For those who want "true conservatives" instead of "neocons"...

Why are you even a Democrat?

If you think there truly is a distinction between the current set of Republicans and the honorable noble statesmen you nostalgically pine for, then why don't you try to take your Republican party back?

it's worse when the conservatives believe the ends justify the means.

...for example a conservative supports a balanced budget. Tell me why that's bad.

A conservative wants to "conserve" and protect the envirionment. Why is that bad?

They wrapped their new brand of corporatist/religious fundy ideology in the old Conservative banner. Just like they wrapped themselves in the flag, called dissidents unpatriotic as they set policies which are destroying our nation.

You are right, real conservatives want the budget to balance and they want cautious policies regarding environment. We haven't seen many real conservatives in the GOP in over a generation.

And we need them. There needs to be constructive civil debate and exploration of policy ideas from many angles for democracy to function. What we have now isn't working for the nation. It's working great for huge corporations which do not recognize any power (or nationality) but their own. They twist governments to their will rather than respect them and abide by laws.

has abused the conventional meanings of the word "conservative."

Using your example, the conservatives have NOT achieved a balanced budget (far from it).

Conservatives have NOT protected the environment (far from it).

So for these reasons--and so many more--the word "conservative" has come to mean just the opposite. It is a corpse that cannot be painted up.

Conservative values are DOA now. Busted.

... the term "liberal" as defined by those in power, has come to mean "un-patriotic", "hate-America", "evil incarnate" so that term is a "corpse that can't be painted up". But I don't think true liberal valeus are dead any more than true conservative values are dead. I think we need leaders who will stop trying to divide us with thier rhetoric, and unite us with their deeds.

the "un-patriotic, hate America " label as attached to Liberals is a nebulous propaganda LIE.

The argument that conservatives are frugal, protective of anything, concerned about individual rights (anymore than Dems are)---is a LIE in FACT .

The conservative agenda has failed in actual, literal performance. And I think the people who supported Bushco will come to that realistic conclusion a lot sooner than their leaders will.

The divide between the two parties is no longer merely an image war. The old liberal-conservative dichotomy has been blown out of the water and doesn't even make sense anymore. From this point on it seems to me that it's the honest vs. the dishonest, the rational vs. the irrational, True Americans vs. Abusers of Democracy.

Blue Vs. Red is Dead.

(sez I)

... the definition of "conservative." All the attributes you ascribe to "conservatives" are not in the conservative playbook. They are inventions of the "neo-conservative" movement, which is best described as taking conservative philsophy, tying it in a pretzel, a stripping out all humanity.

Here's a syllogism that may or may not help.

Neocon is to Conservative as Right-wing-fundamentalist is to Christian.

--that there is an untarnished definition of "conservative" applied to the GOP that is worth reviving --doesn't fly after Bushco. We are in a strange new world now, one in which all the old illusions have to be jettisoned in favor of something better for all. The Republican party cannot just lop off an arm and hope to save the patient. ("Bad" repugs vs "good" Repugs)

Here's a syllogism for you:

Conservative is to Republican as Conservative is to Democrat.

now they want to take it back--and inconveniently, people still remember their zeal.


Conservatives will have to do a lot more than say "It wasn't Us! It was The Evil NeoCons!" Cuz they were "110%" behind the neocons when they looked like macho men, instead of losers, like now.

They could show their good faith by impeaching the King. Telly Savalas says he deserves it, so why don't they do what's right?

Conservatives do NOT want to conserve the environment. Conservatives want to 'conserve' only their victorian morality. Conservatism is about bigotry, hatred, selfishness , greed and fear.

Conservatism is about stifling change and progress.

you are confusing neo-conservatives with conservative. There is a difference, and it isn't pretty.

see the difference between the notions of 'conservative' and 'neo-conservative.' (!?!) But NO amount of making the first good and the second bad will save the Republican party. The party is compromised. They have made no serious effort to stop or curtail the Neo-cons in over 5 years. That is a DAMAGING record, which puts the lie to any notion of true conservative values at work.

If you try to make "conservative" into a neutral term, then it applies to the Democratic party as well.
And that's where I think it's best to head with it.

Take back 'conservative' as distinct from 'Republican.'

in both cases.

This article expresses my beliefs about conservatives:

http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html

and by the way, those assertions were straw dog arguments. ("Why is that Bad")

... and that may indeed be what 2006 "conservatism" is all about (although, again, it looks more like neo-conservatism). I think of "true conservatism" more like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatives

Wikipedia posted that alert above the title. So I'm not sure why you recommend it.

The alert alone confirms my beliefs about conservatives.

Couple of excerpts:

"Liberals in the United States have been losing political debates to conservatives for a quarter century. In order to start winning again, liberals must answer two simple questions: what is conservatism, and what is wrong with it?"

<snip>

"The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are.

Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them."

<snip>

"People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years."

want to protect and conserve the environment.



And here's why their ideal of a balanced budget is bad:

They don't want any revenues, because they don't believe in taxes.

So they believe in a government that can take in just enough money from the lower classes so they can provide corporate welfare and start wars, but not enough money to actually benifit anyone with health care or education.

in order to achieve balance.

We are going to have someone sitting across the table from us. Forever (or until we abandon Democracy).

So a sensible moderate person who isn't dedicated to wiping your party from the face of the earth is preferable to a Limbaugh or Coulter Republican. Isn't that logical?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

The concepts of "liberalism" and "conservatism" each represent two spects of human nature and society.

"Conservative" is the instinct towards self-interest and "liberal" is the instinct towards communal identity.

Both are part of the balance of life and of the workings of society. Each keeps the other from going too far in any one direction.

Indiidually, people tenmd to gravitate towards whichever political side reflects which of those they emphasize in their own minds as a priority.

Today, however, what is often called conservatism is not truly conservative. It is a perverted form of the collective instinct mixed with a perverted form of self-interest baed on Cortporate Institutional Power, rather than healthy individualism.

So, that makes the distinction a false one today. It also makes it more difficult to maintain the battle when the otehr side does not really represent the positive aspects of conservatism as a balane to protect individual freedom.

I really think anybody under thirty has no real concept of classic "conservatism" or classic "liberalism" either.

this is the way to real unity in this country--not to buy into this conservative vs. liberal division at all. It is artificial.

that concurs with that artificial division. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2637905

I meant to look for that thread!

I missed that discussion. Excellent. Yes, we are on the same wave as are others around here.

There are true conservatives out there that are nothing like the Neocons. Conservatism is part of the human personality,it dominates in some,in others the liberalism dominates. It has nothing to do with this corrupt bunch in Washington.

Most people identify themselves as "conservative" regardless of their stand on the issues. The idea is that if the Dems grab the word back they will grab the people. Conservative could mean turning the clock back to the New Deal and the Great Society; Black people, Dems' most loyal supporters, already see it that way IMO.

I don't expect or want a one party system in this country; it would be foolish and against everything I'm fighting for now. What I do expect is fairness and honest, open debate. Let's throw some respect in there too.

that "taking back conservatism" (from it's sole association with the Republicans) is saying that it would lead to a one-party system. It would transform both parties to be radically reinterpreted...but not based on these artificial 'us vs. them' constructs.

Republicans are going to have to OWN this disaster they created, and not hide behind the 'true conservative' illusion, if they want any credibility from now on. And Dems are going to have to demonstrate what they've got going that blows the illusions assigned to them also.

I don't think the implication of this conversation is that it would lead to a one-party system.