What has become of conservatism?

[Kalis]

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."

Do you know what he is referring to? It is a pan-Germanic race that was calling for German unity, i.e. Germans are a race and their desires to unite override that of the small nation states that Germany was divided up into.

We would probably regard it as nationalism today, not a racial issue. Would you regard those who want a united Ireland to be arguing on the basis of race or nationalism?

[RickJamesLich]

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.

Again, this is no different from any other breadwinner getting locked up for committing a crime. Your fault here is trying to blame the government, as opposed to the breadwinner, he in fact behaved irresponsibly. We've seen the left have no issue with people getting fired from jobs for making jokes on twitter and such, so it's bizarre seeing them suddenly become concerned about breadwinners.

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.

So if you have an issue with drug purchasers from the US, take it up with them. The government has imposed harsh penalties just to provide a deterrent for buying drugs but I'm sure you have a problem with this as well? Am I correct? I got a feeling that no matter the route the US takes here, that you'd view them as the bad guy.

The process is strict for a good reason - many people want to get into the US yet we already have our own citizens that we have to take care of. That being said, the options are there for people who want to work for it. Canada doesn't have as strict of a system because let's be honest, not nearly as many people want to go there.

If undocumented immigrants want to say "fuck this shit to the laws", they can go ahead, but don't complain when the deportation happens. Simple as that. If I went into another country and disregarded such laws, I would not be surprised when I received the same fate. It seems you think there should be a complete lack of accountability for immigrants, for no other reason than they are immigrants.

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.

Again, disregarding the law because it's "stupid" is a pretty shallow reason. Even many immigrants think that the immigration process, while strict, should be followed by all. If we didn't have such strict policies, you'd literally see half of south America trying to move into our country, and then we'd be experiencing the same problems we see in Europe, except on a much grander scale. Laws have purposes, whether you want to acknowledge them or not.

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.

Likewise, Obama and Hillary advocated the same hate, in Obama's case he felt that gay marriage was disrespectful to God. He felt that gay's should have similar rights, Obama also said in many cases homosexuality was not innate. Obama had a negative view on gay marriage in the same way that Pence had in many ways. Not to mention the Vice President rarely is the one to introduce new policy - that's up to Trump himself who has already made it clear that he is the one making the choices here. As for me personally, I personally feel gay people do deserve the right to marriage and the right from discrimination. That being said at the same time I can acknowledge that this type of thing has been a major change over the last 10 to 15 years and many people from older generations, such as Obama and Pence, have held differing views in the past.

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.

If Obama can rise above his hate for gays, why would you think a guy like Pence can't?

[Spectral]

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.

I really don't know how anyone could plausibly argue that the 2016 political center is to the right of the 1996 US political center. Particularly on social issues, nearly every mainstream position today is noticeably to the left of 1996 - gay marriage is now the centrist position, healthcare has moved towards increased government coverage and this position is backed by Trump, deficit spending is extremely high and considered totally normal by both parties, military spending as a percentage of GDP has dropped, marijuana is in the process of being legalized in many states, and the nation is much less religious.

With the exception of heavy deficit spending, I'm basically happy about these things, but they represent a significant leftward shift in the mainstream of politics.

Could you provide the issues on which you think the United States has slid significant to the right over that 20 year period? Likewise, can you compare them in scale to what I described above?

[Bullettime]

I really don't know how anyone could plausibly argue that the 2016 political center is to the right of the 1996 US political center. Particularly on social issues, nearly every mainstream position today is noticeably to the left of 1996 - gay marriage is now the centrist position, healthcare has moved towards increased government coverage and this position is backed by Trump, deficit spending is extremely high and considered totally normal by both parties, military spending as a percentage of GDP has dropped, marijuana is in the process of being legalized in many states, and the nation is much less religious.

With the exception of heavy deficit spending, I'm basically happy about these things, but they represent a significant leftward shift in the mainstream of politics.

Could you provide the issues on which you think the United States has slid significant to the right over that 20 year period? Likewise, can you compare them in scale to what I described above?

The interesting thing is that United States conservatism has moved left socially but right economically. They're accepting, begrudgingly in some cases, things like gay marriage while doubling down on the concept of trickle down economics and constantly pushing to cut social spending.

[araine]

You mean like accusing the POTUS of being a Kenyan, Muslim, Socialist, Atheist, Communist that wants to destroy America, and can't prove he was born in the U.S? The nonsense you're advocating would make journalism and the publishing of news impossible. The irony is that if punishing libel laws were passed in the United States, websites like Breitbart, youngcons.com, chicksontheright.com and tabloids like the National Inquirer would be out of business immediately.

But i am sure they will write in a clause that makes it only about liberal media. I have no doubt about that one since really you think they would allow the closure of the right wing lying machine that is used to brainwash the followers? come on they will NEVER do that, what the far right wants to close down on is news media that reports the facts and points out the LIES. thats what they really want to do.

[Spectral]

The interesting thing is that United States conservatism has moved left socially but right economically. They're accepting, begrudgingly in some cases, things like gay marriage while doubling down on the concept of trickle down economics and constantly pushing to cut social spending.

If this is true, it's hard to find any evidence of it actually impacting policy when looking at various forms of welfare spending as a percentage of GDP (link to a bunch of graphs).

Is there a specific form of social spending that you're seeing significant cuts in? There may be some state level spending (I'm thinking Kansas) that aren't captured in national data, but the overall national landscape doesn't strike me as having gone much of anywhere on this - SNAP spending, housing transfers, and healthcare spending are all up when looking at a trendline over the course of ~20 years.

[Ragedaug]

To be honest the left does that southern strategy thing more than the right does at this point, the only difference is they take aim at white voters and try to create an environment of fear from it. Hence why so many people were literally crying and thinking the planet was going to end once Trump won the Presidency.

The fear-mongering on the left is an incredible thing to watch. So many tears, so much depression, so much anger, so much protesting and rioting. I find with most of their complaints about the political Right, they are projecting, when they are more guilty of the same themselves.

Intolerant: Very few liberals will tolerate a conservative opinion, much less tolerating a conservative to speak
Fear Mongering: Considering most liberals think Trump is better than Pence or Cruz, and we see how they acted like the world ended when Trump got elected, can you imagine the outcry of the left if Cruz won? Heavy liberal cities would probably all been lit up in flames.
Hatred: Listen to the anger and vitriol of a liberal protest, screaming "peaceful protest" while they beat the crap out of a Trump supporter. I see a lot of hatred toward Republicans in those rallies and protests.

[Caolela]

Pretty sure the UK is not on Beta Reticuli or Mars, yet we have old school conservatives in power. Unless you don't regard the oldest extant conservative political philosophy to be 'old school'.

"Pretty sure" I said U.S. not U.K., though it won't be long no doubt before the Tories have gone fully hard-right as well.

[Kalis]

"Pretty sure" I said U.S. not U.K., though it won't be long no doubt before the Tories have gone fully hard-right as well.

It may be true in the US, but I wasn't talking about the US and you replied to me. The Tories aren't going to go any further right than they already are, there is no point as Britain is majority centrist and, unlike Labour bar the Blairites, the Conservatives like to win elections.

[Hammerfest]

What has become of conservatism?

As of right now? It's winning.

[Deleted]

Conservatives, by definition, resist change.

Because not all change is good.

What "change" did you have in mind?

[araine]

As of right now? It's winning.

If by winning you mean caving into fascism and racism just for the sake of getting into control. yep they are winning but we will make sure the price they pay for that is huge down the road.

[Caolela]

It may be true in the US, but I wasn't talking about the US and you replied to me. The Tories aren't going to go any further right than they already are, there is no point as Britain is majority centrist and, unlike Labour bar the Blairites, the Conservatives like to win elections.

Well I don't know. The recent Orwellian surveillance law passed in Britain by the Tory gov't speaks volumes, as one example.

What's next, "Papers please, fraulein. May ve see your papers please?"

[NineSpine]

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........

The Civil Rights Act was first called for by Kennedy in 1963. It was introduced into the House by Emanuel Celler, a Democrat, and it was written by two Democrats and two Republicans. It passed the Democratically controlled judiciary committee to be voted on. Democrats voted 153–91 to pass it in the House and 46–21 to pass it in the Senate. The primary opposing voice, who led the filibuster was Strom Thurmond, a Democrat who defected to the Republican Party immediately after the bill past.

The Republican response to the Civil Rights Act was to treat it as an opportunity to secure Southern racists to their side. They called this the Southern Strategy, and the last two RNC chairs publicly apologized for it. The party openly courted Southern racists who were upset that the Democrats had passed the Civil Rights Act. This was successful, and the starkest example of it is that Reagan gave a huge speech seven miles from where three civil rights workers were lynched, where he talked about returning to states the rights that the federal government took from them.

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?

Oh, now I understand the problem here. You think "Civil Rights" means "The general state of the minority community". That's not what it means, so we can continue this discussion when you learn what Civil Rights means.

- - - Updated - - -

The fear-mongering on the left is an incredible thing to watch. So many tears, so much depression, so much anger, so much protesting and rioting. I find with most of their complaints about the political Right, they are projecting, when they are more guilty of the same themselves.

Intolerant: Very few liberals will tolerate a conservative opinion, much less tolerating a conservative to speak
Fear Mongering: Considering most liberals think Trump is better than Pence or Cruz, and we see how they acted like the world ended when Trump got elected, can you imagine the outcry of the left if Cruz won? Heavy liberal cities would probably all been lit up in flames.
Hatred: Listen to the anger and vitriol of a liberal protest, screaming "peaceful protest" while they beat the crap out of a Trump supporter. I see a lot of hatred toward Republicans in those rallies and protests.

Yeah, I remember when Obama won and conservatives very gracefully and calmly told us about how he is a secret Kenyan Muslim who is going to put everyone in FEMA camps.

[Kalis]

Well I don't know. The recent Orwellian surveillance law passed in Britain by the Tory gov't speaks volumes, as one example.

What's next, "Papers please, fraulein. May ve see your papers please?"

Legislation passed for the benefit of law enforcement that is overseen by an independent judiciary and subject to Parliamentary scrutiny is not Orwellian.

[NineSpine]

I really don't know how anyone could plausibly argue that the 2016 political center is to the right of the 1996 US political center. Particularly on social issues, nearly every mainstream position today is noticeably to the left of 1996 - gay marriage is now the centrist position, healthcare has moved towards increased government coverage and this position is backed by Trump, deficit spending is extremely high and considered totally normal by both parties, military spending as a percentage of GDP has dropped, marijuana is in the process of being legalized in many states, and the nation is much less religious.

With the exception of heavy deficit spending, I'm basically happy about these things, but they represent a significant leftward shift in the mainstream of politics.

Could you provide the issues on which you think the United States has slid significant to the right over that 20 year period? Likewise, can you compare them in scale to what I described above?

In 1996, Republicans were making arguments for programs like Obamacare. George H.W. Bush had recently solved the acid rain problem with a cap and trade program. We weren't having conversations about obliterating the EPA, largely because it was a Republican that created it. The deficits you are complaining about were largely created by an economic crash that was caused by massive fraud, yet basically nobody went to jail for it. Minor economic crashes caused by fraud used to result in hundreds to thousands being indicted, including in the 80s under Reagan. The Democrats have basically given up on supporting unions except their pocket ones. Corporate accountability is just a foreign concept now. The idea of anti-trust laws being enforced in any meaningful way is long, long gone. The way we engage in economic stimulus has become almost entirely about helping large corporations.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you know what he is referring to? It is a pan-Germanic race that was calling for German unity, i.e. Germans are a race and their desires to unite override that of the small nation states that Germany was divided up into.

We would probably regard it as nationalism today, not a racial issue. Would you regard those who want a united Ireland to be arguing on the basis of race or nationalism?

Again, you aren't really countering anything I'm saying. This is turning boring quickly. His quotes are clear as day. He was a racist. I don't care that he is your hero. He is still racist, and you've only proven by point by engaging in this mealy mouthed exercise of apologetics.

[Paranoid Android]

In 1996, Republicans were making arguments for programs like Obamacare. George H.W. Bush had recently solved the acid rain problem with a cap and trade program. We weren't having conversations about obliterating the EPA, largely because it was a Republican that created it. The deficits you are complaining about were largely created by an economic crash that was caused by massive fraud, yet basically nobody went to jail for it. Minor economic crashes caused by fraud used to result in hundreds to thousands being indicted, including in the 80s under Reagan. The Democrats have basically given up on supporting unions except their pocket ones. Corporate accountability is just a foreign concept now. The idea of anti-trust laws being enforced in any meaningful way is long, long gone. The way we engage in economic stimulus has become almost entirely about helping large corporations.

Republicans became petulant children. Instead of being the counter to Dems and their spending, yes people argue Republicans became part of the problem, they decided to burn this motherfucker down.

They implemented the Hastert Rule, Grover Norquist on no new taxes pledge, the Tea Party and many other oppositions that grind government to a halt.

I don't mind and want the Republican side to be the "conservative" party and counter spending and make sure the left does not go bat shit crazy. Instead they want to kick and scream and not do anything.

[NineSpine]

Again, this is no different from any other breadwinner getting locked up for committing a crime. Your fault here is trying to blame the government, as opposed to the breadwinner, he in fact behaved irresponsibly. We've seen the left have no issue with people getting fired from jobs for making jokes on twitter and such, so it's bizarre seeing them suddenly become concerned about breadwinners.

First of all, being undocumented isn't a crime. It's a civil infraction.

Second of all, since you can't seem to get it through your head that being undocumented isn't the same thing as raping and murdering people, I don't know what to tell you. How about I have an undocumented immigrant stay with me for a week, and you can have a rapist murderer stay with you, since it's all the same.

So if you have an issue with drug purchasers from the US, take it up with them. The government has imposed harsh penalties just to provide a deterrent for buying drugs but I'm sure you have a problem with this as well? Am I correct? I got a feeling that no matter the route the US takes here, that you'd view them as the bad guy.

The U.S. drug war is exactly why the money goes to Mexico, just like how prohibition created modern organized crime.

The process is strict for a good reason - many people want to get into the US yet we already have our own citizens that we have to take care of. That being said, the options are there for people who want to work for it. Canada doesn't have as strict of a system because let's be honest, not nearly as many people want to go there.

Canada's system is MORE strict on who can get in and out. It's just also simple, streamlined, efficient, quick, and inexpensive. This isn't a question of how strict it is, and the fact that you aren't already aware of this tells me that you have been talking out of your ass this whole time. The U.S. has a needlessly complex, insanely lengthy, extraordinarily expensive immigration system, which makes people less interested in participating in it.

If undocumented immigrants want to say "fuck this shit to the laws", they can go ahead, but don't complain when the deportation happens. Simple as that. If I went into another country and disregarded such laws, I would not be surprised when I received the same fate. It seems you think there should be a complete lack of accountability for immigrants, for no other reason than they are immigrants.

Inefficient, garbage government systems aren't awesome just because the government makes them. Again, this is just one of those things that is hard to explain to an authoritarian, but I will try. If you care about actual results, not about your bullshit moralizing and your appeal to government authority, you have to enact productive systems. Making unproductive systems and then complaining that the reason they are unproductive is because Jorge should have done what he was told doesn't actually make the system productive. If I decided, for example, that I was going to jail everyone who was unemployed for more than three months, that system may encourage people to get jobs as soon as humanly possible, but appealing to the punishment itself doesn't make that a productive way to address unemployment. Saying "Well, Steve should have gotten a fuckin' job then!" doesn't mean that system works well. It just means you are an authoritarian who doesn't understand the difference between productive and unproductive, because you can't see past your desire to use the government to spank people.

It reminds of Joe Arpaio's stupid jail, where they treat the prisoners like shit. People like you loooooooove that shit, because they deserve it, right? Well, his jail had a massive recidivism rate, because it doesn't work. This is how you distinguish an authoritarian from a normal, healthy person. An authoritarian would rather the system be unproductive but punishing, than be productive.

Again, disregarding the law because it's "stupid" is a pretty shallow reason. Even many immigrants think that the immigration process, while strict, should be followed by all. If we didn't have such strict policies, you'd literally see half of south America trying to move into our country, and then we'd be experiencing the same problems we see in Europe, except on a much grander scale. Laws have purposes, whether you want to acknowledge them or not.

I addressed this above. It isn't about strict. It's about efficient. We are an easy country to get into IF you can navigate the complex system, wait fifteen years, and pay $15,000. If you want to go to Canada, it's much harder to get in, but it's based on merit, not based on all that bullshit, and people can know where they stand very easily, with certainty. It's not about strictness. It is about certainty.

Likewise, Obama and Hillary advocated the same hate, in Obama's case he felt that gay marriage was disrespectful to God. He felt that gay's should have similar rights, Obama also said in many cases homosexuality was not innate. Obama had a negative view on gay marriage in the same way that Pence had in many ways. Not to mention the Vice President rarely is the one to introduce new policy - that's up to Trump himself who has already made it clear that he is the one making the choices here. As for me personally, I personally feel gay people do deserve the right to marriage and the right from discrimination. That being said at the same time I can acknowledge that this type of thing has been a major change over the last 10 to 15 years and many people from older generations, such as Obama and Pence, have held differing views in the past.

If Obama can rise above his hate for gays, why would you think a guy like Pence can't?

Because Obama did and Pence didn't. Obama never advocated imprisoning people for trying to acquire marriage licenses. Obama never tried to cut HIV funding to move the money to conversion therapy. Obama said he was for same sex marriage in 1996, then waffled and shifted his opinion back and forth. Obama has no history of fundamentally opposing gay rights and seeking to imprison or harm gay people. He has long advocated for equal rights for gays, even though he's a back and forth on whether to support civil unions or gay marriage. He voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment even when he personally was against gay marriage (The amendment defined marriage as between a man and a woman).

The comparison you are making is absurd. The idea that someone who believes in gay rights but used to think they should have civil unions instead of marriage licenses, can be cavalierly put on the same level as someone who doesn't believe in HIV funding and wants to imprison gay people, is asinine.

You aren't comparing two people with similar views, and one has shifted. You are comparing a virulent, despicable homophobe who has gone way out of his way to harm gay people, with someone who has generally supported gay rights but has waffled on gay marriage vs civil unions.

[Kalis]

Again, you aren't really countering anything I'm saying. This is turning boring quickly. His quotes are clear as day. He was a racist. I don't care that he is your hero. He is still racist, and you've only proven by point by engaging in this mealy mouthed exercise of apologetics.

His quotes obviously aren't clear, he had a different definition of race to what we have and you can't grasp it in spite of having that explained.

To him races were superior or inferior based on achievement, so one group of white people could be superior and one group of black people could be inferior, whilst at the same time another group of black people could be superior and another group of whites inferior.

His definition of race was much narrower than how we typically use it and would nowadays be closer to what we regard as nationalism or possibly even ethnicism; so British would be a race and Finnish would be a different race, the former superior due to how they'd created an empire, the latter inferior due to not having achieved anything of greatness.

So yes he was a racist in the sense that he believed in differences between races, but he wouldn't fit in with any racist groups today, as his views on what race meant are antiquated.

[Elegiac]

They were never truly distinct, the only major difference is that 'old school' conservatism expressed its biases in a slightly more tasteful fashion than we see of the modern right wing demagogues.