Has the Bush administration signaled the end of conservatism?

[realpolitic]

Originally posted by uh Clem
What exactly is 'conservative' about the Bush regime?

Its adherence to the principle of limited government?

Its avoidance of massive deficits?

Its respect for what the Constitution called 'a republican form of government?'

???

Bush and Communism have the same fatal flaw: Centralization of power. When the power is in the hands of a few, the checks and balances that create robustness are gone, and create brittle societies, such as the Soviet bloc in '89 and '91. Bush's aides in www.newamericancentury.org said they wanted to make America the ultimate power in the world. They failed

Both Liberals, with their social programs, and conservatives with their military, act as if their programs are sacred cows. At best, they are as Tom Paine said:"nessarsary evils". Liberals pay lipservice to choice, conservatives pay lipservice to liberty, but ultimately both are on control trips.

[realpolitic]

Originally posted by Ned
I think this thread is mainly about economic conservatism. Bush is conservative in this regard only in one respect - taxes. He is conservative in no other respect.

He's certainlyt not fiscally responcible. if so, he'd have realized Iraq is a financial black hole.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
I'm not entirely sure how the Bush admin isn't conservative. I mean, lets look:

Ok, let's.

Rolling back civil liberties in exchange for "security"

This isn't conservative, it's authoritarian. There are conservative authoritarians (fascists) and liberal authoritarians (communists). (elijah, do NOT start lecturing me about your definition of liberalism!). Also, how serious do you think these breaches of "civil liberties" going? Since they can't really make him look GOOD with anybody (and he isn't locking up political opponents), I think that it really is for necessary security reasons.

Maintaining a tax cut that largely benefits the upper class

The upper class pays more taxes. Thus, a reduction across-the-board of tax rates will reduce the amount a rich person pays more than a poor person. Duh. It's called multiplication.

Declaring war on a soverign nation with a preemptive attack

How is this conservative at all?

Looking for ways to define marraige as man and woman

Ummm, marriage IS defined as between a man and a woman maybe he isn't trying to change the definition, but oh well.

Beginning a "Faith-based Initiative", which actually hurts non-affiliated programs

And liberals dont't have damaging programs too?

Israeli biases

As opposed to Palestinian biases, which are so much better

Looking to open the Artic Refuge for drilling

This is conservative how? And getting resources is a BAD thing?

Going back on the Kyoto treaty

We never ratified it in the first place!

[Whaleboy]

elijah, do NOT start lecturing me about your definition of liberalism!

It's ok, I'll spare you . I don't really give a damn anyway!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The act of being a conservative political is greedy. If you give to charity and volunteer that is great. If you vote conservatively (and why whould you?) then you being greedy (not that you are greedy).

Let me explain the logical conclusion of your beliefs. If I am required to give MY money - which I was PAID in return for a certain commodity, my labor - then you are really forcing me to give my labor to someone else. That is slavery!

[Kuciwalker]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar

Originally posted by skywalker


bad troll, stupid post [/QUOTE[

50+ responses isn't exactly "bad"

unfortunately, bad != unsuccessful

[Ned]

Originally posted by realpolitic


Bush and Communism have the same fatal flaw: Centralization of power. When the power is in the hands of a few, the checks and balances that create robustness are gone, and create brittle societies, such as the Soviet bloc in '89 and '91. Bush's aides in www.newamericancentury.org said they wanted to make America the ultimate power in the world. They failed

Both Liberals, with their social programs, and conservatives with their military, act as if their programs are sacred cows. At best, they are as Tom Paine said:"nessarsary evils". Liberals pay lipservice to choice, conservatives pay lipservice to liberty, but ultimately both are on control trips.

realpolitic, the conservatism I know is all about getting government control out of the economy. I have no idea how Bush could be considered conservative if, as you contend, he is authoritarian. If he is, he is the enemy of conservatism.

As to the budget, I agree that cutting taxes without cutting spending is irresponsilbe.

As to foreign policy, the neo-con view is the traditional view of Southern Democrats - aggressive in defense of America and American values. However, it is true that since McGovern, a good portion of Democrat party has been hostile to the pursuit of American interests abroad and is more "internationist" in their viewpoint. In contrast, both Bushes have been very aggressive. I note that both are from Texas. Kennedy, an Northern Democrat, was also aggressive. Historians note, however, that Kennedy was significantly out of step with a good portion of his party represented by George McGovern or Eugene McCarthy.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


They favor an authoritarian, militarized government that seeks to roll back civil liberties and that rules on behalf of corporations rather than citizens. They place might above right. They seek to stifle all dissent, telling Americans that they'd "better watch what they say." They've created false threats in order to consolidate their power and achieve their aims. They've cast aspersions on the patriotism of anyone who has dared to question them.

That's pretty much your textbook definition of fascism. A kinder, gentler fascism, to be sure, but fascism nevertheless.

I agree with the description, but I'd hesitate to call it fascist. It's a particular brand of rightwing extremism, but as long as they accept the possibility of a change of government by ballot it's not fascist. But it's difficult to come up with a really catchy term for this ideology.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned
realpolitic, the conservatism I know is all about getting government control out of the economy. I have no idea how Bush could be considered conservative if, as you contend, he is authoritarian. If he is, he is the enemy of conservatism.

As to the budget, I agree that cutting taxes without cutting spending is irresponsilbe.

As to foreign policy, the neo-con view is the traditional view of Southern Democrats - aggressive in defense of America and American values. However, it is true that since McGovern, a good portion of Democrat party has been hostile to the pursuit of American interests abroad and is more "internationist" in their viewpoint. In contrast, both Bushes have been very aggressive. I note that both are from Texas. Kennedy, an Northern Democrat, was also aggressive. Historians note, however, that Kennedy was significantly out of step with a good portion of his party represented by George McGovern or Eugene McCarthy.

The authoritarianism is with regards to things other than the economy, thus conservativism and authoritarianism aren't mutually exclusive.

[Ned]

I have no idea where anyone would contend that the US government is going after people simply for expressing their political opinions. Where is this coming from?

[Ned]

Yeah, but authoritarianism regarding "things other than the economy" is very typical of the left. Look at Russia, China and Cuba. Just saying Bush is authoritarian does not mean he is a conservative. He could be an extreme leftist, which many "economic" conservatives believe he is.

[Kuciwalker]

Yeah, but authoritarianism regarding "things other than the economy" is very typical of the left.

Wrong. It's part of communism. There are actually just as many right-wing authoritarian governments (maybe more). Look at a lot of those dictatorships.

[Ned]

Skywalker, I guess we have a problem, then. I define conservatism by the degree of freedom the people have. All totalitarian governments are leftist in my view. If a government denies basic freedoms to people, that government is not "conservative" and has nothing to do with conservatism.

[monkspider]

I would argue that denying basic freedoms is something intrinsic to, and an inevitable by-product of, conservatism. Someone like Stalin was simply a conservative of a different color.

[Odin]

Ned, you're an idiot. Your definition of conservatism is wrong, conservatism is maintaining the status quo. Your not thinking of Communism, your thinking of Stalinism. You are almost as bad as Fez in your BAMs. True Communists like democracy, but a nation cannot be truely democratic unless society controls the economy as well, "Capitalist Democracy" is an oxymoron since the elite capitalists are the ones who have real power. The US is not a Democracy, it is a corporate oligarchy. Only Communism can bring democracy.

HershO: I would call it Right-wing Populism