|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 27, 2018 23:44:55 GMT
Most relevant to this board of course would be social conservatism. It is concerned with marriage laws, abortion laws, and basically punishing "sins."
Fiscal conservatism is about reducing the "size" of government (amount of money it needs for its own uses).
National conservatism is mostly about supporting the United States military and the United States generally especially with less concern how godly or expensive that might be.
As a party of "conservatism" the Republican Party has failed for many decades now to bring all those conservatives together. Whether Trump succeeds is yet to be seen. His definition of success is in terms of money, but he is not really a fiscal conservative. Arguments might be made that the natural disasters of several hurricanes prevents that from happening. Whatever the reasons it is not happening. He has cut government regulations, but not any agencies yet, although he says he plans to do that. He has cut taxes too, but not stepped forward to fire anyone. He often said "you're fired" on his television program but not in a way or place to reduce the size of government yet. Unless he or some else does the government will just go further in debt rather than shrink.
Nothing has changed in marriage law or abortion law. There is no sin less popular now than before he was elected. Many people hope that his appointment of Gorsuch to the Supreme Court will eventually result in change. That also remains to be seen.
Trump's support rather is mostly from national conservatives. They are people who do what they are told. Told by whom? Lately what they are told by their government. They don't do what they are told by God so much lately. Many Christians do not do what they are told by God and consider that fine. The people who do what they are told by government are not religious, partly because of those disobedient Christians, and partly because they no longer recognize any religion as an authority on anything.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Feb 27, 2018 23:56:49 GMT
Sounds like you're clamoring for the "We need more Jesus!" conservatives, which is essentially dying, especially amongst younger conservatives (just look at how Ted Cruz got destroyed in the primaries by that orange haired buffoon). May you and Glen Beck can start a self help group or something.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 28, 2018 0:24:35 GMT
Sounds like you're clamoring for the "We need more Jesus!" conservatives, which is essentially dying, especially amongst younger conservatives (just look at how Ted Cruz got destroyed in the primaries by that orange haired buffoon). May you and Glen Beck can start a self help group or something. We have plenty of Jesus. What we need is more religion.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 28, 2018 8:05:04 GMT
Sounds like you're clamoring for the "We need more Jesus!" conservatives, which is essentially dying, especially amongst younger conservatives (just look at how Ted Cruz got destroyed in the primaries by that orange haired buffoon). May you and Glen Beck can start a self help group or something. We have plenty of Jesus. What we need is more religion. Jesus disagreed.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 28, 2018 8:20:41 GMT
We have plenty of Jesus. What we need is more religion. Jesus disagreed. Kids can be that way sometimes. Anyway, who told you what?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 28, 2018 8:24:51 GMT
Kids can be that way sometimes. Anyway, who told you what? Is your "what" supposed to be a "that?" Because it doesn't make sense otherwise. If so, it comes from how much of Jesus's ire was directed at the religious leaders of his time.
|
|
|
Post by shadrack on Feb 28, 2018 8:44:17 GMT
There is no sin less popular now than before he was elected. True. In fact, I would say the net effect is the opposite. The number of so-called social conservatives who still give their full-throated support to this president is astonishing given his history. I guess all their talk about "sanctity of marriage" and "traditional family values" was nothing but a steaming pile after all. Gosh, whoda thunk it?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 28, 2018 9:08:16 GMT
There is no sin less popular now than before he was elected. True. In fact, I would say the net effect is the opposite. The number of so-called social conservatives who still give their full-throated support to this president is astonishing given his history. I guess all their talk about "sanctity of marriage" and "traditional family values" was nothing but a steaming pile after all. Gosh, whoda thunk it? I believe there are far more good intentions out there than you're counting. Many of the people with good intentions are misled by the few without. There are only a few bad leaders who think that a rich person is a winner regardless what he does on his social life and poor person is a loser regardless what he does in his social life. That obviously hinders social conservatism. There are plenty of Republicans who if not so misled would advance social conservatism far more.
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Feb 28, 2018 14:14:32 GMT
By definition, conservatism cannot be about making radical changes. You could argue that small government views are reactionary in nature, but even that is a stretch as most small government libertarian types are simply radicals who want to bring about a new type of system that has never existed much less succeeded anywhere (to my knowledge).
Side note for contrast, a New Deal type liberal today will be quickly dismissed as a radical socialist (see Bernie) by our far right of center establishment, but they are actually just reactionaries who want to go back to the time period when the USA was at its best.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 28, 2018 15:17:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 28, 2018 17:17:07 GMT
That does not eliminate the position, it just gets filled by someone else. I mean "your job is eliminated, so you're fired." Please notice the context. It is about the size of government, not what people wear to work.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 28, 2018 17:19:18 GMT
By definition, conservatism cannot be about making radical changes. ... It can be about unmaking them.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 28, 2018 18:47:54 GMT
National conservatism is mostly about supporting the United States military and the United States generally especially with less concern how godly or expensive that might be. That’s NOT what “national conservatism” means. National conservatism is a term used for conservatives who emphasize issues related to nationalism and sovereignty. National conservatives strongly oppose immigration, and they support maintaining national sovereignty over globalism. They also support social conservative and traditional values, particularly with regard to religion, culture, and ethnicity; and if in Europe, they are strongly Euroskeptic. Conservapedia (National Conservatism)Wikipedia (National Conservatism)Your definition would no doubt include many liberals.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 28, 2018 18:59:45 GMT
National conservatism is mostly about supporting the United States military and the United States generally especially with less concern how godly or expensive that might be. That’s NOT what “national conservatism” means. National conservatism is a term used for conservatives who emphasize issues related to nationalism and sovereignty. National conservatives strongly oppose immigration, and they support maintaining national sovereignty over globalism. They also support social conservative and traditional values, particularly with regard to religion, culture, and ethnicity; and if in Europe, they are strongly Euroskeptic. Conservapedia (National Conservatism)Wikipedia (National Conservatism)Your definition would no doubt include many liberals. But but Arlon knows better than your feeble dictionary.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Feb 28, 2018 20:00:36 GMT
As a party of "conservatism" the Republican Party has failed for many decades now to bring all those conservatives together. That wasn't even the original mission of the Republican Party. Early on it championed the liberal cause of abolishing slavery. The first so-called conservative cause it embraced was fiscal conservativism. Around the time of Herbert Hoover the party was a mix of various liberals and conservatives, as was the Democratic Party. One could hear people talk about the "liberal wing of the Republican Party". The civil rights movement of the 60's polarized things greatly, forcing a realignment of the mixed coalitions into more separated and "pure" parties, where you found the most conservative Democrats like Strom Thurmond switching parties. In the future the Republican Party will most likely face the choice of broadening its appeal (and thereby lessening its hard-right stance), or becoming irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 28, 2018 20:21:05 GMT
As a party of "conservatism" the Republican Party has failed for many decades now to bring all those conservatives together. That wasn't even the original mission of the Republican Party. Early on it championed the liberal cause of abolishing slavery. The first so-called conservative cause it embraced was fiscal conservativism. Around the time of Herbert Hoover the party was a mix of various liberals and conservatives, as was the Democratic Party. One could hear people talk about the "liberal wing of the Republican Party". The civil rights movement of the 60's polarized things greatly, forcing a realignment of the mixed coalitions into more separated and "pure" parties, where you found the most conservative Democrats like Strom Thurmond switching parties. In the future the Republican Party will most likely face the choice of broadening its appeal (and thereby lessening its hard-right stance), or becoming irrelevant. Or splitting into two parties.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 28, 2018 22:27:21 GMT
As a party of "conservatism" the Republican Party has failed for many decades now to bring all those conservatives together. That wasn't even the original mission of the Republican Party. Early on it championed the liberal cause of abolishing slavery. The first so-called conservative cause it embraced was fiscal conservativism. Around the time of Herbert Hoover the party was a mix of various liberals and conservatives, as was the Democratic Party. One could hear people talk about the "liberal wing of the Republican Party". The civil rights movement of the 60's polarized things greatly, forcing a realignment of the mixed coalitions into more separated and "pure" parties, where you found the most conservative Democrats like Strom Thurmond switching parties. In the future the Republican Party will most likely face the choice of broadening its appeal (and thereby lessening its hard-right stance), or becoming irrelevant. I agree (mostly) with your assessment of the past of the Republican Party. And before it was the Republican Party it was a party that championed a strong central government. All that was a long time ago and things have changed. Also, describing slavery as a "liberal" cause is not entirely fair. I disagree with your assessment of the future. The Democratic Party is collapsing, else there would be no President Trump. As long as Trump fails to unify conservatives Democrats can be successful, for example in the midterms. The notion that the country does not need to, and will not, move to the right is sorely mistaken. I think you are correct though that it must be a better defined right.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 28, 2018 22:31:53 GMT
National conservatism is mostly about supporting the United States military and the United States generally especially with less concern how godly or expensive that might be. That’s NOT what “national conservatism” means. National conservatism is a term used for conservatives who emphasize issues related to nationalism and sovereignty. National conservatives strongly oppose immigration, and they support maintaining national sovereignty over globalism. They also support social conservative and traditional values, particularly with regard to religion, culture, and ethnicity; and if in Europe, they are strongly Euroskeptic. Conservapedia (National Conservatism)Wikipedia (National Conservatism)Your definition would no doubt include many liberals. I was not writing a "definition" of national conservatism. I was describing the current set and activity of national conservatives. I must say though that the differences do not appear worth mentioning.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 28, 2018 23:09:56 GMT
Kids can be that way sometimes. Anyway, who told you what? Is your "what" supposed to be a "that?" Because it doesn't make sense otherwise. If so, it comes from how much of Jesus's ire was directed at the religious leaders of his time. Pardon my shorthand, that was two questions rolled into one. 1 Who told you Jesus disagreed? 2 What (details, please) did they say? Meanwhile, on Planet Arlon ... While Jesus did oppose certain religious leaders of his time that doesn't mean he opposed all religion.
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Mar 1, 2018 3:16:42 GMT
Sounds like you're clamoring for the "We need more Jesus!" conservatives, which is essentially dying, especially amongst younger conservatives (just look at how Ted Cruz got destroyed in the primaries by that orange haired buffoon). May you and Glen Beck can start a self help group or something. We have plenty of Jesus. What we need is more religion. "for i was naked and you clothed me. hungry and you fed me. in prison and you visited me. glock-less and you armed me." christ jesus.
|
|