For Conservatives Only!

from JoeUser Forums

I am writing this article for those who would describe themselves as conservative on JoeUser. While you are in the majority here and in the US government, your opinions are often shouted down in the mainstream media and in the world.

Many conservatives are quick to cry that they are victims; that the attacks on their ideologies are unmerited and personal, when nothing could be further from the truth. And yet I, a former leftist, have not been able to find a home among the conservative camp in America.

The ideals you claim are noble: fiscal responsibility and smaller government. Yet, with a majority in both houses of Congress and the Presidency, you've succeeded in INCREASING federal control under tha mask of "accountability", and removing rights from the states, in direct defiance of the Constitution you've sworn to uphold. You've created a potential disaster in No Child Left Behind, and driven many good, responsible teachers with established careers out of education entirely and into other sectors of employment because of the way these goals have been implemented. You've exploited the tragedy that shocked all America on September 11, 2001 to advance initiatives that could potentially effect the implied right to privacy of all Americans, which is not stated outright in the US Constitution, but heavily implied in the first, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments. In 1994, you created a Contract with America that garnered intense popular support, and just as quickly, many of your legislators broke it. You have proven yourselves to be anything BUT fiscally responsible in awarding contracts, tax incentives, and other considerations to big businesses. And while you've preached moral responsibility, too many of your politicians have been caught either with their hands in the cookie jar or at least standing very close to that cookie jar.

You mock and ridicule the left without giving due consideration to what they have to say. Many of the left have good ideas about the nature of problems in our country, even if they're not perfectly in line with the right solutions. I believe that with your understanding of economics, and their understanding of the social problems throughout the nation and the world, we can achieve practical, viable solutions to make a better nation.

This country was BUILT on compromise; politics only works when we are willing to sit down and have open discourse with our opponents. And we can't have that kind of discourse when we wholly disrespect our opponent's  point of view. Many off you think of yourselves as the "bigger man"; let's try to act like it and discuss workable solutions to our mutual problems.

politics
9,472 views 30 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
While I can't argue that, under a Republican majority in the House and Senate, along with a Republican president; I will point out that Republican and Conservative are not synonyms. I'll also point out that then it comes to pork spending, neither the conservatives, liberals or moderates (on either side of the aisle) are any better.

That being said, you're right, if "smaller federal government" is a Republican goal, our goals aren't being met.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

if "smaller federal government" is a Republican goal, our goals aren't being met.

Right. And I believe it's time we hold our legislators' collective feet to the fire.

I will point out that Republican and Conservative are not synonyms.

Point taken. But most (not all) conservatives tend to support Republican candidates, and this was addressed largely to them.

 

The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
The fact is that not all conservatives support small government more than they support an aggressive foreign policy, particularly at this moment in history. And thus an administration that pursues an aggressive foreign policy while failing to make government smaller, still very much succeeds as a conservative administration.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Very well said ParaTed. You should have named this "For Republicans Only". I can understand beefs with the Republican party. I personally have felt we have been dealing with chosing the lesser of two evils for some time now.

I am a personally responsible conservative who has never claimed to be a victim. I don't depend on the government to take care of me. I am not part of the religious right-wing but I do believe that people have the right to religious freedom and am sick to death of the PC wars going on in our society today.

I might not be a fan of Bush but I honostly believe that we are safer and better off today with him in the White House than we would have been with Kerry/Edwards.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

. You should have named this "For Republicans Only".

The reason I didn't is because it was a direct counter to my "for Liberals Only" thread.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree that we, conservatives and liberals, are more prone to kick each other for our beliefs than to sit down and admit that we agree on the problem and must find a middle point in which we can agree on a solution.

It's not easy to debate when the person one is debating with can not see beyond the one solution they have reached and is unwilling to listen to anything one says even when it could be a fact. Eventually ones fustration gets the best of us and we give in to the name calling and insulting of the other person. This is something that we should avoid for all one does is lower ones standard and give more fuel to those who search for ways to fight back.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
What if I mock and ridicule the left because I have given due consideration to what they have to say, and found that they do not have good ideas about the "nature" of problems in our country?

I'm all about compromise, but what am I supposed to do when as a conservative I hold that some problems will always be with us because of human nature, and liberals hold that some problems will be with us only because of the nature of white male cultural supremacy, and that no compromise is possible until we undo all of civilization and then rebuild it without the influence of white males?

Take them seriously?

I mean, I'm all about compromise when it comes to gay marriage: let the states decide, and let the federal government stay out of it. Some states could approve it, and others could ban it. Each state works out its own solution. Or, at the very least, let us put it to vote, and amend the Constitution, according to the principles of compromise on which this country was founded. Unfortunately, the opposition faction doesn't seem to be interested in compromise. I guarnatee you, if they were, there'd be a lot more of it going on. The lack of compromise isn't coming from the conservative side. It's the liberals who are acting in bad faith.

Heck, I'd even compromise with CG, if there was any issue he showed any willingness to meet me halfway on.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
well gid I read for liberals only and for conservatives only but youi left out.

"FOR MODERATES only. I feel slighted now.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

My biggest beef with liberals is they claim that they are all about peoples' rights until the majority is proven to disagree with them.  In that case, the majority is just uneducated or ignorant to the issues.  We couldn't possibly know what we are talking about if we disagree with them.  We need to be protected against ourselves....bull flop!

 

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: JillUserPosted: Tuesday, January 17, 2006My biggest beef with liberals is they claim that they are all about peoples' rights until the majority is proven to disagree with them. In that case, the majority is just uneducated or ignorant to the issues. We couldn't possibly know what we are talking about if we disagree with them. We need to be protected against ourselves....bull flop!


hence one of my favorite sayings "liberals aree only liberal when you completely agree with them"
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Point taken. But most (not all) conservatives tend to support Republican candidates, and this was addressed largely to them.

A cookie for Parated!  And a wagging finger for Gideon.  I know, support the libertarians, and I would have voted for one this past year if any were running. But when the choice is Kedwards, Hillary, Kennedy Dean, or "anyone else", what are we to do?  Allow the liberals to win and grease the slide into the cesspool?

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Allow the liberals to win and grease the slide into the cesspool?


LOL you sure do have a way of coining a phrase
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

You of all people should know that Republicans and conservatives are not necessarily the same. 

The modern conservative makes up people from libertarian angles as well.

The "liberal" side of things is relegated to people who are largely socialists and I find nothing liberal about people who want the government to control my life.

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
One truth in this Blog is that Conservatives ARE NOT conservative. Their fiscal polices, spending and nation building are 100% in the opposite direction. We need to return the GOP to the center. Balance the budget, Stop pork and markups on bills in Conference Committee and stop Nation Building.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

We need to return the GOP to the center. Balance the budget, Stop pork and markups on bills in Conference Committee and stop Nation Building.

COL,

If we need to return the GOP to the center, why is it not equally appropriate to return the DNC to the center? Individual and religious rights are under strong attack from many on the left who perceive the individual to be property of the state, a concept FAR removed from that which our founding fathers envisioned. Religious beliefs are openly ridiculed among the left (see many position papers from self described leftists on abortion, intelligent design, and gender roles within the home, for instance). That's why I wrote the two as "sister" articles: we ALL need reform in our thinking and to bring ourselves back to what's truly important: the best interests of ALL Americans.

You of all people should know that Republicans and conservatives are not necessarily the same.
The modern conservative makes up people from libertarian angles as well.
The "liberal" side of things is relegated to people who are largely socialists and I find nothing liberal about people who want the government to control my life.

I was painting with a broad brush this time for a very specific reason. I wanted to capture some generalizations about the direction of those who claim conservative and liberal ideologies, including third party affiliates who describe themselves as such (yes, even libertarians and socialists). If I were to use the separate political identities of each, I wouldn't be able to do justice to all sides. Even within the context of these two articles, i didn't BEGIN to do justice, but, hopefully, provided a few talking points.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
COL, I'm a conservative. I detest the Bush fiscal policy. But I'm pretty much a single-issue voter these days, with the War On Terror being the issue. So, like a good conservative, I'm willing to set aside the secondary issues for the moment, in order to get some traction, focus, and commitment on the primary issue.

This is called "compromise" and "pragmatism", and it's something good conservatives are known for. Bush may not be "conservative" as you (or I) define the term, but he's still the best conservative choice for two reasons: One, his foreign policy, which is consistent with "neo"conservative ideals. Two, it's a lock that any Democratic administration would have an even less conservative fiscal policy.

Liberals, on the other hand, have two qualities that do not commend thems to me: One, they seem to disagree entirely with me (and our current President) on what the important issues are. Two, they seem to be totally unwilling to compromise on any issue at all, even when it means giving up any hope of real political power (and leaves them with no strategy beyond internal bickering and feeble partisan attacks on the oppostion).

I mean, I'd totally agree with you that a good conservative shouldn't support some Bush policies (and for the record, many good conservatives--including my favorites--have consistently opposed Bush on big government, immigration, etc.); except that you can't seem to offer any alternative at all. If not Bush, who should I support? Kerry? Kucinich? Clinton?

You keep ranting about how Bush is not really conservative, how his fiscal policy is crap, etc. But at the end of the day, I still have to choose the best course of action for this country. Bush is the only option that even begins to make sense. He's also the only option that gives me what I want on the most important issue--The War on Terror--while forcing me to give up what I want on the other issues. As far as I can tell, the opposition faction would do the opposite: screw up the WOT (even more than Bush, if you subscribe to the notion that he's screwing it up as badly as the media and the opposition say; but why should I trust either of them?), and screw up the other issues, too (again, even worse than Bush).

I have to make a choice, Gene. What do you recommend I should do, as a good conservative?

The good conservatives I know recommend supporting Bush on the War on Terror, and opposing him on the bad parts of his domestic and fiscal policy. That seems like exactly the kind of optimal compromise solution that is typical of the flawed world in which we live.

What about you?
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush has not made you or me safer. Go ahead and tell yourself that the Iraq war has made the probability of another 9/11 less if you want. The only thing that has reduced that is our improved intelligence, info sharing etc. We have however not protected our borders and for anyone to support Bush as making us safer with what he HAS NOT DONE to safeguard our borders I do not understand. Any terrorist can come into this country and bring any WMD along.

Thus I do not believe he has made us safer. He has not helped solve the energy problems, education, trade, healthcare and he is destroying the fiscal condition with his CHARGE AND SPEND policies. His tax cuts have added one Trillion dollars to the national debt. That is causing interest rates to increase which will harm the economy. He has done NOTHING WELL and is a looser as is anyone that follows his policies.We need to move BOTH parties to the center or split the power in Congress which will force compromise.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
No terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11.  Coincidence?
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Not a coincidence. It is better homeland defense and info sharing. It has NOTHING to do with the War in Iraq or the border protection we are not doing!
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
So... Was there an answer to my questions in there anywhere, Gene?

Let's agree to disagree about the strategic value of the Iraq war, shall we? Suffice to say that I believe the long-term benefits will outweigh the short-term drawbacks, and that while I admit that it is a huge gamble, it is a risk worth taking, for the long-term benefits it will bring if successful.

I know you disagree with me on these points. We've both presented the best arguments we can in favor of our positions. Neither of us is going to change the other's mind.

What's more, it will be several years before we have any clear idea about which of us is right, and which of us is wrong. Only time will resolve this disgreement for us.

In the mean time, what are my options? What would you recommend a good conservative do?

I couldn't really vote for Kerry, since as a "liberal" Democrat he'd be even more likely to increase spending and expand government power (without even getting a war on to to justify it). Not only that, but other than opposing the Iraq thing, he didn't really have a plan for fighting terrorism. In fact, I have yet to hear a single Democrat say anything substantial at all on the subject of immigration reform WRT the war on terror. If the Bush plan is so bad, where's the Clinton plan?

For that matter, where's your plan?

How about this: You come up with a solid, detailed plan, for combating terror. Take into account state sponsors of terror, the occasional necessity of choosing the lesser of two evils, the various trade-offs in liberty and security your plan would require, and the amount of collateral damage you expect and would be willing to accept if your plan was implemented. Post your plan on JU, and defend it fiercely in debate. If it turns out to hold together better than the Bush plan (which shouldn't be too hard; even I have some doubts about the Bush plan), and one of your liberal candidates adopts your plan or something like it as part of their campaign platform, I will vote for them or support their candicacy in any way I can.

Ready?

Go!
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
you've succeeded in INCREASING federal control under tha mask of "accountability", and removing rights from the states.


Sorry, but all I see is a board idealistic indictment without regard for behind-the-screen demands of both houses and state leadership, and resulting self-serving riders from that often extract the bills teeth.

Don't get me wrong, at times I would really like to ignore what I know as political reality and travel your road independent ideals. But, as soon as I start down that road, understanding of how our system works slows me to a crawl.

You've created a potential disaster in No Child Left Behind, and driven many good, responsible teachers with established careers out of education entirely and into other sectors of employment because of the way these goals have been implemented.


Here again, I disagree. Although the system isn't perfect, it's a step in the right direction. From what we've seen and heard in our district, teachers like the expectations while hoping for further improvements. Our district has lost a few teachers but as it turns out they didn't like the idea of performance standards nor reaching a bar not set by them individually. Good ridden's.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
This country was BUILT on compromise; politics only works when we are willing to sit down and have open discourse with our opponents. As did some of our founding fathers who would not ratify the Constitution w/o the Bill of Rights.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
This country was BUILT on compromise; politics only works when we are willing to sit down and have open discourse with our opponents. And we can't have that kind of discourse when we wholly disrespect our opponent's point of view. Many off you think of yourselves as the "bigger man"; let's try to act like it and discuss workable solutions to our mutual problems


I agree, and stated such in my earlier post. Your right about compromise. Apparently you must have an unshared vision of what defines compromise. I'd like to hear it.... Would you agree all senators and congressman postulate, formulate, threaten filibuster and extract pieces of their ideal contribution in hopes of retaining other key elements as they compromise towards an end. When three ideals come to the table knowing compromise is needed, they also know what happens, legislation like "No Child Left Behind".

Gid, I appreciate an "Independants" ideal point of view. But, from my political experiences, "Independant's, like Democrats and Republicans have to find compromise by going backwards to some extent.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

Bush has not made you or me safer.

Not a coincidence. It is better homeland defense and info sharing

Have you started debating yourself now?  Sure looks like it.