Is modern conservatism a threat to us?

Since the Obama presidency, I think conservatism has started to morph into something that is becoming potentially dangerous. 

Now, I'm of the opinion that conservative ideology is always a threat to the well being of the general population. 

As I have before,  I point to this essay: http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html, which opens with the following:

Q: What is conservatism?

A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Q: What is wrong with conservatism?

A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and
civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality
and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the
modern world.

I believe that this is spot on. But modern conservatism is moving a step beyond this, as I believe it is becoming more and more accepting of violence as the means to their ends.

The Cliven Bundy stand-off last year was an example of this. The Feds very wisely avoided responding to the provocations of the anti-government Bundy mob, which, if you remember, started attracting adherents from across the country. Luckily the confrontation petered away once Bundy revealed himself to be your basic racist, but if that not had happened it could have turned into a real disaster. (and, BTW, the Obama administration gets HUGE credit for the way they handled this bunch of whackos.)

The recent Planned Parenthood attack is another example. It was pretty obvious, in real time, that the statements of people like Carla Fiorina might spur someone into action. Remember what she said when this first came up in the debates:

"fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking,  while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain."

Hell, even I might be moved to attack the organization that was responsible for that.

But what put the issue over the top for me was this blog post, link, which contained the following statement from former Representative Joe Walsh, speaking to a bunch of Tea Party members:

It’s hard to say, ‘don’t’ be afraid of it,’ because we don’t know what’s
going to happen,” Walsh, 53, said. “Remember, revolution is a scary
term. It implies violence; it implies open rebellion. People shouldn’t
be afraid because initially we’re going to use the political system in
this revolt to try to fight back.”

“It’s not going to get violent at first, but look, the two prior
revolutions we had got violent — the American Revolution and the Civil
War,” the one-term congressman continued.

“Our founders believed that it may take violence to take back our country every now and then.”

You, God bless you, were brought into this world and brought into this
country, I would argue, right now, at this point in time, right now at
the dawn of the third American revolution to fight,” Walsh told the
students who had traveled to West Palm Beach, Florida from all around
the country.

At best, the response to these remarks should be muted and uncomfortable silence. I'll let you guess how the audience greeted them.

And of course there is the rise of Trump, easily the most radical and divisive presidential candidate of my lifetime, whose campaign is the essence of conservative politics - fear of the other. Though he stops short of openly advocating violence (because that is admittedly still too much for our pundit class to accept) his "policies" regarding immigration are just one step removed from that.

These people are dangerous.

drummerboy said:


These people are dangerous.

True, but they aren't conservatives.  Radical reactionaries, maybe, but not conservatives.

You'll be fine, switch to decaf.

drummerboy said:


Q: What is wrong with conservatism?

A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and
civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality
and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the
modern world.

You know, that is just b.s.   A great many -isms are compatible with democracy as long as you leave the fundamentals in place - free and fair elections.

If you repeatedly infringe on peoples rights there will be people that will get upset about that.  There's always part of society that is a little nuts.  

More dangerous than either of these factions are those simple minded enough to conflate them. 

Domination by an Aristocracy?  I think I'll just stick with Miriam Webster on the definition thing.  Or is that too conservative?

Full Definition of conservatism

1capitalizeda :  the principles and policies of a Conservative partyb :  the Conservative party

2a :  disposition in politics to preserve what is establishedb :  a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically :  such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)

3:  the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

Two different notions of "Conservatism":

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/ted-cruz-campaign-wall-street-journal-216916

To me the WSJ represents what American Conservatism has been from Alexander Hamilton to Paul Ryan. That is, that the role of government is to support commerce and free-enterprise. I believe it was an official of the Coolidge or Hoover Administration who said, "The Business of Government is Business". 

In recent years this philosophy manifests itself as support for low taxes and opposition to government regulation or "interference" in the marketplace.

The problem is that that philosophy did not command enough votes to win elections, particularly Presidential Elections, or at least the Party of Business, the Republicans, did not trust the electorate to support that viewpoint. 

So Nixon embarked on a "Southern Strategy" but it was more than an appeal to White people in the South hostile to racial integration. It was an appeal to those Whites in the North frightened by urban riots, street-crime and the cultural changes of the 60s. A most significant cultural and legal change came from Nixon's appointees to the Supreme Court, appointed to counter the liberalism of the Warren Court, particularly on the rights of criminal defendants, they became best-known for the case of Roe v. Wade , and although that was authored by a Republican Justice and supported by the Republican Chief Justice, their Party found allies by opposing that decision and adopting an anti-abortion position. 

So now we had the third leg of the Republican stool. The so-called "Social Conservatives".  Now while Trump has appeal to some of these folks it is really Cruz who is their candidate. And since the WSJ types can't imagine Trump as the Republican nominee it is Cruz who they fear. 

MDonoghue said:

Domination by an Aristocracy?  I think I'll just stick with Miriam Webster on the definition thing.  Or is that too conservative?




Full Definition of conservatism

1capitalizeda :  the principles and policies of a Conservative partyb :  the Conservative party

2a :  disposition in politics to preserve what is establishedb :  a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically :  such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)

3:  the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

Supporters of Ted Cruz and certainly supporters of Donald Trump would not recognize themselves in those definitions.

terp said:

If you repeatedly infringe on peoples rights there will be people that will get upset about that.  There's always part of society that is a little nuts.  

More dangerous than either of these factions are those simple minded enough to conflate them. 

The problem is each political side seems to have a different opinion of which rights can be infringed upon.

Interesting that we jump to make distinctions about -isms when it suits our specific arguments, and also notably do not when it suits our specific arguments.  We social, political and religious creatures are silly things, aren't we?

The problem is that people do not want the rights that they want to exercise infringed upon but do not get upset about infringement of rights which they do not care about exercising.

LOST said:

The problem is that people do not want the rights that they want to exercise infringed upon but do not get upset about infringement of rights which they do not care about exercising.

Yep, exactly that.

And there is the all important right to infringe upon the rights of others (e.g., not allowing gay marriage).

I think you gents(and ladies?) are onto something.  We'd be much better served to ensure our natural rights are protected and not venture into granting rights that by definition must violate the rights of others.  

LOST said:

MDonoghue said:

Domination by an Aristocracy?  I think I'll just stick with Miriam Webster on the definition thing.  Or is that too conservative?




Full Definition of conservatism

1capitalizeda :  the principles and policies of a Conservative partyb :  the Conservative party

2a :  disposition in politics to preserve what is establishedb :  a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically :  such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)

3:  the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

Supporters of Ted Cruz and certainly supporters of Donald Trump would not recognize themselves in those definitions.

I don't recognize them there either.  I believe the term 'conservative' is widely mis-applied in today's politics.  Your post about Nixon's southern strategy sheds some light on why that may be, but it doesn't change the fact.  If we were able to give a more descriptive a new name to the politics of a Cruz or a Trump, I doubt it would be flattering, and perhaps it would cost them support of folks who have a knee-jerk reaction to supporting the "most conservative" candidate.  

We used to have a Know-Nothing Party and a Whig party.  How about the 'Know Nothing Comb-Over' party?

terp said:

I think you gents(and ladies?) are onto something.  We'd be much better served to ensure our natural rights are protected and not venture into granting rights that by definition must violate the rights of others.  

What's an example of that distinction? What would you put in each category?

ctrzaska said:

Interesting that we jump to make distinctions about -isms when it suits our specific arguments, and also notably do not when it suits our specific arguments.  We social, political and religious creatures are silly things, aren't we?

gee, can we be more oblique?

MDonoghue said:

Domination by an Aristocracy?  I think I'll just stick with Miriam Webster on the definition thing.  Or is that too conservative?




Full Definition of conservatism

1capitalizeda :  the principles and policies of a Conservative partyb :  the Conservative party

2a :  disposition in politics to preserve what is establishedb :  a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically :  such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)

3:  the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

yes. "to preserve what is established". And what has been established since time immemorial?

From my OP: "Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy"

Is that not correct? That, in fact is what conservatism has ALWAYS been about. 

Conservatism goes back thousands of years. Health care coverage wasn't exactly an issue under King George, but he'd certainly qualify as a conservative.

Only certain rights...... 

It's okay for the government to infringe on a woman's right to choose, a citizen's right to vote, a person's right to practice Islam, and so on.

The far right of the Republican Party is not about maintaining rights but imposing their belief system on all others.

terp said:

If you repeatedly infringe on peoples rights there will be people that will get upset about that.  There's always part of society that is a little nuts.  

More dangerous than either of these factions are those simple minded enough to conflate them. 

Intersting perspective you have there.    

yahooyahoo said:

Only certain rights...... 

It's okay for the government to infringe on a woman's right to choose, a citizen's right to vote, a person's right to practice Islam, and so on.

The far right of the Republican Party is not about maintaining rights but imposing their belief system on all others.

terp said:

If you repeatedly infringe on peoples rights there will be people that will get upset about that.  There's always part of society that is a little nuts.  

More dangerous than either of these factions are those simple minded enough to conflate them. 

TarheelsInNj said:

terp said:

I think you gents(and ladies?) are onto something.  We'd be much better served to ensure our natural rights are protected and not venture into granting rights that by definition must violate the rights of others.  

What's an example of that distinction? What would you put in each category?

The only natural rights you have are negative rights.  That is rights that compel inaction.   One has a right to worship, think, and express their opinion without fear of punishment, one has a right to their own body, one has a right to privacy, to their property etc.  Nobody else is compelled to action for you to have these rights.  People are only compelled to not violate these rights.

Let's contrast these to positive rights.  Positive rights compel action by others in order for them to be realized.  To realize a right to healthcare means someone else is compelled to provide healthcare.  Thus, positive rights tend to conflict with negative rights.  We often see vast problems in spheres where we provide positive rights.  We have a right to healthcare, and our healthcare economy has become absurdly expensive.  We have a right to an education,  and we have an absurdly expensive and failing educational system.  

When negative rights are violated we also tend to run into problems.  We fight a war on drugs violating one's right to their body and we spend lots of $$ and create a violent black market.  

ctrzaska said:

Interesting that we jump to make distinctions about -isms when it suits our specific arguments, and also notably do not when it suits our specific arguments.  We social, political and religious creatures are silly things, aren't we?

Yes, quite! If used too much, these words become meaningless. There was a time when conservatism and liberalism were not at all at opposite ends of a single-dimensional scale. One could be both conservative and liberal at the same time.

What's your best definition of conservatism? I'm interested in knowing!

ctrzaska said:

Interesting that we jump to make distinctions about -isms when it suits our specific arguments, and also notably do not when it suits our specific arguments.  We social, political and religious creatures are silly things, aren't we?

almost forgot to point out that you make no sense here. Making "distinctions" about isms is somehow to be looked down upon?

I think the whole point in naming a set of behaviors with an "ism" is that the behaviors are kind of distinct. Trying to clarify those distinctions, if you ask me, is something to be applauded, not derided.

meanwhile, people are either ignoring or avoiding my main point (maybe it wasn't clear?) that the conservative movement is promoting violence to a disturbing degree.

drummerboy said:

ctrzaska said:

Interesting that we jump to make distinctions about -isms when it suits our specific arguments, and also notably do not when it suits our specific arguments.  We social, political and religious creatures are silly things, aren't we?

gee, can we be more oblique?

Yes.

zing!

tjohn said:

drummerboy said:


These people are dangerous.

True, but they aren't conservatives.  Radical reactionaries, maybe, but not conservatives.

Perhaps it's time for Conservatives to react with respect to these people the way they want Muslims to react to Radical Islam.

drummerboy has always been big on the whole "guilt by association" thing.  *shrugs*

Bundy's whackos are still out there.  Stockpiling, training, and hating.  We haven't heard the last of them. 

terp said:

drummerboy has always been big on the whole "guilt by association" thing.  *shrugs*

how so?

ctrzaska said:

drummerboy said:

ctrzaska said:

Interesting that we jump to make distinctions about -isms when it suits our specific arguments, and also notably do not when it suits our specific arguments.  We social, political and religious creatures are silly things, aren't we?

gee, can we be more oblique?

Yes.

not really.