Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
Originally Posted by perotista
Originally Posted by logtroll
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.
quote=NW Ponderer]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.
It was a group of Republicans, led by Sen. Goldwater, who told Nixon that his support on Capitol Hill was gone. Nixon realized that that he would be impeached and so he decided to resign. The infection was checked and did not spread. The low opinion of the Republican Party, thanks to Nixon, kept it in check. Regan worship was very bipartisan. A President doesn't win 49 of the 50 states when he is reelected if he is not very popular with both Republicans and Democrats.

Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
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.

No, in the Democratic Party it was more widespread. Most of the political machines that have existed in our country were run by Democrats. I agree, as Lord Acton said power corrupts and it doesn't what what political party you are a member of.

(Should I be nervous? Twice on Friday the 13th NW Ponderer and I have agreed on something.) shocked

Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
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.
The "conservatism" NW is referring to was not limited to the Republican Party. Racism and xenophobia have unfortunately a long bipartisan history in America. Creative destruction creates jobs and prosperity. A thriving growing economy will always be one in turmoil. The "discussion of economic and political theorems" is when our government is given more control over our economy. No government can do that as well or as productively as the private sector can. If the breadwinner of a family is convicted of crime should they be let free just because their family will suffer? If that happens then anyone who is the "breadwinner" of a family has just been given a get out of jail free card and the safety of society ceases to exist. When a person is not identified by the color of their skin, but rather as Martin Luther King, Jr, said "by the content of their character" then discrimination is removed from society.

Originally Posted by MW Ponderer
When you combine the latter with the former, you get an epidemic of inhumanity.
It is NW's views that would create an epidemic of inhumanity not conservatism.

The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary