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

I am wondering how conservatives describe today’s “conservative”.

Times change and so do political ideologies. I'm an old foggie who classified himself as a Goldwater Conservative with some of Perot thrown in. I grew up under Eisenhower who also had a huge influence on my political thinking. This I think left me more of a traditional conservative than what today we describe as social or religious, neo or any other type of conservative.

Traditional conservatism believes in fiscal responsibility, not what passes as fiscal conservatism today. I believe that the government shouldn't be spending more than it takes in. A balance budget. Today fiscal conservatism means just low taxes where as being fiscal responsible mean if one has to raise taxes to balance the budget, one does it. If one has to cut spending to balance the budget one does it. Most likely it means both. Eisenhower is the last president of actually have the national debt lowered in two of his eight years.

Traditionalist also believe in small government. Keeping government out of a citizen's private business and lives. This is where traditional conservatism has a big problem with what is known as social or religious conservatism. I believe when it comes abortion, that should be left up to the woman, not the government. Same with gay marriage, let love decide, not government.

Also with the cold war over, that we shouldn't be the policeman for the whole world anymore. Let Europe take care of Europe, WWII reconstruction is long over.

There are other things, but traditional conservatism basically is a dying brand.

Thanks, perotista. Sounds like a pretty sane set of principles that can play well in any discussion.

Seems like the main problem today with political discussions is the destructive use of lying, incivility, hyperbole, dishonesty, and intentional obtuseness. Clear those things away and we could likely solve some problems in this world.

RR is far better at honest discussion than any other political site I have visited, largely due to a set of rules designed for civility and honesty. I think the rules have slipped a bit in the past few years, partly due to the passing of some of our chief enforcers, and partly due to a general erosion of public discourse.

I appreciate your interest in discussing, and not just looking for a fight.

To butcher an old saying, "Books are for learnin', and the internet's for fightin'!"

While I agree with most of what you said, perotista, it is the "policeman of the world" that I take issue with. If America is not the policeman of the world who do you think should have that job? China? Saudi Arabia? Russia? The European Union? Nature abhors a vacuum and if America is not the policeman of the world some other country will try to take our place. Throughout history that change in power has been accomplished by war with very detrimental results for the country that lost the position.

Medicare is A government run healthcare plan. It is one of many healthcare plans available. Our government runs it by paying doctors in the private sector that those on Medicare chose to see. Since our government (under)pays the doctors, even though they are in a private practice, it makes rules they must follow when they treat Medicare patients.


No, I did not say that. That is what YOU thought I said.
In a debate people respond to what the other person says, not what they thought the other person said.
That it is.
No, I am not. You think I am because when you read something into my comments that isn't there and then respond to what you thought I said, not what I actually said.

That was the conservatism that I grew up on and adopted. In the interim, two things have happened. First, the Republican party came under the thrall of what I describe as a "criminal mindset" - what I mean is that consequences don't matter.

I've written extensively on the "criminal mindset" in other threads and forums in the past. It is not as pejorative as it seems here, and I'll elaborate briefly: at the time of committing a crime, a criminal is not thinking of the consequences of their actions, including the impact on their victims. For some, this is a transitive thing - the passion of the moment, a lark, peer pressure, etc. They "act out". For others it is a social defect - psychopathy. For many (most?) it is circumstances, but becomes a habit. That sympathetic part of their brain "turns off."

That is, I think, what has happened to the Republican party, and by proxy, conservatism. Beginning with Nixon, it became manifest (although it appeared sporadically before then). People supporting/excusing and defending Nixon's and Agnew's criminality were infected and the contagion spread. With Reagan, and Reagan-worship it became habit, and with Newt Gingrich it became weaponized more effectively than Atwater. Trump, I've said, is the symptom, not the cause.

Now, I want to note here that a similar pattern occurred in the Democratic party, too, but it was more specific. Dan Rostenkowski, Wilbur Mills and Bill Clinton were exemplars of that. It is associated with the length of time a party is in power, and the increasing brazenness that occurs and that getting away with petty acts of criminality engenders - the habit of petty crimes leads to brazenness and bigger crimes.

I think, though, that the general tenor of conservatism makes the Republican party more susceptible to virulent outbreaks. Conservatism proponents tends to be more "aloof", high-minded, and mechanical in their language and approach - already leaning into non-sympathetic thought patterns. Democrats, in contrast, tend to emphasize their sympathy and even bleeding-heartedness.

That leads me to my second point and where my schism with conservatism occurred. I became aware - too slowly, I admit - that conservatism had excused a multitude of sins in the service of their aloofness from humanity. Racism, xenophobia and sociopathy lingered beneath the surface. When discussing economic and political theorems, pretty considerations like the impacts on workers and the citizenry get ignored. They forget that "creative destruction" means loss of jobs, economic turmoil, even starvation and death. "Tough on crime sentencing" means depriving households of breadwinners and exacerbating poverty. "Colorblind" policies cover blatant discrimination baked into society.

When you combine the latter with the former, you get an epidemic of inhumanity.

With this, I wholeheartedly agree. Policemen and soldiers follow that path largely out of an interest in humanity and an insinct to protect. Do we trust Russia or China to run the police force?

One can only hope and pray that is true.

Then clarify your thoughts rather than complain about being misunderstood, my friend. You threw out a position, "If Medicare for all is implemented then our government would be the only provider of healthcare.", but didn't specify what you mean, and how that is accurate. Nothing Jeff said was wrong, just a different interpretation of meanings. Medicare isn't "government run healthcare", it is government funded healthcare. There is a vast difference between funding and control. Just ask any governor.

In your response you didn't really clarify what you meant. I'm asking you to clarify what you mean.

I trust them every bit as much as I trust the USA.

And I strongly disagree that a world police force is necessary.