Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Miguel, your assessment ranks right on with another article I read which assessed slightly less than 50% of his campaign promises having been kept with only a year left to fulfill the rest.

As a point of clarity, I think your third area would be better termed “Traditional Christian” or “Traditional Relgious” values, as “Family Values” is a rather vague term. Some folks think, for instance, that contraceptive education is an important family value because it prevents unwanted families. Furthermore, opposition of gay marriage can be seen as a stroke against family values, since it works to prevent the creation of families and legally-responsible adoptive parents.

Also, I’ll note that the theoretical basis for globalized free trade and low taxes are known generally as neoliberalism, since they advocate a market with greater liberty. I tend to think of a conservative economic policy as one of national goods promotion, high import tariffs, as well as some cultural business practices we might conjure up thinking about a period like the 1950s.

Of course, many people who style themselves “conservatives” support liberal economics while many people who consider themselves “liberal” believe in conservative notions like natural conservation. Your post seems to address issues of concern to conservatives, rather than conservative issues per se.

Semantic nuance is often an early casualty of politics.

Miguel,

You assume that being “Fiscally Responsible” and “Conservative” go hand in hand (implication: liberals can’t be fiscally responsible?)

This is not necessarily true (as Reagan proved!), and should be removed altogether from your scorecard.

George W Bush’s administration has been “family values-centred” (RICH Family Values centred, I should say) in an extremely conservative fashion. That’s a you say a bullseye, but why the weighting 4/4? I’d say this particular issue is crucial to conservatives, a lot more than foreign policy.

As for “his” International Policy, it has been and still is nothing short of Fascism, in my opinion. It goes well beyond conservatism in this respect. I have no idea how you should score that, but invading countries in order to bring about “regime change” is neither liberal nor conservative. It’s, well, you know, the F word, as I said.

GWB’s has been a far-right administration, and one that should end at once before the reputation of the US has been destroyed beyond repair (we are very close to that, sadly).

Germán

I find the characterization of “conservatism” as “tax cutting, fiscally responsible, family value centered, and strong on defense” as rather curious.

“tax cutting”:
I’ll concede that conservatives generally prefer tax cutting while liberals don’t tend to bring it up as much. Liberals tend to feel a sense of responsibility about paying for their share of the government’s spending (and they beleive in a lot of goverment spending), while conservatives tend to feel that simply by being active members of the economy (buying and investing and keeping the money flowing) they are doing their part for the nation’s fiscal health. Ultimately, a conservative loves tax cuts because they think that poor people have to be poor and that rich people deserve to be rich … and that we all have to come to grips with the fact that there will always be an impoverished underclass … and that it’s not worth spending money to help the poor because no amount of social services will ever help them.

“fiscally responsible”:
As others have pointed out, it is a rare Republican who can be described as “fiscally responsible” when deficit spending and lack of industry oversight are so core to current conservative values. A more accurate characterization of the “fiscally responsible” conservative value, again, is simply that conservatives like to cut social spending and deregulate industried and call it “fiscal responsibility”. Cutting back on school lunches and gutting environmental laws may resemble “fiscal responsibility”, but when coupled with reckless tax cutting, unfunded mandates to states, deficit spending, it’s a pretty disingenuous use of the term “responsible”.

“family value centered”:
This one takes the cake. Conservatives, by any measure, seek to punish families for divorce, they seek to avoid directly helping families who are impoverished, they seek to force unwanted families
to come into being, they seek to deprive gay and lesbian families the right to exist at all. As another reader has said, “family values centered” is simply a code word for “force strict judeo-christian values on all American families”.

“strong on defense”:
This, too, is a matter of opinion. Let me describe a liberal notion of “defensive strength” nation’s whose strength derived from the mere readiness to weild massive military might at will, and from the ability to form alliances, and, indeed, from the creation of a less hostile geopolitical climate through non-military means. This is kind of like the difference between Rambo and Bruce Lee, I guess: in the American mind, one cannot be considered “strong” unless someone is lying bloodied at your feet.

Just some thoughts…

-Cf

If you define “conservative” as I do, then Bush certainly wins the prize:

1) The recognition that American society needs to be sharply divided along economic lines in order for it to function - that poverty is a side effect of economic freedom. There will likely always be an undereducated, unhealthy, suffering underclass.
2) A beleif that an unregulated economy will produce the best results for society (even if it produces the aforementioned societal stratification).
3) The beleif in the general supremacy of religious beleif (Christian, usually) over secular philosophy and science. For example: while many conservatives do believe in the theory evolution, these same conserviatives also often believe that if a school wants to teach creationism, then they should be allowed to, even if the government is paying for it.
4) The beleif that America is the leader of the world, and that no other nation has the right or the ability to influence our actions and opinions - i.e., our hegemony/empire is a good thing. Conservatives are often divided between thinking that (a) The nation could be attacked by foreigners at any moment and (b) That we are utterly invincible.
5) The beleif that the US military *should* be used frequently around the world — that the regular display of US military might is not only necessary, but that such use is required in order to maintain American strength around the world.
6) The beleif that the press and the media is a burden on the smooth operation of goverment, in particular the operation of military. A conservative state does not need to be monitored by the press.
7) An unquestioning nationalistic belief in the significance (indeed, primacy) of the symbols and trappings of American.
8) A disregard for the historical and contemporary sufferings of racial minorities, in particular African Americans (I’m *not* saying “racism” here at all - rather, I am saying that many modern conservatives don’t even realize that racism is still a factor in society… they buy into the myth that Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King actually succeeded in eradicating American racism). Same goes for women, by the way: women now have equal rights, so what’s the beef, right?
9) The belief that, in the long run, the free market won’t actually destroy the environment … and even if we do destroy a lot of the enviroment it’s not such a big deal since animals and plants are stupid anyway and that in the future those that can afford to wont be affected by the environmental damage.
10) The beleif that the life of each individual American is a kind of ongoing every-person-for-themselves battle, where we are ultimately individually responsible for our own personal safety, physical health, education, and economic stability… except, of course, in cases where such responsibility contradicts any of the previous nine tenets.

I think the core of conservatism is this, actually:
The beleif that *you personally* are actually going to get rich and will be free of all the economic, environmental, societal, security-related, medical, and educational problems that may occur in the future. Or at least maybe your kids might. (19% of Americans already think they are in the top 1% of earners!)

Oh, I guess I could go on and on.

Christopher:

Pardon me, but your bias is showing. I’m hoping against hope that your comments were meant to simply be sarcastic, yet I believe (yes it IS “i” before “e”) you to be serious. Let me respond:

1) society will always have different classifications, unless you go by a strict communistic policy. And since that has never worked in the real world, I doubt we should continue exploring it.

2)The economy needs some regulation and some freedom; there will always be differing ideas of when to regulate and when to let go.

3)The US was founded on religious freedom, and was also based on a Christian belief structure. Read the letters of the founding fathers to verify this. That having been said, there should be separation of church and state. However, society has NOW moved to a point where simple discussion of religion in a public setting is considered an act of approval. Both creation and evolution are theories, and as such, both can be credibly taught in school. To deny either one is to insinuate your own belief structure on others.

4)America IS the leader of the world. That in no way makes us invincible, but it does imbue us with a huge responsibility in how we interact with the rest of the world.

5)Our military is there to protect us. Sometimes the threat of military force can be a deterrent, as in the Cold War with USSR. A military full of empty threats might as well not exist.

6)Conservatives have no issue with free press; there are of course areas where the press should not have immediate access that might divulge sensitive information. But ultimately, most of that information should be freely distributed.

7)Patriotism is a strong nationalistic belief, and I will die a patriot of the US. I will also die having questioned policies and having fought against those policies I disagree with—-regardless of which party the policy emanates from.

8)Racism of course exists, but actually exists from BOTH directions. Both blacks and whites have racist tendencies. The bigger issue is to not allow the past to define the future, and to not let people excuse future performance on past problems.

9)Many conservatives are also interested in the environment. It is important to recognize that going too far towards a business model can hurt the environment, and conversely, going too far to the environmental side will hurt business. It is a balancing act—-Bush is a bit too far on the business side at present.

10)Personal responsibility IS paramount. Too many in our society want to blame others for their problems. While society also needs to help those in need of help, society also needs to help people forge for themselves rather than simply be “given” things. That is the “teach a man to fish” approach.

Christopher, any fringe group can be bad, but conservatives are not a fringe group as you try to portray. Nor are conservatives by nature bad, any more than liberals are.

> Pardon me, but your bias is showing.

I had zero intention of hiding my bias! Compared to the conservatism of the Bush administration (the topic of this thread), I am clearly a liberal!

> 1) society will always have different classifications,
> unless you go by a strict communistic policy.

You don’t have to be a communist to think that it benefits our society as a whole to not have an unhealthy, starving, and ignorant underclass. I’m not saying we should lower the ceiling to force everyone to the same level. I just think that Republicans are against raising the floor or having a social safety net *at all*. That, in fact, they think that it’s important to keep some at least part of our society down - that poverty is not simply a *risk* of capitalism (which I accept) but that poverty is a *requirement* for capitalism (which I don’t accept). We can’t eradicate poverty, but does that mean we shouldn’t at least try to control it?

> 2)The economy needs some regulation and some
> freedom…

Agreed, but a great many conservatives are against *all* regulation. This is not a fringe concept. In fact, it is core to much conservative belief. The existence of corporate regulation even under Republican administrations is seen by many conservatives as a unfortunate political necessity, not as an actual tool to help keep our economy stable and fair.

> 3) …Both creation and evolution are theories, and as
> such, both can be credibly taught in school. To deny
> either one is to insinuate your own belief structure
> on others.

My apologies, but this is bizarre to me. I think this may be the only item of the ten where we don’t have any common ground.

Scientifically speaking, the Theory of Evolution is as valid a “theory” as the “theory” that the earth revolves around the sun, or the “theory” that matter is composed of atoms. These “theories” are based on the tenets of the scientific method. Creationism, on the other hand, doesn’t even credibly pretend to follow the scientific method – it is, at its core, based on faith.

Science has the humility to refer to ideas that most people will call “facts” as “theories” in order to draw attention to the idea that *all* ideas are to be continually subjected to inquiry and doubt. The word “theory” in the world of science doesn’t mean that a concept is just some kind of wild guess and that to be believed it can only be accepted on faith (like Creationism implicitly asks). It means that the idea was originated and refined through scientific inquiry and that it continues to be refined by scientists.

Teaching creationism as a scientific “theory” on the same level as other scientific theories is an affront to science and to knowledge and learning itself. Creationism is a theory for demagogues, the people they manipulate, and, frankly, for the insane. I doubt most Republican leaders or even most ordained priests and ministers buy into it.

> 4)America IS the leader of the world. That in no way
> makes us invincible, but it does imbue us with a
> huge responsibility in how we interact with the rest of
> the world.

Agreed. It also means that the respect the world has for us must continually be *earned*, not extracted by economic or military force, or else we risk losing that respect. We’ve lost a great deal of international respect in the past few years, and I would argue that, even with our great power, we need to earn that respect back. The current administration would likely disagree – they would argue that the US can lead the world whether or not we have the world’s admiration. To many in the current administration, respect earned by fear is preferable to respect earned by moral courage and benevolent leadership. This is called an “empire”, and it’s not where I want our country to be.

> 5)Our military is there to protect us. Sometimes the
> threat of military force can be a deterrent, as in the
> Cold War with USSR. A military full of empty threats
> might as well not exist.

If by that last line you mean that the military should NOT be rendered totally unable to fight a war, I totally agree with you! Only a psychotic pacifist would disagree with that.

If by that last line you mean to say that war should sometimes be waged for reasons other than as an absolute last resort, I would disagree. I and many others on the left oppose military “adventures”.

> 6)Conservatives have no issue with free press.

Tell that to the Bush, Reagan, and Nixon administrations, whose relationships with the press are usually thought of as “adversarial” to say the least. The chimera of “liberal bias” continues to make right-wing members of the current government pretty defensive in.

> 7)Patriotism … I will also die having questioned
> policies and having fought against those policies I
> disagree with—-regardless of which party the policy
> emanates from.

That’s great that you love your country more than your political allegiences, but it’s not what I meant. I was talking about the stuff of superficial patriotism: jingoism, flag waving, etc. I rarely hear the left accuse the right of being “unpatriotic”, but I hear it regularly from the right. To the left, patriotism is a force to be carried in your heart and in your brain, not a badge to be worn on your chest. While the left is content to *be* patriotic, the right uses patriotism as a tool. Patriotism is not a tool, it is a kind of love. Questioning another person’s patriotism is utterly disgusting to me and to most of my liberal colleagues.

> 8) Racism of course exists, but actually exists from
> BOTH directions.

You prove my point. Conservatives are in denial about the existence of an overwhelmingly obvious and still-breathing monster of racism – specifically, racism by white people against blacks and other minorities. Yes other flavors of racism exist, but it’s absurd to say that black racism against whites has nearly as profound an effect on the prosperity of our American society as a whole as old fashioned white racism against non-whites. Bigotry - not bigotry as an abstract principle, but specifically the kind of bigotry that actually exists, is what we ought to fight against.

> 9)Many conservatives are also interested in the
> environment. It is important to recognize that going
> too far towards a business model can hurt the
> environment…

I assume by “many” you mean “a tiny minority with no power”. It’s nice that you are a member of that minority. God help you if you try to hold onto your beliefs while trying to keep a job in the Bush EPA.

That said, there is an ultimate reality: no amount of business benefit can justify — or undo — some kinds of environmental damage. Many on the right would argue that the Earth’s loss of species or our own people’s damaged health (again, an issue disproportionally affecting the poor) is a fair price to pay for the modest short-term economic gains we might get through business-friendly environmental policies. To me, some environmental prices are not worth paying at all.

> 10)Personal responsibility IS paramount. Too many
> in our society want to blame others for their
> problems. While society also needs to help those in
> need of help, society also needs to help people
> forge for themselves…

Agreed. As you point out, this issue is not black and white. The two concepts are not inseparable: one can encourage personal responsibility AND help those who fail in the battle of life. But to say that we should strongly help those who have fallen behind doesn’t mean that we are blaming society for personal failings - or that those people are morally excusable. The fact is that social problems like poverty, ignorance, and crime hurts us ALL, regardless of who is responsible. Welfare can work when accompanied by tools to help people become more responsible. Opposing welfare on principle, as MANY conservatives do, is where I differ.

> Christopher, any fringe group can be bad, but
> conservatives are not a fringe group as you try to
> portray.

I was listing concepts that I thought most conservatives would agree with. Perhaps you are not like most conservatives – that’s great!

The ideas I list above may not apply to you personally, but they fit the Bush administration like a tailored suit. And the administration is being called “too moderate” by many conservatives! That was my point: that the flavor of conservatism in power right now is farther to the fringe than many people like you will admit, while more “mainstream” people like yourself are actually closer to the left than you might think. The left does not oppose having a strong military, we do not oppose free-market capitalism, we do not oppose deep personal responsibility, we do not oppose strong personal religious beliefs (except when they fly in the face of mainstream science or basic human rights), we don’t even think that it was morally okay for Clinton to get a BJ in the White House!

> Nor are conservatives by nature bad, any more than
> liberals are.

That’s a great closing thought; I think we have more in common than you might think. I think many people identify themselves as conservative because (a) they wrongly see the mainstream Democratic Party as a bunch of effete lazy terrorist-loving pacifist communists, and (b) they don’t see that the Republican Party is dominated by a core of extreme (fringe) right wing social conservatives.

-Cf