What has become of conservatism?

[GuavaJava]

In the last decade, supposedly sensible centre-left leaders said nothing as apologists for radical Islam, supporters of tyrants and the heirs of the communists came to dominate leftwing argument. So supine were they that, when the far-left moved to take over and destroy the Labour party, they could not mount one decent argument against it.

Indeed, how peculiar it is that the left can bankrupt itself for ten years with nary a peep of introspection. But six months of Brexit and a Trump election, and suddenly the politics of laying down with dogs is out of control. To find out what's happened with conservatism ask yourself what's happened with liberalism.

[Saucexorzski]

Got to love it when the left decide its upon themselves to define what it means to be Conservative and then mocks or criticizes conservatives for not living up to their created definition, but its absolutely priceless listening to them whine about how all the good "old fashion" conservatives are gone (they ones they labeled for 50 years as racists/sexist/bigots) and have been replaced with this "alt right" who are now the TRUE racist/sexist/bigots.

[Glorious Leader]

Since at least Reagan theyve become reactionaries. What happened to conservatism is the same thing the that happebed to all politicis. Neoliberalisn is dead. Mark Blyth has called it the age of neonationalism.

[NineSpine]

Again, the issue of deportation for illegal immigrants is something we see in many civilized countries across the world. To claim that the reasons are xenophobic in nature is silly. If people still want to come to America, they can do it, they just have to do it legally. Nothing unfair about this sort of system.

Again, the fact that you believe these people need to be hurt doesn't change that they are being hurt. Your decision that these people are a good target that you WANT to see pain inflicted upon doesn't change that it is pain being inflicted upon them.

Most civilized countries do not maintain as asinine an immigration system as the United States, and most civilized countries do not border or live in close proximity to nations that they themselves have destabilized. From Mexico down to South America, the U.S. has spent over a century working very hard to destabilize these nations, and now we are SHOCKED that people want to leave the hellholes we turned their nations into, to live in a more stable and secure nation.

If the U.S. had a reasonable immigration system, and if the U.S. stopped destabilizing these nations, the problem would solve itself, and on that note it is worth pointing out that there isn't even really a significant problem. Undocumented immigration is net negative and has been flat for almost a decade. The idea that we need to engage in police state tactics to solve a non-issue is absurd authoritarianism, which I am not shocked you are supporting given your ardent adherence to the notion of rules for the sake of rules, and the idea that if someone violates asinine rules, they have whatever is coming to them.

I'll admit that you got me on this one. Gay marriage is an issue taken seriously by many voters and we've seen politicians on both sides, including Hillary and Obama both say that they were against it in the past. Why? Probably because it helps them gain conservative voters... or rather, not lose them. Likewise, Trump was trying to pick up evangelicals at this point in the primary. Since then Trump has repeatedly stated that he has no issues with gay marriage and plans on leaving it intact repeatedly though. Even back in the 90's he has stated that he was for gay marriage, long before it was popular with either side. I'll still admit that you did have a quote that refuted what I said though, but from what I can see, we have little reason to believe he is going to have this overturned.

That quote is from this year. If he says something like that, I'm really not going to take seriously shit he said in 1994, or shit he said after. He picked one of the most virulent and extremist anti-gay politicians in the country as his running mate, a man who tried to cut HIV treatment funding to fund gay conversion therapy, which the American Psychology Association says induces suicide and depression.

It's not just a question of marriage itself. It's a question of what enforcement of marriage rights looks like, and how LGBT people will be treated in other aspects of the law. There is NO reason to believe that suddenly the Republicans are going to magically turn around on decades of hate agains the LGBT community and go out of their way to protect them. There are still standing issues before the court, and numerous issues with regards to things like workplace protections. The Obama justice department has been strong on making these things a priority. It's just a fantasy that Republicans are interested in continuing that.

- - - Updated - - -

Conservatism used to be "minimal government". Trump says he's planning on spending money like a drunken sailor which is the opposite of minimal government.

Bush and Reagan spent the same way. It was always a farce.

[Blur4stuff]

American conservatives don't stand for small government or reducing debt anymore. Considering the last few republican presidents exploded the debt and expanded government. Trump is about to as well if he does what he promised.

[Kalis]

In America, at the same time, some people thought it was alright to beat and rape slaves. Do you know how people excuse that now? They say "Well everyone thought that then, society was different", but as you said, the English knew better at that point. You are engaging in the same nonsense of pretending everyone was an innocent babe in the woods who just couldn't possibly know better than to be deplorable racists.

You are fundamentally not understanding how race or racism work. Disraeli, like all the disgusting racists before and after him, believed that the race he belonged to and other races he saw kinship with were exceptions who his rules didn't apply to. He could be a Jew ruling the British, but at the same time advocate racial isolationism and separatism for everyone else, while he also simultaneously pushed British rule into the land of others. See, to racists like Disraeli, the hierarchy has certain races on top, and certain races on the bottom. What he means by separatism is that those races at the bottom stay out of his land and in their own land, where the superior races are welcome to come and pilfer from them and kill them. it means "Separate from ME", nothing more.

The only difference between someone like Disraeli and someone like Hitler is that Disraeli had the good sense to go to OTHER peoples' lands to murder them and steal from them, because that elicits much less ire than doing it to people already in your land. The fact that he was more of a pragmatist than Hitler doesn't change that the same disgusting, oppressive racist conservative beliefs underpinned both of their philosophies. Your attempt to parse this out only goes to prove my original point: This is at most a difference of degree, not a difference of kind. Conservatism always comes back to defining in groups and out groups in order to enforce rigid hierarchies amongst people, to make sure the in group can sufficiently punish the people in the out groups.

Disraeli didn't really like Jews, so that makes no sense. He viewed himself as British and held a concept of a 'British race' that seems alien to many today.

This feeds into the point about slaves not being allowed in England, it was not because people in England necessarily knew better, it was due to England being considered better than anywhere else. It is a notion that persists to some extent even today, where many have never really considered ourselves a part of Europe (not the EU, but the continent itself) and is probably related to being an island nation.

Some might see that insular view as a weakness, but it foiled Caesar, Spain, Napoleon and Hitler, even William the Conqueror had issues with England's natural defence, to many people that sense of being apart is major factor in our national identity, it is deeply ingrained in our psyche and people have tried to understand it for centuries.

[Shadowferal]

Hmf...lets not confuse Republican/GOP with conservatism.

Republican party that so claimed the likes of Lincoln was very different in the 19th century, and was regarded as the party for abolitionists, the black man and the poor man.

Conservatism is typically seen as "traditionalist." As opposed to Liberalism which is seen as "progressive."

the more modern view of conservatism was formulated by William F. Buckley among a few (Barry Goldwater comes to mind). Highly intellectual, cultivating fellow elites, yet as harshly as he criticized (and was criticized in return), he always desired to keep a dialogue open, and had zero issues with "crossing the aisle" endorsing democrat candidates when he felt the "other side" too damn stupid to be represented, or even changing his own positions when he saw firsthand the consequences of positions. He had friends on either side...

[Glorious Leader]

Bush and Reagan spent the same way. It was always a farce.

Cheney said it himself. Deficits dknt matter. Beyond that as dean baker notes republicans are all in favor of the nanny state and manipulating so callled market outcomes. Just in favor of their benefactors. The whole thing is a sham.

[RickJamesLich]

Again, the fact that you believe these people need to be hurt doesn't change that they are being hurt. Your decision that these people are a good target that you WANT to see pain inflicted upon doesn't change that it is pain being inflicted upon them.

Most civilized countries do not maintain as asinine an immigration system as the United States, and most civilized countries do not border or live in close proximity to nations that they themselves have destabilized. From Mexico down to South America, the U.S. has spent over a century working very hard to destabilize these nations, and now we are SHOCKED that people want to leave the hellholes we turned their nations into, to live in a more stable and secure nation.

If the U.S. had a reasonable immigration system, and if the U.S. stopped destabilizing these nations, the problem would solve itself, and on that note it is worth pointing out that there isn't even really a significant problem. Undocumented immigration is net negative and has been flat for almost a decade. The idea that we need to engage in police state tactics to solve a non-issue is absurd authoritarianism, which I am not shocked you are supporting given your ardent adherence to the notion of rules for the sake of rules, and the idea that if someone violates asinine rules, they have whatever is coming to them.

No clue where you are coming up with people getting hurt. They will be getting deported. This isn't "hurting" anyone any more than any other law which deals with criminals. Do you feel for example, voting laws hurt people because they are only allowed to vote once? lol.

I do acknowledge that the US has caused issues with many countries, at the same time, if these people wish to come to the US, they have legal options to do so. If they choose to ignore them, then of course there's the possibility that they will pay the price. Assuming the reason that Mexico has the problems it does because of the US and ignoring Mexico's actions itself in the matter, is just plain dishonesty.

Saying that the undocumented immigrant problem is "not a problem" is a matter of your opinion. There are many Americans that would disagree and the claim that "less immigrants are coming in" to other is still too many. I'm sure if someone violated a law that you respect, and claimed that it was "asinine" you wouldn't take them very seriously. Much in the same way, your opinion holds little weight and the law is the law.

That quote is from this year. If he says something like that, I'm really not going to take seriously shit he said in 1994, or shit he said after. He picked one of the most virulent and extremist anti-gay politicians in the country as his running mate, a man who tried to cut HIV treatment funding to fund gay conversion therapy, which the American Psychology Association says induces suicide and depression.

It's not just a question of marriage itself. It's a question of what enforcement of marriage rights looks like, and how LGBT people will be treated in other aspects of the law. There is NO reason to believe that suddenly the Republicans are going to magically turn around on decades of hate agains the LGBT community and go out of their way to protect them. There are still standing issues before the court, and numerous issues with regards to things like workplace protections. The Obama justice department has been strong on making these things a priority. It's just a fantasy that Republicans are interested in continuing that.

You say you don't care about what Pence said in 1994, but he advocated the gay conversion therapy in the year 2000. As has been mentioned, the gay marriage thing and homosexuality in general are something that many American politicians have changed stances on as times have progressed. If you have no issue with Obama's or Hillary's past comments on the issue, perhaps it's time to extend the same courtesy to Trump and Pence?

Also, the "decades of hate" came from both sides and still does. There are democrats and republicans alike that think homosexuality is evil, hell it's one of the main reasons that John Kerry lost to Bush back in 2004. Essentially you are criticizing Trump for his past stances on the issue, while ignoring that Obama had the same stance, but then applauding Obama's actions.

[NineSpine]

Disraeli didn't really like Jews, so that makes no sense. He viewed himself as British and held a concept of a 'British race' that seems alien to many today.

This feeds into the point about slaves not being allowed in England, it was not because people in England necessarily knew better, it was due to England being considered better than anywhere else. It is a notion that persists to some extent even today, where many have never really considered ourselves a part of Europe (not the EU, but the continent itself) and is probably related to being an island nation.

Some might see that insular view as a weakness, but it foiled Caesar, Spain, Napoleon and Hitler, even William the Conqueror had issues with England's natural defence, to many people that sense of being apart is major factor in our national identity, it is deeply ingrained in our psyche and people have tried to understand it for centuries.

Nothing you just said counters my point.

[Grummgug]

Conservatives, by definition, resist change. Because of that, the party was able to take over the racist, bigoted, homophobic, poor and Christian fundamentalist crowds....all of which are literally about stopping change. Now they are serving 2 diametrically opposed masters, which creates the chaos that allows Dickhead to be their nominee.

This is a warped and ignorant view if history. The truth is that the liberals took over the media. Once that happened, they eternally try to tar the republicans with slurs, as if the DNA of liberals is immune to thinking in such slurs. I hate to break it to you, but there are PLENTY of racists in the democratic party. The media simply uses a logical fallacy, lies of omission, and refuse to report it. It also uses fake outrage to suppress dialogue. The second anyone accuses anyone on the left of being racist, you get people coming out trying to drown out and stop debate or turn it back on the republicans. The moment you try to say there are people on the left that are racist towards white people, then they REALLY fake outrage in an attempt to halt the debate.

1. stop debate when it goes against you.
2. fail to report when your team does these things.

After years of this, we arrive at people like you, who falsely define republicans as racist by their very nature. My advice is to stop letting the liberal media control you and get an education.


[Infracted]

[NineSpine]

No clue where you are coming up with people getting hurt. They will be getting deported. This isn't "hurting" anyone any more than any other law which deals with criminals. Do you feel for example, voting laws hurt people because they are only allowed to vote once? lol.

If you have a family who has multiple citizens in it and the primary breadwinner is undocumented, removing that person is harmful to that family. The fact that you don't care and desire to see that person hurt doesn't change that fact.

I do acknowledge that the US has caused issues with many countries, at the same time, if these people wish to come to the US, they have legal options to do so. If they choose to ignore them, then of course there's the possibility that they will pay the price. Assuming the reason that Mexico has the problems it does because of the US and ignoring Mexico's actions itself in the matter, is just plain dishonesty.

The primary problem in Mexico is drug gangs. What country funnels billions of dollars into the coffers of those drug gangs every year? Their primary mechanism of funding is U.S. drug purchases.

You talk about legally coming to the U.S. like it is a cakewalk. it is a process that is complicated, can take decades, and can cost tens of thousands of dollars. If the process was simple and streamlined, people would be happy to get on the rolls and do it that way. If you want to go to Canada, you get a yes or no within a couple of years and the process is extraordinarily straightforward, as well as inexpensive.

If your choice is to attempt to come here legally, but the process is so ridiculously complicated, lengthy, and expensive that it is unlikely to ever pan out for you in any meaningful way, why the fuck would you bother? Most undocumented immigrants came here legally and overstayed. Why? Because continuing to stay legally is absurdly complicated and expensive.

Saying that the undocumented immigrant problem is "not a problem" is a matter of your opinion. There are many Americans that would disagree and the claim that "less immigrants are coming in" to other is still too many. I'm sure if someone violated a law that you respect, and claimed that it was "asinine" you wouldn't take them very seriously. Much in the same way, your opinion holds little weight and the law is the law.

A stupid law doesn't become awesome just because it is the law. That's called authoritarianism: Law for the sake of law. Rules for the sake of rules. Punishment for the sake of punishment.

There is objectively no way to consider this a major issue.

You say you don't care about what Pence said in 1994, but he advocated the gay conversion therapy in the year 2000. As has been mentioned, the gay marriage thing and homosexuality in general are something that many American politicians have changed stances on as times have progressed. If you have no issue with Obama's or Hillary's past comments on the issue, perhaps it's time to extend the same courtesy to Trump and Pence?

I would be willing to consider Pence's views if there was some indication his mind has changed since then. It hasn't. He's the same guy advocating the same hate. I'm not holding him accountable for views he changed decades ago. I'm holding him accountable for views he holds now that have materialized repeatedly throughout his career.

Obama and Hillary believed in civil unions instead of gay marriage, including full civil rights protections of LGBT Americans. Comparing that to Mike Pence is absurd and disgusting. It shows that you just don't care about or understand at all what the actual problem is here. You are just trying to find clever (but not really clever) ways to deflect. If you don't care about these issues, then admit and don't care. Say it doesn't matter to you. Say that abusing the rights of LGBT citizens isn't something that bothers you. Don't play this bullshit wishy washy game of pretending it's all the same and gee golly we just can't know what is going to happen. You don't have to care, but you also don't get to pretend that it's unreasonable for LGBT Americans and people that DO care about them to be concerned.

Also, the "decades of hate" came from both sides and still does. There are democrats and republicans alike that think homosexuality is evil, hell it's one of the main reasons that John Kerry lost to Bush back in 2004. Essentially you are criticizing Trump for his past stances on the issue, while ignoring that Obama had the same stance, but then applauding Obama's actions.

Obama appointed the Supreme Court justices that made this ruling. Obama's justice department has been strong and forceful on these issues, even before he changed his mind on gay marriage itself. The idea that that is the same as advocating committing government money to gay conversion therapy is fucking disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself. Gay conversion therapy kills people. Get real.

- - - Updated - - -

This is a warped and ignorant view if history. The truth is that the liberals took over the media. Once that happened, they eternally try to tar the republicans with slurs, as if the DNA of liberals is immune to thinking in such slurs. I hate to break it to you, but there are PLENTY of racists in the democratic party. The media simply uses a logical fallacy, lies of omission, and refuse to report it. It also uses fake outrage to suppress dialogue. The second anyone accuses anyone on the left of being racist, you get people coming out trying to drown out and stop debate or turn it back on the republicans. The moment you try to say there are people on the left that are racist towards white people, then they REALLY fake outrage in an attempt to halt the debate.

1. stop debate when it goes against you.
2. fail to report when your team does these things.

After years of this, we arrive at people like you, who falsely define republicans as racist by their very nature. My advice is to stop letting the liberal media control you and get an education.

Two RNC chairs publicly apologized for the Southern Strategy because... the liberal media something something?

[Bullettime]

This is a warped and ignorant view if history. The truth is that the liberals took over the media. Once that happened, they eternally try to tar the republicans with slurs, as if the DNA of liberals is immune to thinking in such slurs. I hate to break it to you, but there are PLENTY of racists in the democratic party. The media simply uses a logical fallacy, lies of omission, and refuse to report it. It also uses fake outrage to suppress dialogue. The second anyone accuses anyone on the left of being racist, you get people coming out trying to drown out and stop debate or turn it back on the republicans. The moment you try to say there are people on the left that are racist towards white people, then they REALLY fake outrage in an attempt to halt the debate.

1. stop debate when it goes against you.
2. fail to report when your team does these things.

After years of this, we arrive at people like you, who falsely define republicans as racist by their very nature. My advice is to stop letting the liberal media control you and get an education.

The Republicans who basically created and enacted the Southern Strategy have apologized for the mess they've made.

The Southern Strategy is the primary reason behind the decline of conservatism in the United States into the mess that it's become. Gone are the days of Eisenhower.

[Shadowferal]

This is a warped and ignorant view if history. The truth is that the liberals took over the media.

Wow, speaking of warped and ignorant...

"Liberals" right? Like Ed Murrow? (Maybe you were a fan of McCarthy...)

[Kalis]

Nothing you just said counters my point.

Your points betray a fundamental misunderstanding of how race was viewed by Disraeli.

It wasn't that whites were inherently superior, it was that those groups who had achieved greatness could claim to be great and thus were superior, e.g. Greeks could claim it, but Albanians couldn't. It was an idea based on achievement, it is a fairly logical way of seeing things in some respects.

Am I going to go down in history as a great footballer? No. Is Lionel Messi? Yes. Why, we are both white males who play football? Because he achieved greatness and earnt his place amongst those who can be considered superior footballers, whereas I am a Sunday league hacker. Disraeli applied a similar concept to nations.

[matt4pack]

Both sides are moving more and more to the extremes. Conservatism moving more right is just a response to the left becoming PC SJW's and having completely ruined the media they control with fake news to appeal to only those types.

I'm more left leaning but even I start feeling sympathy to the right when I see what the left has become today. Bernie was the one guy who seemed to mostly get it and didn't try to alienate people and play the SJW card at every turn but they tossed him aside because of that. I despise the identity politics of the left today.

[NineSpine]

Your points betray a fundamental misunderstanding of how race was viewed by Disraeli.

It wasn't that whites were inherently superior, it was that those groups who had achieved greatness could claim to be great and thus were superior, e.g. Greeks could claim it, but Albanians couldn't. It was an idea based on achievement, it is a fairly logical way of seeing things in some respects.

Am I going to go down in history as a great footballer? No. Is Lionel Messi? Yes. Why, we are both white males? Because he achieved greatness and earnt his place amongst those who can be considered superior footballers, whereas I am a Sunday league hacker. Disraeli applied a similar concept to nations.

Oh so when he said "race", he meant "nationality". How the fuck do you explain this quote then:

"The hon. Gentleman has said, in a most extraordinary manner, that our security for peace at the present day is the desire of nations to keep at home. There is a great difference between nationality and race. Nationality is the principle of political independence. Race is the principle of physical analogy, and you have at this moment the principle of race--not at all of nationality--adopted by Germany, the very country to which the hon. Member for the West Riding referred."

[Alydael]

A Democratic president pushed for and signed the Civil Rights Act.

Obama's justice department has been the strongest justice department on racial issues in history.

If anyone is eating crap from the media it is yourself, as you just stated that Republicans are responsible for the Civil Rights Act that was signed by Lyndon Johnson.

Although it was under a Dem president, the effort was lead by the republicans with resistance from the Dems.
http://www.redstate.com/diary/candic...-civil-rights/

I guess you don't understand how the government works or something (maybe you don't live in the USA)?
The President signs the bill into law but the bill has to be written and created in the Congress first. It was the republicans in the congress that created the legislation and spearheaded the effort to get it passed. The credit for the legislation always goes to who authored the bill........

You consider Obama's record on civil rights strong? really? then why:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/us...us-cities.html
http://www.blackenterprise.com/news/...siness-owners/

"Minorities have had stagnant wages and higher unemployment under Obama" http://dailysignal.com/2016/09/14/ho...obama-economy/

That qualifies as good for you?

[PosPosPos]

The movement of the U.S. political system has been rightward. As the Democrats have moved to the right since the early 90s, the Republicans have moved even further right in response.

The Dems should really see how far they can push Repubs further to the right, if only for entertainment value. Not that the Trump fiasco wasn't entertaining enough, but I can't say less to /popcorn.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...i-hillary.html

And you apparently think Wikileaks is on your side, just like Hannity. You're welcome to your delusions, I'll take no part in it.

Changing another's mind is not the driving factor in why I post or discuss issues; coming to a better understanding of the issues for my sake is why I do it. You're under the impression that I'm unwilling to change my mind on political matters, but if you go through my post history, you'll find that I was once an advocate for "Ron Paul" foreign policy.

I changed my mind on the old buzzards views after reading books like Unholy Babylon and The Republic of Fear. I cut loose of that drivel once I realized that G.W was far from the vilest man in the world and began to resent the notion of mindless lefties and libertarians that he was.

If I'm supposed to believe the contents of a movie like "Clinton Cash," when she was only Secretary of State, what makes you think the White House Chief of Staff has his hands tied when it comes to interacting with Russia? All he has to do is convince people that "we need a reset with Russia" and sanctions are on the table for removal. Trump doesn't have to do anything to allow Putin to walk all over the Baltics, Ukraine, Syria, and bully the EU. Who's going to stop Putin, Europe? Give me a break.

You believe in foreign actors breaching national security for political gain, not transparency. Transparency is an act by the government in good faith in the name of accountability. Keep using those buzzwords that you don't understand the meaning of, though.

I thought we went over this; I admit my bias, it's you who pretends to be an objective centrist. At least you recognize an enemy when you see one; I'll give you that much.

I supported WikiLeaks way before they did the DNC leaks. In fact, I was a strong supporter of WikiLeaks during the Bush administration leak. Or the Turkey leak. Or the Syrian. Or the international mass surveillance leaks. But hey, whatever float your boat.

Plus, if you go through my posts, you'll also realize that I've always fought for the same virtues, regardless of the left or the right. But what I've seen and experience from you, as a person, has been nothing less than hostile and disillusioned.

And your fear of Russia is nothing short of pure paranoïa. Russia has many things that it is guilty of. Like the way they treat homosexuals or how they've allowed neo-nazis to grow -- or how it's pretty much a dictatorship under the thumb of Putin. But what happened here, in the US, is not a movement created by the Russians. If anything, it may have been supported by them, but that's the extent of their investment. Everything else is you sheepishly buying into Clinton's fearmongering propaganda.

Sadly, you do not understand transparency, or you think you can twist it to fit your views. Seriously, go read about it. I want the same transparency for Trump -- the fact we didn't get it doesn't mean getting transparency from the DNC was a bad thing. But if you'd rather play with a spider web behind everybody's back because you think people are too stupid to think for themselves, then there's another reason for me to dislike you. If not, then transparency - no matter how it comes to be - is good. This whole idea of hiding the truth disgust me and I'm all for taking prohibited information to have a better informed society.

I also don't pretend to be objective. I try to be and I try to balance things when people like you come like a wrecking ball trying to instill fear, noise and misinformation.