Why I am a conservative (Part Two of Two)

[Argus]

What's that supposed to mean?

I think he's pointing out that since you don't agree with him your opinion has no value. Probably, you shouldn't even be allowed to post it.

[Argus]

I used to think I was conservative. But the stuff that apparently makes you a "real conservative" nowadays doesn't make sense to me at all.

The self-styled "real conservatives" seem to embrace most or all of these beliefs:

-giving the banks and the extremely wealthy whatever they want in the hope that their prosperity will "trickle down" to the rest of us

-the necessity of compromising freedoms in the name of "security"

-religious mores should be the basis of social policies

-acceptance of the police turning into a paramilitary force

And I can't stomach any of them.

-k

You know I've had extreme issues with a lot of those. On the other hand, I've had issues with the left and its disrespect and dislike of personal freedom. Whenever someone is being shouted down or forced not to speak or write or say what they want, it's the left doing the shouting. The Left also has its religious mores for the basis of social policies, only its religion is a sort of insidious groupthink. You're saying something which someone finds offensive! That can't be permitted!

Think of those firefighters in Toronto fired because of a couple of harmless tweets. That's the kind of groupthink and overpunishment the Left approves of. Wherever you have a large organization you have these HR types passing rules about every type of known human behavior to bring it in line with groupthink. This is the NDP in action. Hell, I've been a shop steward for a while and you'd be amazed at the sort of universal mindset you find at the meetings. Not too damned many conservatives amongst that lot, let me tell you.

Think of the busybodies on human rights boards and agencies. Think there are a lot of conservatives amongst them?

Edited October 12, 2013 by Argus

[Jimmy Wilson]

Yes, they're quite happy in a crowd of like-minded people. Once they're out amongst the rest of us the first thing on their agendas is always how to put in place laws and rules to control what we think, do, say, watch, read or hear. The left hates and is fearful of any opinion which does not agree with it.

Very true...

Of course,this is only matched by those on the right who hold the infantile view that more Capitalism must equal more personal freedom...

If one questions the veracity of this notion one inevitably gets called a "Pinko/Commie/economic luddite" etc...

Edited October 13, 2013 by Jimmy Wilson

[Argus]

Very true...

Of course,this is only matched by those on the right who hold the infantile view that more Capitalism must equal more personal freedom...

If one questions the veracity of this notion one inevitable gets called a "Pinko/Commie/economic luddite" etc...

Conservatism is associated with Capitalism only insofar as the leaders of industry tend to be a conservative bunch. And because conservatives tend to support the existing order. But really, it's more about traditionalism and moderate behavior (spending, etc), as well as a believe in individual responsibilities and individual rights. I've said before I don't believe most American so-called conservatives are even conservatives at all. And some who defend business or the police are simply jerking their knees thoughtlessly because they assume those attacking them must be liberals, and so whatever they believe must be opposed.

For my part, I recall a teacher in one of my business classes pointing out oh so long ago that absolute Capitalism would be as much a nightmare for ordinary people as any other kind of absolutism.

[Jimmy Wilson]

Conservatism is associated with Capitalism only insofar as the leaders of industry tend to be a conservative bunch. And because conservatives tend to support the existing order. But really, it's more about traditionalism and moderate behavior (spending, etc), as well as a believe in individual responsibilities and individual rights. I've said before I don't believe most American so-called conservatives are even conservatives at all. And some who defend business or the police are simply jerking their knees thoughtlessly because they assume those attacking them must be liberals, and so whatever they believe must be opposed.

For my part, I recall a teacher in one of my business classes pointing out oh so long ago that absolute Capitalism would be as much a nightmare for ordinary people as any other kind of absolutism.

True...But only to a certain extent...Not every "leftist" is a wild spender of the public purse...Tommy Douglas NDP govt's is Saskatchewan when Sask. was a definate "have not " province tell that tale..

There have been others that were,shall we say,...An unmitigated disaster in that realm...

Of course,the individual rights/personal freedom angle conservatives spout is always tied to the wealth redistribution excercise which includes "corporate tax cuts" and "right to work" legislation...And the failed idea that if the wealthy of society get theirs,it will trickle down to the rest of us.This is an infantile as it is Corporatist...

Your teacher was correct,in that Capitalism (unfettered) is an extreme position that would result in a return to the economic dark ages that resulted in one of the largest mass migrations in the history of this planet,namely European Mercantilism,the poverty it caused,and,the migration to the New World...And for those that were left behind,the embracing of horrific counter balances,namely Marxism and Fascism...

Edited October 13, 2013 by Jimmy Wilson

[Jimmy Wilson]

.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Jimmy Wilson

[Moonlight Graham]

Currently used by whom?

I would say that most people who describe themselves as conservative or liberal don't think the stereotypes apply to them - and most likely they don't.

Most people probably have both conservative and liberal views. I know I do. But inevitably I think most people also fall moreso to one side of the fence than the other. Most of my views would lean more to the liberal side, but I wouldn't consider myself a "liberal" because I don't like to label my views into an absolute.

I also think there's great danger with labeling individuals as "conservatives" or "liberals". It then turns into an "us" vs "them" ideological war, and poisons debate I think. Each viewpoint should be judged on its own merit and agreed or disagreed with individually. It just so happens I disagree with what are considered conservative viewpoints more often than liberal views. Though some liberal views also drive me nuts!

[Bonam]

Most people probably have both conservative and liberal views. I know I do. But inevitably I think most people also fall moreso to one side of the fence than the other. Most of my views would lean more to the liberal side, but I wouldn't consider myself a "liberal" because I don't like to label my views into an absolute.

I also think there's great danger with labeling individuals as "conservatives" or "liberals". It then turns into an "us" vs "them" ideological war, and poisons debate I think. Each viewpoint should be judged on its own merit and agreed or disagreed with individually. It just so happens I disagree with what are considered conservative viewpoints more often than liberal views. Though some liberal views also drive me nuts!

Seems to me that the mainstream definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" are not a sufficient spectrum to describe the range of views people could have. Both modern liberals and conservatives stand for almost exactly the same things: big government, mixed market economy, partial welfare state, mass immigration, etc. There's a lot of other possible political viewpoints someone could have outside that.

[Bitsy]

Seems to me that the mainstream definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" are not a sufficient spectrum to describe the range of views people could have. Both modern liberals and conservatives stand for almost exactly the same things: big government, mixed market economy, partial welfare state, mass immigration, etc. There's a lot of other possible political viewpoints someone could have outside that.

Do you believe that the Republican Party today believes in big government, partial welfare state and mass immigration? They give lip service to a mixed economy.

[Guest American Woman]

Most people probably have both conservative and liberal views. I know I do. But inevitably I think most people also fall moreso to one side of the fence than the other. Most of my views would lean more to the liberal side, but I wouldn't consider myself a "liberal" because I don't like to label my views into an absolute.

I agree. I think most people don't have absolute views, although some do (too many?). Some will follow the party line regardless. I don't like to label people either, but I think most times when one refers to themselves as a liberal or conservative it's just to give a general idea of where one's views tend to lie; after all, we have to choose which way to vote, even though there are some issues with agree with/don't agree with regardless of which way we vote. So in that regard, I am a Democrat, but that doesn't mean I would never consider voting for a Republican and it doesn't mean I want a Democratic POTUS, House, and Senate. I happen to think a balance of power is a good thing because I wouldn't want all of either party's ideas to go unchallenged.

I also think there's great danger with labeling individuals as "conservatives" or "liberals". It then turns into an "us" vs "them" ideological war, and poisons debate I think.

I agree completely. It's all some seem to have, and they will put views on the opposite party that they don't necessarily have - and then they'll attribute those views to anyone they think falls into the liberal/conservative category.

Each viewpoint should be judged on its own merit and agreed or disagreed with individually. It just so happens I disagree with what are considered conservative viewpoints more often than liberal views. Though some liberal views also drive me nuts!

Again, I agree. It's difficult to say which drives me more nuts sometimes - those of the party I didn't vote for, or those of the party that I did vote for, as they are representing my vote.

[eyeball]

Seems to me that the mainstream definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" are not a sufficient spectrum to describe the range of views people could have. Both modern liberals and conservatives stand for almost exactly the same things: big government, mixed market economy, partial welfare state, mass immigration, etc. There's a lot of other possible political viewpoints someone could have outside that.

We need another axis that gives us a clearer view of the north/south government/governed polarity. We can't flip what we can't see.

[Moonlight Graham]

We need another axis that gives us a clearer view of the north/south government/governed polarity. We can't flip what we can't see.

I think the Political Compass is flawed. It measures economic left/right and authoritarian/libertarian north/south. That spectrum doesn't capture an enormous amount of social views. Here's a question from the Political Compass test:

"Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races."

Now how the heck could you mark that viewpoint, either north/south or left/right? There's nothing economic or authoritarian/libertarian about the above statement. I'll bet the way the Compass marks that question is to stereotype it, meaning that "racist governments/people tend to be more authoritarian and/or economically conservative, so agreeing with the statement will plot in that range". There's lots of other questions on the test like that.

[Michael Hardner]

MG - agreed, completely. Maybe the heavily branded parties should declare more free votes on topics, as the present framework for dialogue is too limiting.

[bleeding heart]

_{I agree with MG as well, and have had serious problems with that compass from the moment I started to take the test (and promptly gave up).}

_{To say it's better than the "left/right" perspective is sort of like saying that "Who's the Boss" was more sophisticated than "Full House." Sure, but so what?}

[Moonlight Graham]

MG - agreed, completely. Maybe the heavily branded parties should declare more free votes on topics, as the present framework for dialogue is too limiting.

Pretty much all legislative votes, unless it's a confidence vote, should be free votes. That's democracy. I can't stand the party hierarchy bullcrap.

[Argus]

TOf course,the individual rights/personal freedom angle conservatives spout is always tied to the wealth redistribution excercise which includes "corporate tax cuts" and "right to work" legislation...And the failed idea that if the wealthy of society get theirs,it will trickle down to the rest of us.This is an infantile as it is Corporatist...

No, it's not. Those on the Left tend to take on the mantle of the noble provider and protector of all. Thus, their policies, be they on income redistribution, on curtailing certain types of behaviors, or in regulating things (like climates and how many minorities are working for you) are done for NOBLE reasons. They're doing the RIGHT thing, morally speaking. Thus anyone opposing their policies is not merely disagreeing but is by definition immoral and offensive. And there's nothing the left seems to want more these days than banning offensive speech - defined as anything which offends THEM, of course.

The only speech the right seems concerned with doing away with is sexually oriented. And while I completely disagree with them their obsession with dirty words or movies is nowhere near as dangerous as the left's obsession with banning offensive concepts, ideas or opinions (the left also dislikes dirty movies, btw, since they "exploit" women).

[bleeding heart]

It's true that there are sectors of the political Left who are so austere and unforgiving that they have forgotten certain obvious lessons. (Let's start with Lenin, and then abandon his ugliness forever.) Section 13 of the HRC here in Canada is an obvious example...though, fortunately, it appears that Section 13 is possibly on the chopping block, so we'll see what happens.

And we've all seen lefties who apparently want speech they don't like...well, not just shut down, but avoided altogether. That's silly. Let Ann Coulter speak. Let her acolytes--reactionary morons, to a person, but that's their full-blooded right--have their fun.

But aside from some outliers and a few college students for whom oppositional progressive activism is still a novel and exciting concept (rather than serious hard work, which needs to make concessions to decent folks who might disagree), I'm not quite seeing Argus's broad-based complaint as anything large-scale.

Aside from what I've already mentioned (and the HRC's have gone after lefties as much as after anyone else, as even right-wing crower Mark Steyn has documented)...who is this "Left"?

Is it the "anti-sex feminists"? But there are hotly debating and competing feminist voices, with none of the platoons taking full control...up to and including their views on pornography. And even those who hate it wholesale don't generally call for any censorship intervention.

Is it the NDP? Certainly they, like every organization with more than four people, doubtless has its authoritarian strains to it. But this doesn't set them apart as "left;; it makes them mainstream. It makes them like the Liberals and the Conservatives. (If anything, Salman Rushdie quipped that they were THE single party--in Canada, the United States, and Britain--who wholeheartedly and unequivocally stood behind him in full support when the murderous fatwah was first issued.)

Is it "lefty professors"? In what way are they, as a group, impugning or fighting free speech? Hell, they're too busy trying to gain PARITY with the nexus of corporate and political hawkish voices from within and without the university to be bothered restricting anyone.

So the usual leftwing voices of "shut yer face" aside--a small number indeed--who exactly are we talking about here?

Edited October 13, 2013 by bleeding heart

[kimmy]

The self-styled "real conservatives" seem to embrace most or all of these beliefs:

-giving the banks and the extremely wealthy whatever they want in the hope that their prosperity will "trickle down" to the rest of us

-the necessity of compromising freedoms in the name of "security"

-religious mores should be the basis of social policies

-acceptance of the police turning into a paramilitary force

Just more stereotypes really.

Not really stereotypes. This is what the "real conservatives" themselves are telling us. That's the turf that they've staked out for themselves.0 There's a massive gathering of "real conservatives" in Washington DC this weekend called the "Value Voters" summit. All of the probable Republican presidential nominees are there with the exception of Chris Christie. And they've banded together to declare that "real conservatives" want the end of Obamacare, More Jesus, tax cuts, and the decimation of social programs. And they say that Republicans who don't share those values, like John McCain or Chris Christie, aren't "real conservatives" and are RINOs, Republicans In Name Only.

This is perhaps slightly less true in Canada where the religion angle isn't as inherently embedded in what qualifies as a "real conservative", but most of the same elements are there. "Real conservatives" in Canada are super-friendly to big business, in favor of "belt tightening" except when it comes to subsidies for big business, big on fighting "the war on drugs".

-k

[sharkman]

Kimmy, what are your go to news sources? Where do you get your information and who do you trust and not trust?

[waldo]

Kimmy, what are your go to news sources? Where do you get your information and who do you trust and not trust?

interesting... given the preceding emphasis on stereotypes, and your post in immediate follow-up, might I pre-suppose on your attempt to "flush-out" the sources of Kimmy's, as presumed by others, stereotype associations? If not, carry on!

[scribblet]

Not really stereotypes. This is what the "real conservatives" themselves are telling us. That's the turf that they've staked out for themselves.0 There's a massive gathering of "real conservatives" in Washington DC this weekend called the "Value Voters" summit. All of the probable Republican presidential nominees are there with the exception of Chris Christie. And they've banded together to declare that "real conservatives" want the end of Obamacare, More Jesus, tax cuts, and the decimation of social programs. And they say that Republicans who don't share those values, like John McCain or Chris Christie, aren't "real conservatives" and are RINOs, Republicans In Name Only.

This is perhaps slightly less true in Canada where the religion angle isn't as inherently embedded in what qualifies as a "real conservative", but most of the same elements are there. "Real conservatives" in Canada are super-friendly to big business, in favor of "belt tightening" except when it comes to subsidies for big business, big on fighting "the war on drugs".

-k

Maybe in the U.S. but sure a lot less true in Canada. As I said, I know no conservative who wants the police to be paramilitary, it's just crazy. There are many people who think the CPC today is not conservative enough. I've heard some people say they believe the Liberals are more conservative.

Being friendly to big business is just helping the economy and providing jobs. However, the throne

speech appears to be more consumer friendly. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservatives-signal-consumer-friendly-throne-speech-1.2021739

Again, you may be right about the U.S. but not Canada.

[Guest American Woman]

Again, you may be right about the U.S. ....

Nope.

[Moonlight Graham]

And there's nothing the left seems to want more these days than banning offensive speech - defined as anything which offends THEM, of course.

People would say I'm a lefty, and I don't support banning offensive speech. In fact I might not even ban hate speech if it were up to me. So this is yet another stereotype of the "left" and "right" which doesn't help debate.

[Guest American Woman]

People would say I'm a lefty, and I don't support banning offensive speech. In fact I might not even ban hate speech if it were up to me. So this is yet another stereotype of the "left" and "right" which doesn't help debate.

None of the stereotypes help debate. As I said previously. a lot of what passes for 'debate' is simply one poster ascribing party stereotypes to another - as if they actually held the belief.

[dre]

Seems to me that the mainstream definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" are not a sufficient spectrum to describe the range of views people could have. Both modern liberals and conservatives stand for almost exactly the same things: big government, mixed market economy, partial welfare state, mass immigration, etc. There's a lot of other possible political viewpoints someone could have outside that.

Sure but our political system is designed to encourage civil obedience and keep the political class coddled and safe. It makes a lot of sense for government to encourage this dichotomy. It keeps the discussion confined to how the governments great power should be directed.... where as in a system where the authoritarian / libertarian access was dominant the discussion would be about whether they should have any power at all.

Like Iv said before, this is one of the greatest achievements of philosophers in all of history. Basically these contrived political wings act as a firewall between the population and the political/ruling class itself. They can do literally whatever they want and we just squabble amongst our selves and vote for one of their political franchises instead of the other.