America Loves Conservatism
So basically in 2008 you had people tiring of the Republicans, who weren’t exactly acting like the torchbearers of conservatism, and electing Obama for a change, hoping all his empty rhetoric meant he’d just sit around and be smiley, and they’d have a break from all the bickering and the whiny hippies. But Obama went liberal, and, as is quite obvious now, people hated that. Hated that. Hated. Did not like. Thus you had the quickest change in the public’s opinion of the president’s competence since William Henry Harrison dropped dead thirty-two days in. Liberals just came in and started going crazy, demanding everyone’s money and spending it on whatever they wanted — they were like muggers but much, much more patronizing — and it fired up the public’s anger in record time.
Americans hate being pushed around in the form of government expansion or a bunch of liberal elites spending hundreds of billions of dollars when it’s quite obvious none of them have the economic know-how to run a hot dog stand. And that’s Americans everywhere — even in Massachusetts! The recent election made that inarguable; the number one complaint of those voting Republican was the Democrats’ health care takeover. Democrats worked hard toward achieving that holy grail of liberalism, and it got them the most stunning defeat since … well, ever.
So America loves conservatism and hates liberalism, but which has been the greater factor recently? The two do seem pretty intertwined, because a big part of conservatism is hating useless people who are convinced they should run everything, i.e., liberals. Still, if I had to pick one as the more powerful force in politics, it would be hatred of liberalism. While everyone hates patronizing dimwits who would spend their money and push them around, most people don’t care enough to join a political movement and wax on philosophically about the principles of conservatism. Then again, not caring is actually kinda conservative. Still, it’s not like you can build a consistent movement out of that and keep people interested when they have their own lives to deal with.
The best strategy to keep the public engaged is to expose liberals for what they want to do. Liberals will always try to hide it, but if people see clearly what liberals’ goals are, they’re going to hate those and want to smash them. That will always be true while America is still around. Unfortunately, as we now see, the easiest way to do that is to put liberals in charge.
“They like freedom, guns, keeping their own money, the rule of law, individualism, and killing bad foreigners.”
Why yes I do. I support killing bad citizens as well. Law and order is a good thing.
Our President says the time for talking is over. I keep hoping he’ll lead by example. Shhh already. Stop lecturing. Learn some economics, read some history.
Now, Americans do love conservatism. That’s pretty indisputable.
You’re as wrong as the socialists are.
Americans love the center. Americans hate extremes. Obama’s health care? Extreme. Americans would like FISCAL conservatism (mostly) but they rejected the social conservative Bush faith based nonsense. The opposite extreme.
Clinton won in ’96 by moving to the center. Obama won by promising to govern from the center (at least that’s how many saw it.)
However, in this echo chamber I expect that what you will hear is a great deal different.
“America hates patronizing dimwits who would spend their money and push them around, thus making liberalism very unpopular.”
Yeah?
You have to wonder why the liberals have won most of the national elections since 1933 (though it’s been better since the 1980s), and why we currently have an ultra-left wing president and the Dems running both houses of Congress.
“Now, Americans do love conservatism.”
They do until FDR or LBJ or good old Barry waves a welfare check under their collective nose.
Like freedom, guns, keeping their own money, the rule of law, individualism and killing bad foreigners? Damn straight!
Americans’ freedom was eroded by a series of gradualist incursions. We became habituated to governmental intrusions upon previously private spheres. Each was introduced delicately, a mere camel’s nose under the edge of the tent. Each was unctuously justified as “necessary” and “for the greater good.” And each was a bridge to far more sweeping, costly, and tyrannous measures.
But what’s passed from one generation to the next, politically, is seldom critically reassessed.
Unfortunately, gradualistm — what Isabel Paterson called the “ratchet action” of government — only works in one direction. It cannot be effectively opposed by a program of counter-gradualism. For the import of the “camel’s nose under the tent” tactic is that by getting the citizenry to accept it, statists establish State supremacy over all things as an unchallengeable principle. After that, the game is lost.
It’s strict-construction Constitutionalism or tyranny. There are no other choices. Unfortunately, strictness of any sort is currently frowned upon as “insensitive,” or “not sufficiently multicultural,” or some such, so tyranny is what we’ve got.
The Republicans lost because they stopped governing as conservatives. Eight years of Rino government culminated by nominating a Dem-lite for President.
If only they would fight for Freedom!
What Old Soldier said.
We have already smashed the statist media,and destroyed its propaganda monopoly;it’s time to smash libtardism’s control of schools by harassing state school bureaucrats and teachers,and demanding vouchers.Ditto for colleges. Tea parties have much work ahead for them.
I just wish you “conservatives” would realize that not all “hippies” were card carrying commies. In fact most were merely freedom lovers and also wished to get the state off of their backs. Think Ken Kesey and not Abbie Hoffman and you’ll go a long way into attracting some of these voters.
“Now, Americans do love conservatism.”
It would seem a much easier path if the Republicans did. Send’em packing, save but a small select few.
Reformation is a rigorous undertaking, or it fails.
#5 Francis W. Porretto –
You’re describing Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy.
#8 deguello — We have already smashed the statist media,and destroyed its propaganda monopoly;it’s time to smash libtardism’s control of schools by harassing state school bureaucrats and teachers,and demanding vouchers.
You have done nothing of the sort. The predicted and wholly natural consequence of internet technology is decentralisation of media.
Regarding vouchers — more wrong headed piffle. Math says that half of the kids out there are below average. Vouchers cannot fix that. This isn’t to endorse the current system, which is terrible, but vouchers aren’t the answer.
What is the opposite of a fiscal conservative? How do they survive spending more than they can make? How can the opposite stack liabilities over assets and think that it can balance?
2. Reject social conservatism, and you’ll get socialism. People who refuse to restrain their own lusts WILL (not may, will) be ruled by tyrants.
Frank, do you think you will be on Keith’s show tonight?
#13 myth buster — Reject social conservatism, and you’ll get socialism. People who refuse to restrain their own lusts WILL (not may, will) be ruled by tyrants.
Socialism is generally apropos of economics. But I still get your thrust here.
There are two types of people in general: those who wish to tell others what to do, and those who do not. The extremes are populated by the former; the center, the latter. Far right social “conservatives” have far more in common with far left eco-fascists than they do the American center. Both groups attempt to invoke authority (whether god or simply “we’re smarter” isn’t important) as a means to impose their will, and the center, amazingly, resists.
Americans dislike extremes. One could just as easily make the case that America is center-left rather than center-right; e.g. the much feared military industrial complex that begat NASA and computers and interstate highways and much of modern convenience was funded and kick-started by government, and this is certainly not a “conservative” position.
The failure of Obama administration was easily predictable. I did it back in November 2008, even before Obama was elected. Se it here:
http://hyphenatedamericans.blogspot.com/2008/11/i-can-live-with-obama_02.html
15. The problem is that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LIBERTY FOR PEOPLE WHO REJECT GOD. If the people refuse to live a moral life and restrain your own lusts, they will end up destroying society, and a tyrant will be NEEDED to restrain the wickedness of the people. The family is the building block of society- why else would the Statists try so hard to destroy it? And even you do not believe that the authorities should never tell people to do ANYTHING, for even you surely believe the purpose of government is to restrain those who violate the rights of others. The difference with social conservatives is that we recognize the humanity of people you find inconvenient. The unborn child has a right not to be murdered. The slave has a right to liberty. We won concerning the latter, and we must win concerning the former. The alternative is to lose the Republic, and if we lose it, we will deserve to have lost it for the innocent blood shed.
“#11 Vouchers cannot fix that”
Actually they have proven over and over that vouchers work VERY well. You must be a union teacher.
13 Myth Buster. You don’t seem to understand what libertarians (classical liberals) are all about. We despise tyrants and tyranny. We despise even tyrants who would impose on society views with which we agree in our private sphere of life. We hold liberty at least as sacred as you hold your socially conservative beliefs (whatever they are). There is ZERO risk of us becoming, or supporting a tyrant. It is contrary to our very being. Go ahead and criticize us and oppose us all you want. But you might try to understand us first. I suppose I should just let you rant while we all laugh at you, but I thought I’d try to help you out.
What TL said: Get your preaching in church and your freedom from very limited government.
#18 Conservative Mom — Actually they have proven over and over that vouchers work VERY well.
Any small scale test designed to game the system by exploiting known and accepted flaws will be a success by definition. This proves nothing that isn’t obvious. Your “proof” is the kissing cousin of computer hacker exploits.
Let’s assume you get your wish and you somehow make all schools work with vouchers. You still have to deal with the inescapable fact that half of the kids are below average. Vouchers don’t address this.
I certainly am no fan of the current education system. On the other hand I’m also no fan of imagining that putting a bandaid on a symptom has any chance of addressing the disease. If you’re vapid enough to believe in the magical healing power of bandaids, you’re probably vapid enough to assume I’m a union teacher. Oh, snap… too late.
If you’d like to discuss serious solutions, let me know.
#17 myth buster — The problem is that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LIBERTY FOR PEOPLE WHO REJECT GOD.
Well, then. You’re not off-the-charts wierd at all, are you?
G.L.Aston:
“Let’s assume you get your wish and you somehow make all schools work with vouchers. You still have to deal with the inescapable fact that half of the kids are below average. Vouchers don’t address this.”
G – are you representing the dumb-left on this site? No technique can change the fact that half of the people are below average. But vouchers can raise the average level – which is what we need.
Clear enough?
#23 Hyphenated American — But vouchers can raise the average level – which is what we need.
That makes sense. Just redefine mathematical concepts such as “average” so as to claim progress. (Self: why didn’t I think of that? I must be slipping as I age.)
If getting dumb kids to get better grades is the problem you think you’re solving, you can do this by eliminating the teacher’s unions and game the system from the other end. Vouchers aren’t required. Vouchers won’t make the dumb kids any smarter, and the bright kids will be just as screwed as they are now. Neat, well thought out solution. Congratulations. That makes as much sense as redefining the meaning of “average.”
Errr . .#24, you are joking, right? Or do you seriously not understand the difference between a group of 10 year olds with an average 3rd grade reading level, and a group of 10 year olds with average 6th grade reading level?
“America hates patronizing dimwits who would spend their money and push them around, thus making liberalism very unpopular.”
Well, when you define liberalism in such a negative and biased way, it isn’t going to be very popular. For example, if I I said:
America hates out-of-touch racists who would only value their own possessions, care nothing for the poor and the working class, insist on torturing people, and are in the pockets of private insurance and oil companies, thus making conservatism very unpopular.”
Alston – you are unusually dense even for a liberal. I am not talking about ‘redefining the average” – as I clearly have written, I was talking about raising the average level. In other words, with vouchers I believe we can improve skills of most kids – which would raise the average level. And heck, we may even have tougher grade system, and we can lower the grades.
It’s amazing that you have this fatalistic idea that no matter what we do in education – American kids, smart and stupid will always have horrible education. Vouchers surely won’t turn a dumb liberal (hint-hint) into Einstein, but it may well give him some resemblance of education and some skills. Think how much you could have achieved if you went to a decent school. For example, you would have been able to understand my arguments on your first attempt – even though your IQ would still be in double digits.
Audrey, the difference between Frank’s description of liberals and your description of conservatives is that Frank used the truth and your used ad hominem….
Take a look:
“America hates patronizing [Listen to any speech of MSM or liberal propagandist - and you will surely hear how much they despise the common man] dimwits [ad hominem] who would spend their money [liberals openly say they want to spend our money] and push them around, [recently liberals proposed in NYC to have a system which would fine restaraunts if they put salt in the fgood - this is just one example of how liberals want to push people around] thus making liberalism very unpopular.”
Lets look at your description of conservatives:
America hates out-of-touch [ad hominem] racists [ad hominem] who would only value their own possessions, [we all value our possessions] care nothing for the poor [which is why conservatives donate more?] and the working class, [conservatives are the working class] insist on torturing people, [torture of terrorists is popular] and are in the pockets of private insurance [ad hominem] and oil companies, [ad hominem] thus making conservatism very unpopular.”
Notice, that I can easily change what you wrote into anti-liberal attack, just watch:
America hates out-of-touch racists who would only value their own possessions, care nothing for the working Americans, insist on saving terrorists, and are in the pockets of unions and welfare population, thus making liberalism very unpopular.”
You see how easy it was? But Franks was far more descriptive – which is why you had such a hard time matching his description.
19. It is not you who will support the tyrant, but the tyrant will rise nontheless. Why? Because a people without a moral foundation is a people that is rotting at the core. President Adams rightly said, “Our Constitution was made only for the government of a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” Do you dispute his position, and if so, how and why? Such a people, lacking in moral fiber, will be destroyed either by its own internal problems, or, in its weakness, it shall be conquered by barbarians. What remains will be governed by a strong man who can restore some semblance of order.
myth buster is correct. Limited Gov’t. only works for people that are self-governing. One can only self-govern if one knows, and follows The Rules. Our freedom is derived from God, not Gov’t., as in,”…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”. An amoral people will either destroy themselves, or be ruled by a tyrannical Gov’t.
Thomas Jefferson once opined that a little revolution now and again was not necessarily a bad thing. Most Americans, the ones that work for a living do not want liberalism in the extreme but they also don’t want to see fellow citizens in need. It is a fine balancing act that we have yet to get right. How to make sure that in the greatest country in the world, or in history people are free to live their lives as they please and those who are truly in need are cared for.
It is this dichotomy that has spawned the issues we face now. I wish I had a good answer but I know one thing. Obama and his cabal do not have one and you can take that to the bank……if it’s still open.
Actually, people who work for a living care very much for the “poor”, it’s their money that pays for them to be “poor” and have multiple kids, cable tv, FREE insurance, FREE phones and even FREE cars, not to mention FREE rent, FREE food etc etc and if it wasn’t for all that caring, they might actually have to WORK. So maybe it’s the people who decide they don’t have to do what everyone else has for the last 200+ years to survive that really “don’t care” (as long as they can vote).
So sorry if I have no sympathy for someone with 5 kids who’s never worked a day in their life and has more than I do, aka “poor”.
#27 Hyphenated American — It’s amazing that you have this fatalistic idea that no matter what we do in education – American kids, smart and stupid will always have horrible education.
You can train kids who are destined to be plumbers to quote Nietzsche, but these aren’t the kids who will design tomorrow. What is wrong with education is the focus on trying to raise the lowest common denominator rather than teaching the bright how to learn. (Vouchers do not address this.) These are the kids who will design the future. Not little Johnny who is average or below but, through the promise of the magical properties of vouchers, can be trained like a seal to read at 6th grade level even if his natural ability is 3rd grade level.
(Do you have kids? I had 4. All of them were reading naturally at 6th grade level by 2nd grade. This wasn’t due to magical teachers, magical vouchers, or a fantastic school district. Blame genetics. This is pretty simple stuff. If the kid is capable of reading at the 6th grade level s/he will do so. S/he is either interested or not. Period.)
There is nothing wrong with Johnny being a plumber, either. Honest work, good pay. Plumbers, however, don’t need to be able to quote Voltaire or do astrophysics equations to run pipe or put in a sink.
Vouchers are merely an extension of the same vapid notion of a college education for all kids. Standard PC nonsense. Buck up and face the facts: half of the kids aren’t bright enough to be able to get anything out of going to college. If this isn’t clear to you now, it won’t likely ever be. Good day.
everyone,
been reading pajamas for years.
G.L. Alston thinks he’s the smartest one in the room.
Kind of like Obama.
Debating with him is like debating with BO.
Does no good.
He knows all.
He’s been that way for years.
I thought vouchers took the ‘smart’ kids out of the cesspools where learning was near impossible because of the disruptive bunch of child-thugs who have no intention of learning anything but car-jacking and drive-by shooting and criminal futures and the ability to still vote?
And yet I’ll answer him anyway. I don’t think everyone should go to college, but everyone with a high school diploma ought to be able to read well enough to be an active citizen. Every high school graduate ought to be able to do Algebra II and Geometry. They need to know how money works, how to refute absurd claims and be able to understand how functions work. That’s what we’re talking about- not sending everyone to college, but making sure kids graduate high school and have the skills to merit a high school diploma is vital for society.
“Unfortunately, gradualistm — what Isabel Paterson called the “ratchet action” of government — only works in one direction. It cannot be effectively opposed by a program of counter-gradualism. For the import of the “camel’s nose under the tent” tactic is that by getting the citizenry to accept it, statists establish State supremacy over all things as an unchallengeable principle. After that, the game is lost.”
Eh, not necessarily. Just because the camel’s nose gets under the tent doesn’t mean that he’ll get his whole body in there. I’m pretty sure there are enough people with enough weapons (metaphorical or otherwise) who are willing to decapitate said camel if he pokes his nose in any farther than it already is.
Well, it can be hard not to be a little bit patronizing when so many conservatives seemingly prefer quoting the mostly numbnutted “talking points” bouncing about the likes of Sunday morning talk shows, Fox News, and right wing/conservative web sites, instead of trying to actually figure out what really going on by doing even a teeny bit of real research. When someone says “Obamacare,” I hear “I’m an easily suckered conservative,” or when he/she says something like, “Well, there seems to be some truth about how this global warming stuff was exaggerated and Al Gore was making things up,” I hear “I have no friggin idea what’s what anymore.”
39. It’s hard not to be a bit patronizing when dealing with childish (left)wingnuts.
BC: your problem can be easily fixed – buy yourself a hearing aid, and your comprehension of the right-wing arguments will improve dramatically – since you will start hearing what they are saying, not what your feeble mind tells you they should be saying.
#36 myth buster — I don’t think everyone should go to college, but everyone with a high school diploma ought to be able to read well enough to be an active citizen.
We agree, and violently so. However, breaking the teachers union and abolishing the Dept of Education would do this. This ought to be done.
There was a minister living down the street from me. He told me of the time he lived in Calif and there was a house full of drug dealers down the street. He and the wife prayed and prayed and finally god made the drug dealers move away; this was his illustration of the power of prayer.
To me it was an illustration of cowardice and making it someone else’s problem. The minister is an advocate of vouchers. This isn’t coincidental.
If you’re going to set about solving what you see as a problem, then solve it. Don’t pass it off on everyone else.
So…what part of the The Constitution gives the government the right to educate your children? What part of The Constitution gives socialists and social conservatives the right to impose their will upon others through the imposition of un-constitutional laws?
What part of the The Constitution tells us that the government should be involved in nation-building? What part of The Constitution gives the government the right to impose it’s will upon other nations?
What part of The Constitution gives government the right to license and regulate marriage?
There are any number of things that are happening in America that everyone takes for granted. None of those things have a whole helluva lot to do with The Constitution or with freedom and liberty.
Sometimes it should become someone else’s problem- someone who’s better qualified to handle it. That is what vouchers do.
#32 Dano – So sorry if I have no sympathy for someone with 5 kids who’s never worked a day in their life and has more than I do, aka “poor”.
This made me think about my situation compared to my brother. Mine & my husband’s businesses tanked with the economy, and we both had to go out and find jobs in retail just to pay basic living expenses. He’s making 1/3 what he did before, and I’m making 1/2 of what I did (minimum wage). We had to file bankruptcy as we were being sued by credit card companies and two counties for unpaid property taxes. The IRS put a lien on our property for unpaid income taxes. We haven’t eaten meat other than hamburger and chicken in who knows how long. We’ve had to accept handouts from people (food from my mother and the local KFC – God bless that manager, internet from my son, and money for a root canal from a total stranger), which is horribly demeaning. It is a constant struggle to get through each week. At this very moment, our bank account is empty until payday on Friday.
Now, my brother was laid off. Both his vehicles were repoed. He was going to lose his house. He emptied his 401k, abandoned his house, bought a used mobile home for cash, and parked it on my mother’s land. Then he filed for unemployment. They have 4 children and receive $700 a month in food stamps, and they spend every penny. Their freezer, cabinets and fridge are so stuffed with food, they had to start putting some of it in my mother’s shop. Most will end up thrown out, because with each month comes another $700 that is immediately spent on more food. When my brother’s unemployment check arrives, they go to town and blow it all. They just got satellite TV set up in every room of their house. They each got a new Blackberry. They buy gobs of toys and electronics for the kids.
My husband and I work, and we’re barely scraping by with the help of others. My brother and his wife don’t work and have not one worry. I just don’t get it.