Is individualism the reason why conservatism failed?

[OriginalGatorHator]

Probably an unpopular opinion and I fully expect this to rub people the wrong way but anyways I believe philosophically "individual liberty" or any variation of "natural rights" is fundamentally a liberal concept.

Liberal concepts have no roots in tradition, heritage, ancestry or any other esoteric concept that civilizations require to function and prosper. Liberalism is a parasite that overtime hollows out and kills all the above things in the name of "individual liberty". In short the right must reject "individual liberty" as a core tenant of it's philosophy or it's just the left driving at slightly slower speeds.

 

[WyoDawg307]

I think it is more simple and usually about money. As respects individual liberty, I have always approached it is more of a "do you want the government telling you what to do? or do you want to make your own decisions?" Conservatism used to be against big government. Bush 43 loved him some big government creation.

Conservatism as an ideal didn't fail, instead the so-called leaders of conservatism have failed the voters. The RINO branch of the Uni-party put up little to no resistance against the opposition for over 25 years, starting in 1989. Reagan was a leader and Orange man bad was a leader. Nobody in between was. And Orange man bad isn't a conservative or even a Republican - but he was an actual alpha male, which no other Republican candidate was since Reagan.

In addition, they put up these wonderful, unelectable candidates on the national ticket: Dole, McCain, Romney, At least 2 of these are actually democrats. Not to mention when they have the house now and in the past, you have McCarthy (Davos owned) and Ryan (Democrat at heart) as speaker.

Conservatism is failing, because the "conservatives" in DC decided it was more fun to spend $$$ like the Dems and they found it was also more profitable to them as well. Once elected, the R's started acting like the D's and voting for what was good for THEM and not what the voters wanted. This is what has killed the conservative movement.

 

[Dawgfan1966]

I think it is more simple and usually about money. As respects individual liberty, I have always approached it is more of a "do you want the government telling you what to do? or do you want to make your own decisions?" Conservatism used to be against big government. Bush 43 loved him some big government creation.

Conservatism as an ideal didn't fail, instead the so-called leaders of conservatism have failed the voters. The RINO branch of the Uni-party put up little to no resistance against the opposition for over 25 years, starting in 1989. Reagan was a leader and Orange man bad was a leader. Nobody in between was. And Orange man bad isn't a conservative or even a Republican - but he was an actual alpha male, which no other Republican candidate was since Reagan.

In addition, they put up these wonderful, unelectable candidates on the national ticket: Dole, McCain, Romney, At least 2 of these are actually democrats. Not to mention when they have the house now and in the past, you have McCarthy (Davos owned) and Ryan (Democrat at heart) as speaker.

Conservatism is failing, because the "conservatives" in DC decided it was more fun to spend $$$ like the Dems and they found it was also more profitable to them as well. Once elected, the R's started acting like the D's and voting for what was good for THEM and not what the voters wanted. This is what has killed the conservative movement.

Excellent synopsis!

 

[OriginalGatorHator]

I think it is more simple and usually about money. As respects individual liberty, I have always approached it is more of a "do you want the government telling you what to do? or do you want to make your own decisions?" Conservatism used to be against big government. Bush 43 loved him some big government creation.

Conservatism as an ideal didn't fail, instead the so-called leaders of conservatism have failed the voters. The RINO branch of the Uni-party put up little to no resistance against the opposition for over 25 years, starting in 1989. Reagan was a leader and Orange man bad was a leader. Nobody in between was. And Orange man bad isn't a conservative or even a Republican - but he was an actual alpha male, which no other Republican candidate was since Reagan.

In addition, they put up these wonderful, unelectable candidates on the national ticket: Dole, McCain, Romney, At least 2 of these are actually democrats. Not to mention when they have the house now and in the past, you have McCarthy (Davos owned) and Ryan (Democrat at heart) as speaker.

Conservatism is failing, because the "conservatives" in DC decided it was more fun to spend $$$ like the Dems and they found it was also more profitable to them as well. Once elected, the R's started acting like the D's and voting for what was good for THEM and not what the voters wanted. This is what has killed the conservative movement.

how has conservatism as an ideal not failed?

What has been conserved?

It goes further than spending. It’s because our movement isn’t grounded in something other than the constitution, which is fundamentally a liberal document.

If you asked most conservative voters in America what conservatism actually means they would give you some sort of combination of (1) the constitution (2) free market/small government (3) and something about Ronald Reagan.

None of which is an actual philosophy that can ground a movement and give it a sense of purpose.

 

[WyoDawg307]

how has conservatism as an ideal not failed?

What has been conserved?

It goes further than spending. It’s because our movement isn’t grounded in something other than the constitution, which is fundamentally a liberal document.

If you asked most conservative voters in America what conservatism actually means they would give you some sort of combination of (1) the constitution (2) free market/small government (3) and something about Ronald Reagan.

None of which is an actual philosophy that can ground a movement and give it a sense of purpose.

So what is your point you are trying to make? If you are saying it failed because the "media" doesn't talk about it, okay. And isn't taught in schools. The left has taken control of both, but that isn't the fault of conservative ideas - that is because the opposition to the left has been so soft and weak over many decades.

Or are you saying it failed because Bill Buckley died and the National Review is now as useless as the National Inquirer?

Most conservative ideas come from the Judeo-Christian work ethic, which pre-dates both Reagan and the Constitution. These values still exist, but are diminished as the country becomes more secular. Our once great legal system was also based on these same values, but in recent years this too has been demolished by the left.

Conservatism is still out there, but has no leadership pushing a conservative agenda. There are plenty of citizens that believe in conservative ideals - personal responsibility, free market economy and a non-intrusive federal government. Plenty of Americans still believes in these Judeo-Christian values.

 

[Dawgfan1966]

So what is your point you are trying to make? If you are saying it failed because the "media" doesn't talk about it, okay. And isn't taught in schools. The left has taken control of both, but that isn't the fault of conservative ideas - that is because the opposition to the left has been so soft and weak over many decades.

Or are you saying it failed because Bill Buckley died and the National Review is now as useless as the National Inquirer?

Most conservative ideas come from the Judeo-Christian work ethic, which pre-dates both Reagan and the Constitution. These values still exist, but are diminished as the country becomes more secular. Our once great legal system was also based on these same values, but in recent years this too has been demolished by the left.

Conservatism is still out there, but has no leadership pushing a conservative agenda. There are plenty of citizens that believe in conservative ideals - personal responsibility, free market economy and a non-intrusive federal government. Plenty of Americans still believes in these Judeo-Christian values.

Absolutely spot on. There are far to many public schooled sheep that exist today.
They have no concept of personal responsibility and earning what they spend.
There is no guarantee that we will never be offended, and should not be.
We are a nation of freaking victims and our forefathers would be pissed at what we have become.
As the great John Wayne stated "Life is tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid!"
If you chose to pursue a degree that you can not make a living from, it is not up to anyone else to subsidize your lifestyle, period! The illegals coming in are going to break this country, as the left intended. We are far from the original values our forefathers wrote, on the greatest document in history, after the Holy Bible.

 

[blackpug6]

So what is your point you are trying to make? If you are saying it failed because the "media" doesn't talk about it, okay. And isn't taught in schools. The left has taken control of both, but that isn't the fault of conservative ideas - that is because the opposition to the left has been so soft and weak over many decades.

Or are you saying it failed because Bill Buckley died and the National Review is now as useless as the National Inquirer?

Most conservative ideas come from the Judeo-Christian work ethic, which pre-dates both Reagan and the Constitution. These values still exist, but are diminished as the country becomes more secular. Our once great legal system was also based on these same values, but in recent years this too has been demolished by the left.

Conservatism is still out there, but has no leadership pushing a conservative agenda. There are plenty of citizens that believe in conservative ideals - personal responsibility, free market economy and a non-intrusive federal government. Plenty of Americans still believes in these Judeo-Christian values.

dude is talking in circles.
imvho.





LOL!
some are doomed more than others, eh?

 

[blackpug6]

how has conservatism as an ideal not failed?

What has been conserved?

It goes further than spending. It’s because our movement isn’t grounded in something other than the constitution, which is fundamentally a liberal document.

If you asked most conservative voters in America what conservatism actually means they would give you some sort of combination of (1) the constitution (2) free market/small government (3) and something about Ronald Reagan.

None of which is an actual philosophy that can ground a movement and give it a sense of purpose.

you want philosophy?
get back to ME!





I will school you on Hypocrisy...

 

[OriginalGatorHator]

you want philosophy?
get back to ME!

View embedded media

I will school you on Hypocrisy...

Are you attempting slam poetry?

 

[blackpug6]

Are you attempting slam poetry?

by slam do you mean dislike or
throw some down...
I can do either
with pleasure!

listen to the damn song!

 

[OriginalGatorHator]

So what is your point you are trying to make? If you are saying it failed because the "media" doesn't talk about it, okay. And isn't taught in schools. The left has taken control of both, but that isn't the fault of conservative ideas - that is because the opposition to the left has been so soft and weak over many decades.

Or are you saying it failed because Bill Buckley died and the National Review is now as useless as the National Inquirer?

Most conservative ideas come from the Judeo-Christian work ethic, which pre-dates both Reagan and the Constitution. These values still exist, but are diminished as the country becomes more secular. Our once great legal system was also based on these same values, but in recent years this too has been demolished by the left.

Conservatism is still out there, but has no leadership pushing a conservative agenda. There are plenty of citizens that believe in conservative ideals - personal responsibility, free market economy and a non-intrusive federal government. Plenty of Americans still believes in these Judeo-Christian values.

Pardon if I was not clear.

The overall idea is this: The constitution, being a product of liberal thought, cannot be the basis for conservativism. It cannot be the basis because liberalism erodes and hollows out the inherited Protestant tradition which made America function as a society for 200 years despite the constitution.

Frankly I’m not quite sure what point you are making here. It’s an obvious truth conservativism failed. You even some “conservatives” make a case for same sex marriage now.

 

[blackpug6]

Pardon if I was not clear.

The overall idea is this: The constitution, being a product of liberal thought, cannot be the basis for conservativism. It cannot be the basis because liberalism erodes and hollows out the inherited Protestant tradition which made America function as a society for 200 years despite the constitution.

Frankly I’m not quite sure what point you are making here. It’s an obvious truth conservativism failed. You even some “conservatives” make a case for same sex marriage now.sigh

Pardon if I was not clear.

The overall idea is this: The constitution, being a product of liberal thought, cannot be the basis for conservativism. It cannot be the basis because liberalism erodes and hollows out the inherited Protestant tradition which made America function as a society for 200 years despite the constitution.

Frankly I’m not quite sure what point you are making here. It’s an obvious truth conservativism failed. You even some “conservatives” make a case for same sex marriage now.

i have discovered that you sir,
are not trustworthy.

ask around...

 

[WyoDawg307]

Pardon if I was not clear.

The overall idea is this: The constitution, being a product of liberal thought, cannot be the basis for conservativism. It cannot be the basis because liberalism erodes and hollows out the inherited Protestant tradition which made America function as a society for 200 years despite the constitution.

Frankly I’m not quite sure what point you are making here. It’s an obvious truth conservativism failed. You even some “conservatives” make a case for same sex marriage now.

Me making my point? This is YOUR thread and yet you could not make your point clear until your third attempt.

Why didn't you just post your last paragraph in your original post? You didn't want to debate, you only restate the same things each time and it took until now for you to be understood.

Your whole thesis sounds like you have convinced yourself you are right, but much like the $sciene of today you have adopted the strategy of not engaging in debate and just saying "I am right". So why post it at all?

SMH.

 

[WyoDawg307]

 

[blackpug6]

Me making my point? This is YOUR thread and yet you could not make your point clear until your third attempt.

Why didn't you just post your last paragraph in your original post? You didn't want to debate, you only restate the same things each time and it took until now for you to be understood.

Your whole thesis sounds like you have convinced yourself you are right, but much like the $sciene of today you have adopted the strategy of not engaging in debate and just saying "I am right". So why post it at all?

SMH.

spot on.
but the virus more and more seems a hoax.,
put me in the line of denials!

 

[blackpug6]

View embedded media

Pardon if I was not clear.

The overall idea is this: The constitution, being a product of liberal thought, cannot be the basis for conservativism. It cannot be the basis because liberalism erodes and hollows out the inherited Protestant tradition which made America function as a society for 200 years despite the constitution.

Frankly I’m not quite sure what point you are making here. It’s an obvious truth conservativism failed. You even some “conservatives” make a case for same sex marriage now.

you are unclear.
That being your problem...

 

[OriginalGatorHator]

Me making my point? This is YOUR thread and yet you could not make your point clear until your third attempt.

Why didn't you just post your last paragraph in your original post? You didn't want to debate, you only restate the same things each time and it took until now for you to be understood.

Your whole thesis sounds like you have convinced yourself you are right, but much like the $sciene of today you have adopted the strategy of not engaging in debate and just saying "I am right". So why post it at all?

SMH.

I thought my point was pretty clear.

Apologies if I came across as hostile it is not my intention. But how am I not debating?

I don't think limited government is an actual conservative concept. I think it's just a procedural debate over how government should work in America.

And that's not to say I don't prefer a small weak federal government. Limited government was great! Pre about 1945 because we had a homogenous society for the most part and local communites and states ran themselves. But at this point in America, where the protestant christian is a shrinking minority, if conservatives can somehow gain power they cannot let the ideal of limited government prevent them from wielding the might of the federal government to benefit their friends and punishing their enemies. If they refuse to wield that power to implement policies which benefits conservatives and punishes the left the game is over and we aren't even playing.

For example, one of the policy positions I strongly disagree with most fellow right wingers is how to handle student debt. IMO the solution is to seize the endowments of every university and use that money to pay off the loans, then pull the government out of the student loan business and force the universities to underwrite it themselves, additionally all DEI and DEI adjacent majors must be cut before we even consider giving the endowment back.

The usual conservative pushback on this boils down to we shouldn't take money from those who don't have loans to pay for ones that do. And I agree, Joe Blow who went to tradeschool in 1985 shouldn't be paying for Sally's liberal arts degree. But conservatives also, IMO, tend to have a blind spot in two places on this issue.

The first being is how much harder it is for young people today to get married and purchase a house. Being able to use the money from lefty universities to forgive these debts would go a long way in allowing young people to buy a house and get married. Which in turn tends to result in more people voting conservative.

The second is how federal student loans is predatory lending. If any other sector of the market was handing out six figure loans which couldn't be discharged through bankruptcy for an esoteric and impossible to value piece of paper the lenders would be prosecuted.