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

Glad you mentioned the 1940's because Karen's father was hesitant about settling down in McHenry, IL until he walked by a factory on Rt 121 and a shop steward appeared in the doorway asking if he'd like a high paying job.

"How high are we talking?", asked Bob Mitchell...the answer was roughly double what Bob had been making down in Lepanto, Arkansas where he grew up.
And it was a plant that was manufacturing a newfangled thing called a central air conditioner, which was exactly what he had gone to school for down in Arkansas.

Bob Mitchell spent the next thirty some-odd years raising his family in McHenry. All in all I'd say that the political machine up there did pretty good by the folks who lived there.

The ONLY reason I mentioned my membership in the SWP was to show that I have not always been a Republican. I also mentioned that I was active in the Democratic Party. It was not an appeal to authority. One of my favorite sayings is "Question authority" especially if I am the authority. I do know a lot about liberals, most of my friends are liberals and they are as anti-Marxist as I am. It was a statement of who I was, nothing more, nothing less. That you read into it anything about my belief that all liberals are Marxists is the beam in your eye.

The reason the big city political machines were around for a long time is because they helped people, as your example shows.

And you are not doing that?

I figured it out. It’s because the blenderizer thing doesn’t work when there isn’t enough ingredients available for creating a Gishmash hotdish, or as it’s known in Delaware, a confusion stew.

No, I am not. The fact that you don't recognize that is quite telling.

LOL. I was about to post a comment on "Brandolini's law" - "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." - when I saw this. Also known as "Bullshit asymmetry"

I took some time to go back and read through this thread. The variety of directions it has gone has been interesting, if uninformative. Going back to my initial query, I began to wonder if there were, indeed, still conservatives at all, or if conservatism has always been a chimera. What I mean by that is that "conservatives" - going back to the early users of that term - have always appropriated concepts that did not, and do not, support their political actions.

I'll take as an example, "classical liberalism." The implications of that phrase are two-fold: First, implying long-held, thus ancient principles; second, that it is informed by "liberal" thought. I will assert here that friend Hatrack does aspire to some aspects of this in his libertarian views on social issues - LGBTQ rights and such. That is commendable, and noted. But, the phrase is more broadly and inaccurately used by neoconservatives to disguise a rather abusive and controlling mindset. There are numerous other examples I have noted in the past.

I, personally, prefer the position that Hatrack first espoused: Conservatives seek to conserve. It is a nice, concise, and understandable turn of phrase, and therefore laudable. But, in perusing history, and current usage, I find that it is not, and never has been, actually true. There are certain things that have been sought to be preserved - mostly privilege - but in other respects they are indifferent to conservation. Is, for example, drilling in the Alaskan wildlands "conservative"? Isn't preservation of pristine lands more conservative? Is preserving the gerrymander a conservative principle? Isn't protecting the right to vote and equal application of the law a more conservative principle? Similarly, how is unfettered money in politics a conservative principle? I am confused by these and other "principles" espoused by "conservatives".

Perhaps a few examples of the conservative viewpoint (as opposed to the "conservative" viewpoint) might be in order. Is it more than "keeping things the way they are (even if they are decidedly unfair)"? Or are there larger principles at work. I am genuinely interested.

I realized that some of my phraseology in the preceding post is confusing. When I say conservative versus "conservative" what I mean is, those who are really conservative in thought versus those who use the label "conservative." I opine that the majority of actions/activities by modern "conservatives" is not conservative at all.

There are some areas that are claimed by conservatism, generally, but aren't really conservative at all - such as small government, and tax cuts. There is nothing inherently conservative in a small government, except perhaps preservation of capital. But is not conservatism interested in efficient and effective government? The same with tax cuts. If the tax cut furthers a conservative goal, perhaps, but tax cuts are not, per se conservative, and may, indeed, create inefficiencies that undermine conservative principles. For example, reducing the police force, undercutting national security, etc.