Is Everyone Off Attending the Inauguration Today?

[Jay Miller]

It also ignores the huge divisions within people who describe themselves as either "conservative" and "liberal".

What's more important, not spending huge amounts of government money on bridges to nowhere or making sure gays can't marry?

 

[Keith Levenberg]

originally posted by VLM:
What issues divide left from right?

If I'm against the death penalty but for a flat tax and the essential abolition of the IRS, what is that?

It is not your position on any particular issue or issues that determines whether you're of the left or the right. It's the reasons why you hold those positions. The last two major party presidential candidates to call for a flat tax were a Republican (Steve Forbes) and a Democrat (Jerry Brown). It's fair to say they arrived at those views by different routes.

 

[Lou Kessler]

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:

I do have a little sympathy for the quixotic effort to restore "liberal" to its literal meaning of "believer in liberty," as Milton Friedman used it to describe himself. But then we'd have to call the libertarians liberals and the current liberals what? Socialists?

Tell me who the current liberals are and I'll tell you what I'd call them. Seriously.

Mark Lipton

How about forming the open minded party?

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Rahsaan:

originally posted by VLM:
You know, basically buzzwords and meaningless descriptions like "conservative".

Conservative is not meaningless. It refers to someone who is reluctant to change and wants to conserve. In the political sense, this has traditionally applied to people who wanted to conserve power among the elites and prevent the expansion of democratic rights. These were the huge political fights of the 18th and 19th centuries and much of the 20th century.

I agree this may not be the central political axis anymore (Conservatives vs. Progressives), except for the huge glaring issue of gay rights.

I also agree that these terms get mangled in the popular media.

So, you agree with me + some pedantry.

 

[Keith Levenberg]

"Conservative" as it's used in the U.S. today doesn't describe the same political philosophy as, e.g., those who wanted to conserve the monarchy in 18th century France. You're entitled to claim it's an inapt term for the philosophy it does describe, but that doesn't make it meaningless. (What's the purpose in calling it a meaningless term? To pluck the word from our vocabulary so as to make discussion of the philosophy it describes impossible, in the fashion of Newspeak?)

 

[Bill Lundstrom]

originally posted by SFJoe:
I heard all the stuff all day about our peaceful transfer of power in the US, and it made me a little wistful. Couldn't we have roughed those guys up just a bit on the way out?

well, chaney did leave in a wheelchair......

 

[Chris Coad]

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
The Mount Rushmore of Worst Presidents Ever can't be complete without FDR, LBJ, and Carter. I'll leave a spot open for W. while we await the judgment of history.

Sure it can.

Remind me never to discuss politics with you when we jeebus.

Aren't you the least bit curious how one would back-up statements like these?

I know I am.

Real student of history, this one.

How interesting could it be, hearing a detailed explanation of the exact correct manner to wear the tinfoil hat?

 

[Rahsaan]

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
"Conservative" as it's used in the U.S. today doesn't describe the same political philosophy as, e.g., those who wanted to conserve the monarchy in 18th century France. You're entitled to claim it's an inapt term for the philosophy it does describe...

I think the point is that 'conservative' is currently used in the US in a very incoherent way. The current popular usage is basically as a proxy for the Republican Party, which doesn't make much sense since the Republican Party has elements of many philosophies which don't neatly map onto the word 'conservative'.

At least that's how I see things.

Do you see a clear coherent philosophy behind the world 'Conservative' as it is used in the US today?

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Chris Coad:

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
The Mount Rushmore of Worst Presidents Ever can't be complete without FDR, LBJ, and Carter. I'll leave a spot open for W. while we await the judgment of history.

Sure it can.

Remind me never to discuss politics with you when we jeebus.

Aren't you the least bit curious how one would back-up statements like these?

I know I am.

Real student of history, this one.

How interesting could it be, hearing a detailed explanation of the exact correct manner to wear the tinfoil hat?

Because I think if someone has well thought out reasons for their belief system and is capable of reasoned argument then the discussion of competing ideas can be interesting and fruitful.

The reason most people can't discuss religion or politics is because they either lack a deep understanding or do not understand how to put forth a logical argument.

Most folks just spout shit.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
"Conservative" as it's used in the U.S. today doesn't describe the same political philosophy as, e.g., those who wanted to conserve the monarchy in 18th century France. You're entitled to claim it's an inapt term for the philosophy it does describe, but that doesn't make it meaningless. (What's the purpose in calling it a meaningless term? To pluck the word from our vocabulary so as to make discussion of the philosophy it describes impossible, in the fashion of Newspeak?)

Then give it some meaning. It is your term after all.

 

[Keith Levenberg]

originally posted by Rahsaan:

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
"Conservative" as it's used in the U.S. today doesn't describe the same political philosophy as, e.g., those who wanted to conserve the monarchy in 18th century France. You're entitled to claim it's an inapt term for the philosophy it does describe...

I think the point is that 'conservative' is currently used in the US in a very incoherent way. The current popular usage is basically as a proxy for the Republican Party, which doesn't make much sense since the Republican Party has elements of many philosophies which don't neatly map onto the word 'conservative'.

At least that's how I see things.

Do you see a clear coherent philosophy behind the world 'Conservative' as it is used in the US today?

I think it's more accurate to say that both major political parties are coalitions. And in both cases those coalitions have to consist in large (majority?) part of people who don't have much of a political philosophy at all.

There's definitely a clear philosophy behind the word "conservative" as used in the U.S. today, which isn't to say every member of the set will have exactly the same core beliefs, but that certain core beliefs probably make you one and certain other core beliefs certainly disqualify you from being one.

 

[Keith Levenberg]

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
"Conservative" as it's used in the U.S. today doesn't describe the same political philosophy as, e.g., those who wanted to conserve the monarchy in 18th century France. You're entitled to claim it's an inapt term for the philosophy it does describe, but that doesn't make it meaningless. (What's the purpose in calling it a meaningless term? To pluck the word from our vocabulary so as to make discussion of the philosophy it describes impossible, in the fashion of Newspeak?)

Then give it some meaning. It is your term after all.

My term??? It's a word in the English language. I can't take credit for it.

 

[Rahsaan]

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
There's definitely a clear philosophy behind the word "conservative" as used in the U.S. today...

Which is?

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:

originally posted by Rahsaan:

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
"Conservative" as it's used in the U.S. today doesn't describe the same political philosophy as, e.g., those who wanted to conserve the monarchy in 18th century France. You're entitled to claim it's an inapt term for the philosophy it does describe...

I think the point is that 'conservative' is currently used in the US in a very incoherent way. The current popular usage is basically as a proxy for the Republican Party, which doesn't make much sense since the Republican Party has elements of many philosophies which don't neatly map onto the word 'conservative'.

At least that's how I see things.

Do you see a clear coherent philosophy behind the world 'Conservative' as it is used in the US today?

I think it's more accurate to say that both major political parties are coalitions. And in both cases those coalitions have to consist in large (majority?) part of people who don't have much of a political philosophy at all.

I can agree with that.

There's definitely a clear philosophy behind the word "conservative" as used in the U.S. today, which isn't to say every member of the set will have exactly the same core beliefs, but that certain core beliefs probably make you one and certain other core beliefs certainly disqualify you from being one.

So, you're saying it's pornography.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
"Conservative" as it's used in the U.S. today doesn't describe the same political philosophy as, e.g., those who wanted to conserve the monarchy in 18th century France. You're entitled to claim it's an inapt term for the philosophy it does describe, but that doesn't make it meaningless. (What's the purpose in calling it a meaningless term? To pluck the word from our vocabulary so as to make discussion of the philosophy it describes impossible, in the fashion of Newspeak?)

Then give it some meaning. It is your term after all.

My term??? It's a word in the English language. I can't take credit for it.

Hundreds of years don't matter, as you said yourself.

I would say the word has no meaning for any but a fringe of politics in America today.

 

[VLM]

might work on eBob, but we're a bit better educated over here.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

On the worst Presidents, you have to decide whether you think worst means most ineffectual in office or means having done most damage to the country. If the first, I guess I'd nominate Grant, Harding and, alas, Carter. If the second, I'd nominate Buchanan, Hoover and Nixon. As bad as Bush was, he wasn't inactive in the face of the coming Civil War, he wasn't as bad as Hoover in the face of the Depression and whatever one thinks of his disrespect of elements of the Constitution, he didn't attack it as fully and directly as Nixon did. Which makes him only in the second tier of awful.

On the roots of conservatism, if one considers it as a movement with historical roots and not the thing invented by Goldwater and Reagan, then one would have to find it as in fact having strong roots in the arguments against the French Revolution and thus in monarchism and, in the later 19th century, for a government run by those with a vested interest in it, and thus anti-democratic.

Being say merely pro-business is only conservative to the extent that it has been a policy of Republicans since the 19th century. As a position, the claim is either empirical and thus subject to believe or disbelief according to evidence and not an ideological position, or ethical and thus on its face incoherent.

The strange mix of cultural positions now connected with Republicans are only particularly conservative in the US as a result of a fairly long and unique history of the style of fundamentalism that undergirds such positions.

I do think there are some signs that the larger left/right political division that developed at the end of the 18th century may be breaking down and may be largely not descriptive in another 20 years. One of those signs is that some issues, immigration and free trade for instance, cuts across party lines while others--I dearly hope the white backlash vote that has been so important to Republican electoral strength since Nixon--may soon be part of the dustbin of history.

 

[Steve Guattery]

originally posted by Bill Lundstrom:

originally posted by SFJoe:
I heard all the stuff all day about our peaceful transfer of power in the US, and it made me a little wistful. Couldn't we have roughed those guys up just a bit on the way out?

well, chaney did leave in a wheelchair......

One of my favorite moments from the broadcast was Cheney being loaded into his limo. He looked an awful lot like Mr. Potter from "It's a Wonderful Life", which seemed fitting.

 

[Keith Levenberg]

originally posted by Rahsaan:

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
There's definitely a clear philosophy behind the word "conservative" as used in the U.S. today...

Which is?

Federalism, constitutionalism, economic liberalism, textualism, Burkeanism, realism, and representative democracy, to name a few components.

 

[Rahsaan]

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
Federalism, constitutionalism, economic liberalism, textualism, Burkeanism, realism, and representative democracy, to name a few components.

That's not a clear philosophy. That's a grab bag of philosophies. And by including realism and representative democracy you have definitely moved way beyond anything exclusive to "conservatives" in any coherent sense of the word.

Which only supports my point that the word "conservative" is used extremely sloppily in current popular discourse.

Which is of course one reason why so many of these 'debates' happen. Because people are not even clear what they are arguing about so there is no way to make any progress.