Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Where have all the conservatives gone?

My comment referred to liberals because they are currently the most actively opposed to it. I know that there are conservatives who would like to get rid of too. Mrs. Clinton's loss in the Presidential election is what has motivated liberals to to push to get rid of it.

I asked you to tell me the name of my source, not just to fob it off on a "conservative website." Show me a quote of Madison's that it was meant to protect against unqualified men from becoming our President.

When they did they believed there would more than two parties. Madison did speak of factions as way to keep our government working as well as possible.Now we are getting somewhere... Two things would help 1) Don't vote for any incumbents. 2) Support "third parties" to break the power of the two we have now.

Sadly, unlike many Republicans/conservatives I may have disliked Pres. Obama's policies but I always respected him.

I challenge you on that. I think you said it because, in your view, "liberals" are inferior and dishonest. No need to apply a label to make the argument.

I refer you to Federalist 68. The authorship is presumed to be Hamilton, with Madison an alternate possibility, but it is certain that he, at the time, approved of it. I say this based upon the report of the convention itself (although not a direct quote): Moreover, he expressed misgivings about the Electoral College himself in this Letter to George Hays in 1823. What bothered him most, though, was the advent and influence of "factions" (parties) that distorted the will of the people, and the use of "winner take all" apportionment of Electors that resulted.

No, I do not think liberals are inferior and dishonest. There are dishonest conservatives and liberals. The only conservative that isn't dishonest is the author of this comment.

I said liberal because they are not happy with the results of the election. Their dissatisfaction with the results has made the elimination of the Electoral College a bigger issue for them than it is for the others who would to get rid of it. I wasn't exactly thrilled with the results but the two realistic choices we had were not that great.
I refer you to Federalist 68. The authorship is presumed to be Hamilton, with Madison an alternate possibility, but it is certain that he, at the time, approved of it. I say this based upon the report of the convention itself (although not a direct quote):It helps to remember that The Federalist Papers were written to influence the people of NY to ratify our Constitution. Therefore, the best possible light is put on who will be our future elected officials. They were not intended to be, although they have become, explanations of how to interpret our Constitution. Our Founding Fathers were politicians and they were not above putting a little spin on what they wrote.
That Madison had misgivings about what was done during hot summer when he and the rest of the members of the Constitutional Convention is to be expected. While the convention was in session the doors and windows were closed which made the room hotter. That 55 men were in a protracted sometimes heated political also made they endeavor difficult. Yet, despite those difficulties they wrote the greatest legal/political documents in human history. Is there nothing you have done in your life NW that you don't have misgivings about?

<with fingers crossed and tongue firmly planted in cheek, doing best Trump impression> Of course I have no regrets...

I am pleased to see you acknowledge that Madison's views were "flexible" over the course of his lifetime. So, quoting one particular aspect of his views at one particular time for one particular purpose does not end the debate. I get frustrated at - and this is not specific to you, my friend - the citation to "founders" with cherry-picked and out-of-context quotes that don't reflect their far-more-nuanced views. That gets my back up. Done with that, now.

But, making an effort to get back to the original thread topic -

I found this article, The Difference Between Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism, interesting. I particularly liked his typology graphic:
He makes, I think, a very valid point about the misuse of the term "Classical Liberal" in the modern context. Why the ‘Classical Liberal’ is Making a Comeback (Politico)
Accepting your previous assertions that "conservatism" is intended to "conserve", and that both the modern "liberal" and "conservative" traditions flow from the same philosophical source, where do you feel the current modern conservative or classical liberal would/should stand on current issues, such as separation of church and state, economic inequality, and social justice reform? (Feel free to address other topics.)

Fifty thousand out of work comedians and I get stuck with you!

"Either you are flexible or you eventually break from the changes in your life." (Me)
When I post a quote from one of Founding Fathers, especially Madison, due to the research I have done I know the quote is not out of context nor has it been cherry picked. As surprising as it might be, to you, there are people who are very knowledgeable about our Founding Fathers. I am one of them.

Those are both very interesting articles and need to be read and reread quite carefully. It is not my assertion that conservatism means to conserve. The root word of conservatism is conserve.
https://www.etymonline.comword/conservatism#etymonline_v_28676
The separation of church and state should not be a current issue. That was resolved by the First Amendment. There is and always will be income inequality. It exists because what some people do has more value than what others do. Should the income of the Rolling Stones be equal to that of person working at their first job? Hell no it shouldn't! The efforts to make everyone's income equal can only be successful if everyone is equally poor. To achieve that is to take away the incentive to improve your life. To get rid of income inequality is part of the social justice reform. Therefore it is a bad idea.

Straw man alert detected

Yes, there HAS always been income inequality...some income inequality.
In some time periods there was massive income inequality and in other times there was less massive income inequality, but only a numbskull would seriously ever expect there to be equal incomes for everybody, or equal outcomes for everything.

That's totally disingenuous.
No amount of finger pointing pedagogy about Marx, spare us ALL, please. Nobody here is interested in Marx. The most you will ever see who are nationwide probably number less than Arby's employees by several orders of magnitude.

NOBODY ever expects equal outcomes, even in the most ultra/uber egalitarian wet dream.
Equal opportunity on the other hand is another matter, and I am tired of endlessly drawing this important distinction to people who respond like zombies from The Walking Dead, endlessly insisting that I, a lefty, DO INDEED subscribe to Marx, while at the same time not even knowing I do. [/sarcasm]

You claim in one post that some things are a matter of degree.
In your post above, you trot out a one-dimensional cardboard cutout.
It might be Karl Marx, or it might be one of The Smith Brothers, of cough drop fame. It doesn't matter to you because you're in a hurry to point out some perceived failing of a socialist/communist ideology that isn't even part of the discussion on the Left.

A matter of degree in things like, say perhaps, human productivity, might be important. Or for instance, matters of degree in things like income inequality might also be considered important, and worthy of a closer look.

I think degrees in income inequality down through the ages follow a familiar pattern. When matched carefully to historic events both good and bad, one begins to see a pattern of human nature.

In today's economy, we are at or near enough to an extreme imbalance...several of them.

If you spot it, even when its not there, you've got it.
Nowhere in my comment do I make even a passing reference to Karl Marx but you keep seeing references to him. To repeat, there is not a single reference to Karl Marx in my comment!

I'm going to focus on just this part of your response:

A) Given the spate of separation cases recently decided that have expanded the sphere of "acceptable" interposition of religious beliefs on others, and in contravention of generally applicable laws, I'm not sure that assertion is currently accurate.

B) Not putting words into your keyboard, but is it your contention that only talent determines economic outcome? Factors like, say family wealth, race, and luck don't play a role? I'm genuinely interested in your take. Expect pushback.

C) Does society, generally, and government specifically, have an interest or responsibility to ensure justice is administered fairly?

Those cases, I believe, are based on a Supreme Court decision that misinterpreted what the is a governmental support of religion. Since I don't know which cases you are talking about that is why I said "I believe" they are based on an cases about Christmas decorations on city property.


The factors you mentioned do have an effect om how much money somebody might make. There are a lot of very talented musicians who will never make anywhere near what the Rolling Stones do. However, to try to eliminate those factors to make everyone's income equal is not possible.
Yes, government does have both an interest and responsibility to administer justice fairly. The problem is that our justice system is operated by human beings. To expect human beings to completely set aside their biases when called upon by our government to administer justice.

Keeping with the previous rubric: A) So, if I understand correctly, separation of church and state should not be an issue, but you agree (with me) that it is. And that it is an issue because the current SCOTUS majority is improperly interpreting the plain language of the Constitution? How do we "fix" this?

B) I have never suggested that we "eliminate those factors to make everyone's income equal" (nor am I aware of anyone here, ever, doing so). However, one of the aspirations of the nation is to make opportunity as equally available as possible. Rather than adopting policies that exacerbate inherent inequality (e.g., cutting taxes for the richest), I favor policies that enhance equity, (e.g., the Unified Gift and Estate Tax). I believe in progressive tax systems, and social safety net programs for that reason. There are many other policies that I believe will enhance the future of the majority of our population and are consonant with the principles our nation was founded upon. Rich Kids Stay Rich, Poor Kids Stay Poor (FiveThirtyEight); Opportunity Insights (Harvard) - See Which policies improve social well-being the most?

C) Since we agree that "government does have both an interest and responsibility to administer justice fairly." The question is, are we? (I think we can acknowlege that we are not. The Injustice System of America (Kellogg Foundation)) Shouldn't we do better? Can we do better? How do we do better? If, as you say, the problem is "our justice system is operated by human beings", I see two potential solutions - be better human beings, or eliminate human foibles as much as possible.

But, I think, with regard to both B and C, we have to start by acknowledging realities. One of those realities is the persistence of racial division as a matter of policy. When 49% of incarcerated adults come from 13% of the population, something is clearly wrong. When this prevails:
There is something that needs to be addressed. See, for example, Wealth taxation: An introduction to net worth taxes and how one might work in the United States (Washington Center for Equitable Growth).