, with morality and religion, with the solidity of property, with peace and order, with civil and social manners. All these (in their way) are good things, too, and without them liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and is not likely to continue long. The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations which may be soon turned into complaints."

Hamilton: “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.”

Hamilton: “Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.”

I would argue with his naive belief in federal power and city life that he is the reason we have blue states.

Hamilton saw the handwriting on the wall and knew that America would never become a first rate world power without becoming a commercial and industrial power. He knew that a strong federal government was necessary to knit the disparate states into a firm union and give the country a degree of stability. Hamilton’s policies helped create a wealthy class based on money (as opposed to Jefferson’s rural class built on land and slaves) and in any society the moneyed class is what underpins society.

Furthermore, Hamilton wanted the federal government to have broad powers so it could easily adapt to changing conditions without making wholesale changes in its structure that could lead to societal upheaval. Jefferson, on the other hand, suggested that the entire constitution and the society it is meant for be totally re-done every generation.

It was Jefferson that preached individualism. Modern conservatism as it's been practiced today has more to do with the Kirks, Tafts, Goldwater's than a simple adherance to Locke and Burke.

But that’s just it; so called modern conservatives have no respect for society. Their rampant individualism is really libertarianism, not conservatism. Conservatism is based on a partnership between individuals and the society they live in- they are mutually dependent on each other, and each relies on the other for their respective maintenance and preservation. The libertarianism that so many people erroneously believe is conservatism does not recognize the necessity of society even when it acknowledges the existence of society.

The heart and soul of conservatism is libertariansism - Ronald Reagan
That about says it all.

The Babyboomers’ self-centered if-it-feels-good-do-it attitude that nearly destroyed this country in the 1960s and 1970s and the corporate culture and greed that has plagued this country since the 1980s show the folly of Reagan’s claim.

The Silent Majority mostly Christians?....Maybe...., but it was Baptist Christians that led the Civil Rights movement in the 60's. I know too many that were still voting Democrate well into the 90's.

Ones that are liberal and thus not Christian, no doubt.

I canceled my subscription to NR last fall after nearly 14 years because what the majority of them say about big government

Is there any difference between big government and big business such as Wal-Mart and Home Depot? Can’t they both dictate what we spend our money on and how we live our daily lives?

[marinejcksn]

Here's the deal for me.
I canceled my subscription to NR last fall after nearly 14 years because what the majority of them say about big government and what they do are two different things. When they started attacking Buchanan, and the Cato institute after years of praising them...I knew things were amiss. I have yet to ever see the website present a George Will column.
I also like Goldberg and Sowell. I don't think they are as militant about the GWOT as others. I think they keep some of them around to appear honest. But the majority of articles at NR more closely resemble what you find at Frontpage magazine today. It's the Funds, V.Hansons and Krauthhammers that drink the neocon koolaid that I have trouble with. That's just my obsevations.
I think that Buckley's support of Obama was protest. Was it stupid...yes. Was it worthy of expultion..No. We just nominated the Democrats favorite Republican and NR endorsed him. I'm thinking he thought "what's the difference".
I'm not saying he's a saint or the best of the bunch...but his ouster has more to do with those in charge than him letting go of his ideals.

I've only started getting into Conservativism/Libertarianism in the last 3-4 years so I can't comment on their earlier content but you're definitely right on the neocon presence that's too abundent these days. The whole idea that we'll go whereever we want, fighting battles on every shore at once, it's killing us. The military can't handle it, I mean we suck it up and take it when we deploy more and more but in the long run it's destroying our equipment and I know so many Marines getting out after 1 tour because they're sick of deploying. The GWOT chest bumping is easy for neocons who don't have to go fight these actual fights and don't have family members or children in these wars.

Buckley's endorsement seemed like a protest to me as well, I have a hard time believing he was serious with all the praise he heaped on Obama. I dunno, I think a lot of the so-called conservatives in the media were falling over themselves to fawn over Obama to save their jobs, which is pretty cowardly in my eyes.

[Molon Labe]

I think Hamilton shared Burke’s mistrust of human nature and a knowledge that that nature makes government necessary. They also agreed that government must be both strong and answerable to the governed. Compare Burke with Hamilton:

Burke: "...Is it because liberty in the abstract may be classed amongst the blessings of mankind, that I am seriously to felicitate a madman, who has escaped from the protecting restraint and wholesome darkness of his cell, on his restoration to the enjoyment of light and liberty? Am I to congratulate a highwayman and murderer who has broke prison upon the recovery of his natural rights?"

Burke: "I should, therefore, suspend my congratulations on the new liberty of France until I was informed how it had been combined with government, with public force, with the discipline and obedience of armies, with the collection of an effective and well-distributed revenue, with morality and religion, with the solidity of property, with peace and order, with civil and social manners. All these (in their way) are good things, too, and without them liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and is not likely to continue long. The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations which may be soon turned into complaints."

Hamilton: “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.”

Hamilton: “Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.”

I tend to sympathize a bit more with some Libertarians simply because no one can convince me that what we have today represents what Hamilton and Burke intended by what they meant in the writings above. If so, then they were indeed tyrants.
I do make a distinction between the libertarian anarchists who preach no government. There's a difference between a Hamiltonian government that protects us from our human nature and, as the old saying goes, the government that is big enough to give you everything...will also be big enough to take it all away.
The facts remains that the purge of those types have hurt the Republican party, which is why you get a phenomena like Obama over a non conservative like McCain.

Hamilton saw the handwriting on the wall and knew that America would never become a first rate world power without becoming a commercial and industrial power. He knew that a strong federal government was necessary to knit the disparate states into a firm union and give the country a degree of stability. Hamilton’s policies helped create a wealthy class based on money (as opposed to Jefferson’s rural class built on land and slaves) and in any society the moneyed class is what underpins society.
But that’s just it; so called modern conservatives have no respect for society. Their rampant individualism is really libertarianism, not conservatism. Conservatism is based on a partnership between individuals and the society they live in- they are mutually dependent on each other, and each relies on the other for their respective maintenance and preservation. The libertarianism that so many people erroneously believe is conservatism does not recognize the necessity of society even when it acknowledges the existence of society.

Maybe so, but the consequences of his vision have also created the bastions of communities where left wing philosophy rules the day. And another consequence of becoming a world economic power is it hasn't necessarily a good thing when you think of how it has led to us being involved in every engagement, irrelevant or otherwise, since the end of WW2. It also speaks to that loss of values and that so called lack of respect for society. What else can come from people who live soley for consumption and the self?

Ones that are liberal and thus not Christian, no doubt.

One of my best highschool friends is a pastor. I do not question his love of God.
I happen to disagree with him on a great many things though as he has regularly voted Democrat since we were kids. His father marched in the 60's during the civil rights movement. There is no doubt in my mind that they thought what they were doing was right and Christian and that time.

The Babyboomers’ self-centered if-it-feels-good-do-it attitude that nearly destroyed this country in the 1960s and 1970s and the corporate culture and greed that has plagued this country since the 1980s show the folly of Reagan’s claim. Is there any difference between big government and big business such as Wal-Mart and Home Depot? Can’t they both dictate what we spend our money on and how we live our daily lives?

Even more an argument as to why corporatism is not classic capitalism and why I don't believe in Keynesian economics. True reformers and capitalists understand what we have is a mixed economy more representative of a socialistic plutocracy driven by government/corporate collusion. That's what kills small business and makes Wally worlds.

You know a lot about the history of the movement. I look forward to reading more of your posts.

[THE RESISTANCE]

That's gonna be hard if the people we keep nominating are essentially liberals and appoint top advisors that are all big government libtards.

A good example is what happened in S.C. senate race. Lindsey Graham says he is a conservative...and everyone eats that sh!@t up because he has an R on their ballot.......but the conservative Magazine the New American gave him only a 29% rating for their freedom index. While his challenger was pro guns, pro traditional marriage, pro free market, fiscally conservative, and voted against the bailout. But because he ran as a Democrat everybody towed the party line and idiots like Graham are back in to vote for more socialism.

Remember around 1998, it was National Review that started purging out traditional conservatives when they started kicking out the Paleos like Buchanan and the old guard Welch conservatives...because they didn't believe in bigger government, globalization and didn't like the idea of projecting the military into E. Europe after the Cold war. Some stuck around in 2000 and 2004 because Bush at least talked like those guys.

You just saw an election that reflected what happens when Conservatives don't vote for who the Republican's put up.

Last week National Review completed it's mission and expelled Christopher Buckley. For god's sake...William F. Buckley's son???!!!:eek:

It's going to get harder and harder if this continues. Looks to me like the Republican's haven't learned a damn thing.

The Democratic Party chair once said why would we want to run someone against Graham that they had the best Democrat that they could have.

The Democratic Party treated" their" candidate like a leper and gave him no support.
This Guy was from Indiana and ran for the house there I believe it was as a Republican.


Those conservatives that do more than punch the straight party button and pay attention voted for this guy over this Globalist puppet, traitor to this nation, and its people. A sheep in Wolves clothing touching the bases from time to time to keep the gullible believing he is a conservative.

[THE RESISTANCE]

Bingo to the latter part. I think starting a new party is a total non-starter. We need to throw our support behind the Libertarian or Constitution Party. With any luck, the Republican Party will go the way of the Whigs within the next decade.

Today we have a two party system from the five letter word "money".

That is why these other partys can't get off the ground, no petro doesn't matter squat about truth and being actually right, or how much better the planes are designed.
McCain stinks worst than a mad skunk in a locked phone booth but it was money that let Obama campaign go where no Democrat has gone before in past elections.

Unless you can find a Perot or two to help then it will be a long road.

If some of these corporate empire globalist elites had any Patriotism they would sit on their bucks for the next two years and let the economy struggle and the tide could be turned at the midterm.

But the flag they fly has the $ sign and their full allegience. They could buy this nation back for its founding principles if they wanted to but they will make out no matter the government. Even a Socialist one so what do they care (?)the sons...