Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

The words conservative and liberal are always changing in meaning. That is why they are ineffective labels for certain groups. I used to think of conservative as loose interpretation of the cconstitution and liberals as strict interpretation however even those definitions no longer work.

Voice

Do you mean that the other way around? Conservatives have been stricter constructionists since at least the 1950s. One of the big conservative complaints about liberal judges is that they create rights and government obligations that are not supported by the constitution and liberals complain that conservatives stick too much to the letter of the law.

Matel:

Now compare what you just wrote to the actions of the Bush Administration. Notice anything different?

Jack

no i don’t mean it the other way around. For example when the country was first founded Hamilton (conservative) wanted a national bank and jeferson(liberal) said a national bank was not in the constition(strict interpertation) to which Hamilton said it never said there shouldn’t be a national bank in the constitution(loose interpretation). However your right about the complaint against liberal judges. That is why i said this strict loose interprataion thing no longer works.

Aldous

Of course I notice a difference. It is the difference between a political party and a political point of view, the difference between a practical application and an ideology.

I am disappointed with some things that the President has done or failed to do, but I support his general trajectory. For example, his proposals on SS Reform fit my conservative point of view. I am disappointed that they probably won’t pass. I like his market-based ideas on environmental protection. I support CAFTA and the ownership society. I liked the idea of tort reform.

But I recognize that Bush is a politician and he lives in a political world. Democrats are effectively stopping some of his programs. Others just don’t work. That is the real world. Generally I like the alternatives less.

There is one more thing. I expect less of my president than you might. On the economy, for example, I don’t believe the president is responsible for the economic prosperity except in a very broad sense or a very long run. For example, the biggest threat to U.S. prosperity in the next couple of years will be the bursting of the housing bubble. This bubble began to form around 1997. If it bursts, things will go to hell. The president will be blamed by most people but not by me.

The biggest “mistake” Bush is making is not passing SS reform or even addressing Medicare reform. These will cost the U.S. economy and society dearly in about ten years, but Bush will not get most of the blame. Whoever is president in 2015 will catch all the flack for what he didn’t control.

Jack,

Its hard to define the typical American conservative of today. I would have to go with the Heritage foundation with being closest, but only if everyone gets pitched in one box that best fits most.
If that gets related to political party, ie Republican voters, I’m not sure it fits that well. Many of todays voters are baseing their vote either for/against seperate issues, and the Republicans have gleened the profit of that at the polls.
If thats the case, conservatives are mainstreet America.

Jack

im sorry i accidentaly wrote your name for in the name box for that comment on jefferson and hamilton instaed of mine

Groups have no rights. All that matters is individual behavior.

Liberals are much better about protecting the rights of individuals’ behaviors than are “conservatives,” who would increasingly control not only every individual’s actions but but even each individual’s ideas.

Conservative and Liberal are “buzz words”,meant to divide, that politicians use to avoid accountability.
If I am investigated for wrong doing, I can blame partisan politics. If I’m doing a bad job and people are critical of me I can blame partisan politics.Politicians know that if we are divided there is always the other side to blame. The longer we feed into it the longer the wealthy and corrupt will flourish while the middle class and poor are sacrificed.

Reed,

“Liberals are much better about protecting the rights of individuals’ behaviors than are “conservatives,” who would increasingly control not only every individual’s actions but but even each individual’s ideas.”

Liberals only protect the rights that fit their ajenda.
Or have they changed the mind about the 2nd amendment, vouchers, and the rights of the child and the father in an abortion case ??

Beagle

“Or have they changed the mind about the 2nd amendment, vouchers, and the rights of the child and the father in an abortion case ??”

I have never heard of the rights of a father in an abortion case being brought up before. What rights does a father have in a abortioin case??????

A more accurate description would be “What Was An American Conservative.” You could have just linked to Ten Conservative Principles over at The Russell Kirk Center. As recently as 1993 the Republican party could make a pretense of attempting to follow them.

Today Bush and the Republican party rarely even pay lip service to them. An objective observer would be hard pressed to conclude that Bush was living up to more than three or four at best. Conservatism as a principled political force is dead. The voice of conservative thought has been taken over by Randall Terry, Ann Coulter and Tom DeLay.

A history of political thought will record that conservatism was killed as a political force by the same people that killed liberalism. Liberalism died from attacks by political conservatives. Conservatism is perishing from red meat cannibals, who are no longer satisfied with the political flesh of liberals.

The conservative ideology that pins itself to individual freedom and opportunity underlies the Republican bent to refuse to recognize that a society is not a geographic corraling of individuals, but a dynamic and fluid interaction of a myriad of groups of people.

Conservative thought regarding slavery and blacks would to this day have maintained American apartheid and segreagation. Senior citizens as a group are facing a potentially huge crisis over the next couple decades. Conservative ideology according to Jack would say, well, if they didn’t save they should be poor or just die of poverty of their own making.

Conservatives often forget in their rhetoric that when we talk of groups like senior citizens, we are talking about our parents and grandparents. Everyone who has grandparents and parents who believe in sticking it to their children every chance they get, please raise your hand. So, why do conservatives make the argument that AARP is trying to stick it to the youth of this country?

Everyone should, but, doesn’t, acknowldege that society today is nothing like society when the Constitution was drafted. Why would anyone with a rational mind insist that a 300 year old document on how to run a country would be capable of defining apppropriate action today without modification or interpretation? Constructionists are really nothing more than obstructionists who fear for the status quo that somehow benefits them.

Liberals only protect the rights that fit their ajenda.

True, Beagle. For example, it’s on the liberal agenda to maintain the right to free speech in the U.S., as unAmerican as that may seem. Meanwhile, a Republican-led flag-burning amendment moves through the House.

I would argue that the only Republican Senators with any claim to being civil libertarians are Specter, Chaffe and Snowe. If there is a Republican civil libertarian in the House, they are very restrained in their support for individual civil rights.

Denying civil liberties to “groups” is rhetorical double speak for denying civil liberties to the individuals in those groups. White Christians, white Christian pharmacists and property owners are the only “groups” whose civil rights the Republican party is the least bit concerned with. Their civil liberties are very well spoken for by that great conservative civil libertarian, Bill O’Reilly, savior of Christmas and runaway white girls and hobgoblin critic of the ACLU.

At the very moment when states rights was in triumphant ascendance, Republicans abandoned the cause in favor of the WOT. Pious moralism over the rights of the fetus and a brain dead white girl, opposition to medicinal marijuana and salivation over executing the mentally retarded subjugated any civil libertarian instincts in the Republican party.

War is the only force that gives the Republican party meaning. Fiscal conservatism is an oxymoron. States rights are abandoned to Democrats. Corporate welfare is the political pole star of modern day “conservatives.” Conservatism is dead. RIP Russell Kirk. You did all that you could.

V.O.R.,

Ever here of RoeVWade ? what was that that case about?

Some of the entries seem to want to blame conservatism for civil rights problems. The anti-civil rights movements were carried on by Democrats. The 1964 Civil Rights bill passed only because of Republican votes. It is true that parties change and that we can’t blame today’s Democrats for this, but we certainly cannot blame today’s Republicans either. But let’s take a historical ride.

I was too young to have anything to do with Civil Rights in the 1960s, but when the problem was explained to me I saw it as an individual rights situation, which is what it was back then. Martin Luther Kings stirring rhetoric about judging a man by the content of his character, not by the color of his skin fit in well with conservative ideas. But the movement went off the tracks in the 1970s and embraced the expedient of group rights. That is the battle we are fighting now. Liberals have inherited some of the people (Jesse Jackson et al) who participated in civil rights, but conservatives have inherited the spirit.

As for free speech, most campus speech codes are inspired by liberals. Larry Summers (himself a liberal) almost lost his job for merely suggesting differences between men and woman that no neuroscientist denies.

I am not sure flag burning constitutes free speech and I don’t get excited about attempts to ban it. Anyway, there is clearly no shortage of free speech in the U.S.

I don’t know how many times I have heard a prominent celebrity claim that he/she is being muzzled. When a university decides that it can’t pay $35,000 for somebody like Michael Moore to talk (as happened at George Mason University) some people call that stifling free speech. It is not. He would have been allowed to speak, just not paid. That is a difference between conservative and liberal ideas on free speech. I think you have the right to say what you want, but you don’t have the right to be heard or paid. That you have to earn.

The real trick here is that you really can’t have “Conservative Republicans”. Why would a conservative, by any of Jack’s described definitions, want to be involved in a political party anyway?

I’d say most conservatives vote against liberalism and political activism instead of voting for the Republican agenda. Not true from the other side, where progressives would naturally play in party politics….

George in SC,

Bingo! You understand todays politics.

Liberals have inherited some of the people (Jesse Jackson et al) who participated in civil rights, but conservatives have inherited the spirit.

Jack, you need to try a standup career. The only way to protect some individual rights is sometimes via group efforts, which is exactly what King knew. Back then, the “conservatives” had the firehoses and the clubs. Today, they only want to control your every movement and thought.

As for free speech, most campus speech codes are inspired by liberals.

No, as we’ve discussed before, it is conservative legislation that is very seriously intent on limiting free speech on campuses today.

I am not sure flag burning constitutes free speech and I don?t get excited about attempts to ban it. Anyway, there is clearly no shortage of free speech in the U.S.

First comes the flag, then your weblog. They’re stealing the country away from us bit by bit and you don’t even see it. So much for individual rights. It makes the true American despair.

“Or have they changed the mind about the 2nd amendment, vouchers, and the rights of the child and the father in an abortion case ??”

I have never heard of the rights of a father in an abortion case being brought up before. What rights does a father have in a abortioin case??????
—————————————————————-
NONE!!!!!!!!!!! and thats the big problem

the father who was 1/2 of the team that made the child has no say.

this is complete bull. if the mother doesnt want the child and the father wants to raise the child, then he has just as much right to have the baby!!!
im not talking rape and incest.

i have 1st hand experiance with this.

its a crime to kill a baby so the mother isnt inconvieanced and the father is willing to raise the child on his own.

if this is the case then a man should have the right to make the woman have a abortion if he doesnt want the child!!!

Jack:

Some of the entries seem to want to blame conservatism for civil rights problems. The anti-civil rights movements were carried on by Democrats. The 1964 Civil Rights bill passed only because of Republican votes. It is true that parties change and that we can’t blame today’s Democrats for this, but we certainly cannot blame today’s Republicans either. But let’s take a historical ride.

You are drawing a false comparison. Yes, entries want to blame conservatism for civil rights problems. At that time, and on the civil rights issue, Democrats were the conservatives and Republicans were the liberals. No one is saying that the Democrats of the day were the champions of equal rights. We’re saying the Republican party of today has done a 180 from what it would have supported back then, and abandoned true conservatism while trying to hold onto the title conservative. Meanwhile, the Democratic party of today has also done a 180 from what it would have supported back then… but in our case, the 180 involves rejecting racism as something that should be conserved, and becoming liberal in our views towards civil rights for all.

Err, strike that line about abandoning true conservatism while trying to hold onto the title conservative. Got distracted while writing that post and forgot my point for a minute, I think.

Reed

The guys with the fire hoses, do you suppose those were Democrats or Republicans? The Southern power structure was solidly Democratic back then. I bet no more than a handful of these guys was registered Republican. Do you think they supported the free market? Segregation is not free market. To a good capitalist, everybody has the same color – green (as in money). Maybe they believed in individual rights? No – they were into group rights. In fact, today’s civil rights establishment has some of the same sorts of ideas on racial preferences. They just change the names. Limited government? Laws regulating commerce (who can sit on busses or in restaurants) is not a conservative thing. I will give you that they might have been for a strong national defense. Otherwise, these guys have nothing in common with American conservatives.

Re flag burning - Slippery slope arguments are always slippery (and sloppy). Burning a flag is a form of street theater. No words need be uttered at all. As I said, I don’t have a strong position on whether or not people should be allowed to do it, but I don’t think it comes under free speech. How do you feel about burning Korans?

Jack and Jarandhel,

You have both forgotten Barry Goldwater, the anti-civil-rights candidate the GOP nominated in 1964.

To sum up my previous post, and clarify since I flubbed that one part, Republicans seem to have changed. At least on social issues, they’ve come to embrace a radical conservatism that not only desires to preserve the status quo, but actually roll things back in many cases. (The idea that this should be a Christian nation because the founders were Christian, despite the founders establishing freedom of religion as a founding principle, is one such example.) They’ve let go of the more liberal view of society which let them see that rather than preserving the status quo of segregation they should support equal rights.

Woody:

How have I forgotten him? I said the Republicans have changed, and have abandoned the liberal viewpoint that let them see they should not conserve the social status quo of segregation.

Jarandhel

I am not sure I follow. I am liberal/conservative on civil rights. I don’t think race, religion or ethnicity should play any role in hiring, firing, college admissions or anything else. I know this is not always possible, but to the extend it is, I would not even allow such questions to be asked.

I hired three interns this summer. I chose them from a pool of maybe twenty. I never spoke to any of them or saw them. I just contacted them via email and asked them to write one page about why they wanted to work with me. I didn’t even look at the names on the essays I got back and chose the three I thought did the best job of explaining. The result I got was two women and one man, all white. Did I do anything wrong?

The Southern power structure was solidly Democratic back then. I bet no more than a handful of these guys was registered Republican.

Yes, but they were what we today call “conservatives” alright. And they still are. It was the Democratic Party standing up for civil rights that chased them into the arms of the GOP. And you know it.

By the way, we should distinguish between true conservatives (people who care about conserving American values and who care about fiscal responsibility and the environment) and people who vote Republican. They can’t possibly be the same people. There’s a direct contradiction.

but I don?t think it comes under free speech

Then you simply have no understanding of free speech, which is probably why you don’t care.

Reed-

In 1972 George Wallace ran for President on the Democratic ticket. In 1978 Democrats held all three branches.

All of that was way after Johnson and Civil Rights.

Reagan “pulled” the conservative votes away from the Democrats in the ’80s with a message of family values, limited government, states rights, and a strong national defense. It was the perfect hangover cure for the anti-war, free love crowd, Studio 54 crowd.

TC,

You also are correct. Roe V Wade was a pile of shit because 3 persons are involved in an abortion, father, mother, child.
If only one has rights, something is wrong in that judgement.
If they say the child isn’t a child? yet, we’ll put that aside for now.
But the father IS the father, thats hard to debate, right? Now if the father has no rights, or say in the matter of if a child can be allowed to be born/live, how can any court order child support if the mother was the only one with rights to say if the child is born???

If liberal courts wish to deem the child as nothing more than a seed (like a sack of acorns) that the father gave to the mother as a gift, would the same moron judges deem that the person accepting the gift, if they planted them , would be entitled to money for care and feeding of the tree ?
I have yet to find a liberal that can defend roe V Wade when put into the very terms they use to defend that pile of shit ruling.

Goldwater didn’t believe in group rights as a matter of principle and he saw the civil rights movement in that light. I believe he was mistaken in his interpretation. Beyond that, I believe the act of 1964 was necessary, even if it went against the principle. My meta-principle is pragmatism and occasionally you have to sacrifice a lesser one to achieve a necessary goal.

Besides, the civil rights legislation does not envision group preferences (affirmative action)

Things have changed a lot since 1964, in any case. President Bush has the most diverse cabinet in U.S. history. Who would have thought in 1964 that a black woman would follow a black man in the nation’s highest appointed office (SecState).

Reed

George give a good chronology that helps dispel the myth of the south turning Republican in 1964.

I will quote the parallel of calling someone conservative from my own entry above: “Free markets and strong anti-Communism defined conservatism in the U.S. Yet as communism crumbled, free market - Ronald Reagan loving reformers were called liberals while those hanging onto communism were called conservatives. They were conserving the earlier system, but the earlier system they were conserving was not conservative.”

This is the same sort of process that happened in the U.S. South. Restrictions on commerce, racial preferences in employment and college admissions and group identity politics are not conservative. Who do they sound like to you?

From a pure mass point of view, the father contributes almost nothing to the fertilized egg, just half the genetic directions. The mother contributes almost everything. Anybody with a penis can make a baby, but God help us all if they have to raise a child.

You know, if men had to carry the baby to term, I doubt we’d be having this conversation. As the father of one incredible daughter, she’s the one you’d be forcing to carry the baby, and I think she controls her own body, and I’d respect her right to make that decision.

And I bet anyone out there who truly loves their daughter would do the same, if push comes to shove. If one of GW’s daughters were raped, the world would never know, but RU482 WOULD be put to use.

When science has the ability to pluck out the fertilized egg and put it in an incubator, then we’ll talk about the father’s rights. And when all those who want to control women’s bodies start standing in line to adopt every unwanted baby or support the mother who is forced to carry the baby to term, then you might have an argument.

Some people make the claim for a culture of life, but they have no interest in supporting life between birth and death. That’s when they’re on our own, eh?

Loren,

“When science has the ability to pluck out the fertilized egg and put it in an incubator, then we’ll talk about the father’s rights.”

When abortion rights groups acknowledge that a Fathers rights were stripped away by Roe V Wade, then the courts can adjust that ruleing to give those rights back, or, give the mother sole obligation for the child because they have the sole right to determine if the child is born.

Citeing President Bush’s children, rape, or any amount of hyperbole wont change anything.

Nice try though.

If you lined up 100 people who claim to be conservative, and asked them to describe conservatism, you would get 100 different answers. They may have some common elements, but essentially diverse.

I believe the same would hold true for liberals.

If you lined up 1000 people and asked them if they consider themselves to be fiscally conservative, I would wager most (>750) would say they are regardless of their political leanings.

I also think most people do not necessarily definitively fall into either category from a social standpoint. Some believe in a woman’s right to choose, but also believe in the death penalty (ala Giuliani), etc. I’m not so sure the majority of people fall at all neatly into either pigeon hole—and, frankly, I think there is nothing wrong with that.

To expect absolute consistency of thought from “the common man” is somewhat unrealistic. In my travels as a Republican “operative” in years past, I must have spoken with tens of thousands of people at rallies, town halls, fund raisers, etc. Even the Republican zealots at times strayed from the platform or from conservative ideology.

I also have a great deal of friends who consider themselves liberal who differ from that ideology occassionally.

To sum up, my experience is people are interested in the proper use of tax funds in an efficient, cost effective manner regardless of party or lib/con tendencies. They are also concerned for the less fortunate, the environment, the economy, social security, etc. The goals are similar—the devil is in the details.

All of that was way after Johnson and Civil Rights.

George, It’s hard to define the civil rights era but let’s say it extended from 1955 to 1965. The migration of many southerners from the Democratic Party actually started even before then, gathered momentum with Nixon and turned a corner with Reagan. As just as a quick example, here’s text from Jacquelyn Dowd Hall’s “The Long Civil Rights Movement and the Political Uses of the Past,” published in The Journal of American History.

“Courting the black vote with a progressive civil rights platform, Democratic party candidate Harry S. Truman trounced [Henry] Wallace but alienated the Dixiecrats, conservative southern congressmen who bolted the Democratic convention and formed their own party — a way station, as it turned out, on a road that would lead many conservative white southerners to support George C. Wallace briefly and then, with the election of Richard M. Nixon in 1972, move in large numbers to the Republican party.”

This is not to imply that Republicans represent a party of racists. In fact, many Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act. But it was largely racism that drove many conservative Democrats (there’s that term again) into the GOP. It took a little while before the consolidation was complete, and there were other factors involved, but this is what occurred.

But, thanks for pointing to some real facts, George. It always makes for a more interesting and productive discussion.

When abortion rights groups acknowledge that a Fathers rights were stripped away by Roe V Wade, then the courts can adjust that ruleing to give those rights back, or, give the mother sole obligation for the child because they have the sole right to determine if the child is born.

It really is unfair that a woman can carry a child to term without the father’s consent, and force him to pay child support. I don’t think RVW has anything to do with that.

But if you are using that as an excuse to force women to have children against their will, it only sounds like irresponsible revenge, not justice.

I don’t think you understand the definition of hyperbole. GW’s daughter, as an American woman, makes a realistic example, and is by definition not hyperbole. And I guarantee that if GW’s daughter is pregnant, He isn’t going to care much about the rights of the father.

Reed

“Courting the black vote with a progressive civil rights platform, Democratic party candidate Harry S. Truman trounced [Henry] Wallace but alienated the Dixiecrats”

You recall who Henry Wallace was? No relation to George, he was the ultra liberal-leftist from the Roosevelt time. So Truman courted the black vote to beat back a liberal threat to the nomination. The history gets at bit complicated.

The Republican candidate was Dewey, as you will recall from the famous headline.

Beagle~

You are absolutely right! My husband (seperated) had a child w/ another woman and I saw first hand how respected he was …not at all! He was always current on child support but still had no rights.Anytime he called child support enforcement w/ a question they spoke to him like he was a dog…and they could see right in front of them that he was being a responsible dad!
Now that we are seperated and we have a child I refuse to “stick it to him” like a lot of woman have.
I have been on both sides of this issue w/ the so-called child advocacy groups and have came to the conclusion that they are not for the children at all!
For example:
They do their little child support formula and set the amount, now according to these brain dead idiots, this is what the child needs to survive. They then told us that if his ex happens to lose/quit her job we could have it lowered, because she would not be contributing the same amount they used in their equation!????? O.K. so what happened to, this child will die w/out this money?

Another slam to men in this circus is this: A woman can either claim her child support or not, her choice. A man has to claim that money as his income!

From seeing both sides of this issue the one thing I have learned from it is: pushing men away or aside is not helping the matter in making them want to be more responsible.

Restrictions on commerce, racial preferences in employment and college admissions and group identity politics are not conservative.

jack,

Restrictions on commerce? Let’s see. Which passed NAFTA? And which passed Sarbanes Oxley? You guess.

Racial preferences in employment? Show me. Get specific.

Group identity politics? Please. Republicans are the MASTERS of culture-war politics. This doesn’t make them conservatives, of course. Real conservatives believe in an inclusive America. Those are the principles on which the nation was founded, even if the country didn’t always live up to the ideal.

Genuine conservatives can no longer vote for the Republican Party in good conscience. Some of the most morally consistent ones that I know have become Libertarians. Others have held their noses and voted Republican but increasingly can’t justify it. Today, real conservatives have much more in common with real liberals than they do the GOP. As for the GOP standing up for individual rights, it’s a joke of the deepest, darkest black humor.

Jack,

You have a frustrating habit of referring back to your own beliefs when I make a point about the GOP. Whether you think Goldwater was “mistaken” in 1964 is really besides the point. Your progressive friends in the GOP did not think he as mistaken. They nominated him for president, and the Democrats chose Johnson.

The Dixiecrats were against the civil rights laws, but most of them left. There is a reason that Black people overwhelming vote Democratic, and the white southerners largely switched to the GOP. They are’t morons.

One of the first points you made about conservatives is that they are in favor of less government. Great. But I just read that under Bush our government has increased something like 30%.

Then you state that the big different between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives are for individual rights and liberals are for group rights. This is not true. Liberals are for rights for all individuals. Since minority groups often do not have these rights, liberals seek to help each of the individuals in these groups.

Conservatives, however, are in favor of this type of rights: Both billionaires and paupers have the same right to establish a prosperous business.

Now I come to abortion. It does not matter how a discussion starts, if Republicans are present, the issue fast turns to abortion. Most Republicans are against abortion because of religious reasons, not because they are conservatives. The two do not necessarily go together. There are plenty of religious people who happen to be liberals.

How can a true conservative be for a law that would make abortion illegal when he believes in less government? Restricting individual rights for pregnant women by forcing them to give birth is not an example of individual rights either.

A true conservative would insist that abortion is none of the government’s business.

You recall who Henry Wallace was? No relation to George, he was the ultra liberal-leftist from the Roosevelt time. So Truman courted the black vote to beat back a liberal threat to the nomination.

Yes, Jack, I know. That’s why I put his first name in brackets, to distinguish him from George. Your point?

Woody

And at the same time most Dems supported segregation (and voted against the 1964 act). I am sure you think they were mistaken too. At least Goldwater was motivated by a principle not of individual rights, not racism. We can’t bring the past to the present without adjustment.

Reed

My point is what I stated. Truman courted black votes to beat back a liberal challenge - just that black votes were used to beat back liberal challenge, not a conservative one. I won’t push that one too far, if you all agree to the same. We can’t bring the past up to the present without adjustment. You can’t imply conservative complicity in racism by referencing past liberal or Democratic behavior that you now want to call conservative.

I would like to share a little information with those who claim the republicans are racist or who would still support slavery etc..

“In terms of sheer historical hostility toward minorities, the Republican party fares a bit better than the competition. For example, it wasn’t the GOP that opposed the Emancipation Proclamation. Nor was it the GOP that opposed the Thirteenth Amendment prohibiting slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing equal protection, or the Fifteenth Amendment guaranteeing voting rights. (In fact, Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act in greater percentages than did Democrats.)…

Moreover, it wasn’t the Republican party that opposed Teddy Roosevelt’s anti-lynching legislation, or that filibustered, or otherwise opposed more than a dozen other anti-lynching provisions during the 20th century.

Republicans didn’t institutionalize Jim Crow, implement school segregation, or establish poll taxes and literacy tests to keep non-whites from voting. Bull Connor, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, and Orval Faubus weren’t Republicans.

It wasn’t a Republican who ordered the internment of Japanese-American citizens (or Italians or Germans) during World War II. Nor were Republicans behind the Chinese exclusion acts or licensing requirements that discriminated against non-white businesses and tradesmen.”
I hope that clears the air just a little about which party was the party of Slavery. You can argue that the party somehow underwent a dramatic change, and all the racists ran to the Republican party, but the Dems still have Byrd on his pearch in the Democratic Party. Enough said.

Paul

Most Republicans are not against abortion any more than most Dems are for it. Most Americans on think abortion is a bad thing that should be avoided if possible but should be legal with some restrictions.

Both parties are hostage to their more extreme members. Republicans got the no abortion at any time extreme and the Democrats got the abortion is just another choice extreme. We all would be better off in the middle, but because of the way the issue was decided (in court not legislature) we are stuck on the battlefield. I feel your pain, as do most others, but where do we go from here?

The far left confuses liberty with license. They can’t think beyond some form of self indulgence. The far right sees only their dogma of conformity to their side and rigidity in application. They both scare me.

A pox on both. There is such a muddle in the middle, enough to satisfy the saner ones, that you would think intelligent people could reach a consensus on issues. Not going to happen, I guess.

The theory of relativism is alive and well according to the above postings.

I want to make an analogy about being a consertive.

Try to describe “what is a man” or what is a woman”

You can describe the outward or physical features and most will be agreeable to the conclusions. But try to describe the inward man or woman and you will get many different observations. The bulls eye will be missed by a wide margin. A red head is a red head. A six footer is a six footer. But when a person says he/she is a christian, there most certainly will be a wide intrepretation of what a christian is. When he/she says they are a republican or democrat again wide intrepretation exists. So what is a conservative. Nobody has the answer. There are too many types of sizes of con and lib. A more intresting question is what is a hypocrite. But that would cause all of us to be more circumspect of our own beliefs, values and practices. And someone, somewhere, somehow will raise up that old demon of separation of church and state. So, what is a conservative. That would truly take a white paper report at minimal to make any headway on.

Paul,

I am conservative and do not agree with abortion. Not due to my religious beliefs, but rather because I believe that once those cells start to divide and grow, life has begun. Now, I realize that this issue in most polls is split almost evenly between those that agree and those that do not. My issue is how any court or any goverment can decide that one half is more right on the issue than the other when even the medical community cannot agree. If there were a clear majority on this issue, then so be it.

I am for smaller government and feel that the abortion issue is between the two people who decided to “get together.” It was a choice they made and they need to own it rather than expect “society” to pick up the tab and the pieces.

I don’t agree with everything GWB does, but the alternative was not any better. Clearly, that is a matter of political philosophy, but I dare say there are a lot of people that would agree. The last few elections have been the “lesser of two evils” with neither side embracing the American public. Both are ruled by their extreme members.

So, from my perspective, an American conservative vote’s for the candidate that leans more closely in their direction…not because they wish to fall in lock step with the extreme. Fiscally conservative and social/personal responsibility vs taxation and entitlement. I hope that the majority of liberals can be painted with the same brush as far as leaning to the left, but not yielding to their extreme members.

Sam Steele,

You also understand todays politics, people vote based on issues.
The party that embraces the issues that most voters can align with will win.
I don’t know if its only conservative issues that people/voters are embracing, but they seem to be rejecting the far left/liberal issues.

Anyone that rejects that fact is living in disneyland, politically speaking.

Agreed……

You also understand todays politics, people vote based on issues.

I think today most people vote on image, and they love politicians who oversimplify issues.

Thanks Reed! Same for your post, although I will again point out that the Dixiecrat’s one and only political adventure was in 1948 and well before the civil rights movement.

And from my state, Dick Riley, Clinton’s Ed Sec., was elected governor in 1978, had the law changed to allow consecutive terms, then ran unopposed in 1982. That’s after he raised the State’s sales tax. And he had both house and senate as Democrat. All of that changed after Reagan’s re-election, and there were many defections to the GOP, but the Democrats were strong here until at least the early 80’s.

Now here’s where it gets interesting. Most go into politics as a career and don’t really choose a party based upon some ideology. And most choose winners. Therefore, all of the politicians who entered in the late 80’s in the South went into the Republican Party. 15 years later the local Democratic parties here in Ga, SC, etc. have very few viable up and coming candidates to run against the GOP, and are left with older, less attractive candidates with too much baggage to be viable (Inez Tennebaum as an example). Right now the Democrat’s minority support is all that’s left here, making the state 60/40 GOP. That looks racist on the surface, but that’s my point in correcting your earlier post; there’s more to it than race.

Oh, and I agree with Jack on another point: The Dixiecrats were formed based on a split in the Democratic Party. I think the progressives ran an independent candidate that year against Truman and Dewey.

geo

I’m fiscally conservate and yet lean left of many other issues. We tend to paint with a broad brush when it comes to politics.

I maintain that the difference beteween the two parties is very little. The main difference comes from the extremes. Far right and far left tend to make election year issues out of these extremes.

I have voted for democrats, republicans, independents, and even one libertarian. If people would stop voting for a “party” and begin voting for individuals I think the liberal and conservative titles, and maybe even the log-jams in congress, could come to an end.

Like most I am liberal on certain issues and conservative on others (using the extremes of both parties definition of liberal and conservative).

We are Americans first! If one thinks the libs or cons are out to ruin the country they are sadly mistaken. Sure, there are those extremist on either side that could ruin the country but for the most part we AMERICANS keep them in check.

I will admit that I have recently moved more left in my Federal voting (although I still look at individuals rather than parties). The reason I (and I do speak for myself) have moved somewhat left is I feel the extreme right is gaining the power in the GOP. I believe in a separation of church and state and religious liberties. These are the basis of our constitution and I feel the GOP is trying to make us a Christian nation. We fled a country that tried to tell us how to worship, who to worship, in what manner to worship, and burned those at the stake that disagreed. Although I am a devout Christian I don’t believe the government should be involved in religion whatsoever. It is the job of our government to protect us fiscally and physically. It is the job of the church to change the world one heart at a time through Christ. THAT IS MY BELIEF. My tithes to further GOD’s’ word should not be going to ANY political party to further a SO-CALLED christian belief or moral value. The only way to change someone’s morals is to introduce them to a loving God…not through legislation.

Beagle & TC:
You also are correct. Roe V Wade was a pile of shit because 3 persons are involved in an abortion, father, mother, child.
If only one has rights, something is wrong in that judgement.
If they say the child isn’t a child? yet, we’ll put that aside for now.
But the father IS the father, thats hard to debate, right? Now if the father has no rights, or say in the matter of if a child can be allowed to be born/live, how can any court order child support if the mother was the only one with rights to say if the child is born???

liberal courts wish to deem the child as nothing more than a seed (like a sack of acorns) that the father gave to the mother as a gift, would the same moron judges deem that the person accepting the gift, if they planted them , would be entitled to money for care and feeding of the tree ?
I have yet to find a liberal that can defend roe V Wade when put into the very terms they use to defend that pile of shit ruling.

Posted by: Beagle at June 22, 2005 04:23 PM

You make quite the point, I can’t say that I have any arguement against but turn the tables around and all of a sudden you are in the shoes of the woman:
You have a job so that is not an issue, you have a home so neither is that, But I am no longer in the picture we split up before you even knew were pregnant, I skipped town, whatever the reason. You are alone to make this decision or discover you are HIV positive, Have ovarian cancer, breast cancer, Whatever I am not there, you only have so many weeks to make the decision. What do you do? If I take your right to decide away from you I put more than just your own life on the line. But I also put that babys’ life in jeopardy. I do not advocate using abortion as birth control not at all. But it needs to remain an option or we will return to the days of yore when it was illegal and thousands died in the back alleys from infections or hemorrhages from unqualified quacks who used among other tools coathangers and other torture devices.
Abortion needs to be left a viable option, for if nothing else the Safety of the mother if it becomes an issue of Mothers Health.

the father who was 1/2 of the team that made the child has no say.

this is complete bull. if the mother doesnt want the child and the father wants to raise the child, then he has just as much right to have the baby!!!

Your experience may differ, but I’ve never seen a man have a baby. All babies I’ve seen have been birthed by women. You show me a man who can have a baby, and I’ll show you a man with 100% of the decision whether or not to do so.

You are right that the father is 50% of the team that created the child — but his contribution to carrying that child to term is exactly 0%. The father has absolutely no right to tell the mother what she can or can’t do with her own body.

Gary Boatwright, astute observations. I missed them the first read through. I have given up trying to find a real fiscal conservative Republican in government, let alone one with compassion. The closest thing to fiscal conservatives to be found in government today are “pay as you go” Democrats. The borrow and spend Republicans went off on a tangent and didn’t leave bread crumbs to find their way back to their platform.

I hve several things I wish to comment on, but first and foremost - how many children have you folks adopted? Just a question. Oh, what type of life/existence do they live in? Surely you know the these simple facts and figures.

Now on to my post:
Sereval blogs today certainly confused me. I can’t decide whether people are writing about Bush, Republicans, Democrats or Iraq, morals,values or religion.

I will say that it is certainly diverse.

I would like to make a few points, however, regarding all of the above.

1. I have no doubt in my mind that Bush wanted war with Iraq, if for no other reason than he “thinks” (hesitant use of the the word think) that he is defending his father, Bush, Sr. Remember the mess of of the Iranian -Contra Affair? Iraq played a much larger role in that that most people realize. I fully support our troops, because having learned, thankfully, due to Vietnam, that there is a big difference between what the individual troops believe and what their job is, I believe most of us have learned to differentiate. between the men and the Government. I may not like the law, but it is not the policemen\women who are to blame for enforcing it.

I DO remember hearing BUSH state that there WERE WMD’s in Iraq. That is a pretty close quote. He can blame British intelligence, all he wants, but I saw Colon Orwell show a map stating this is where these weapons are located. Somehow the mission against Terrorists changed to removing Saddam. I DON’T remember hearing reasonable explanations for that until maybe, sort of, after we’d declared war on them.

I also remember the infamous “READ MY LIPS” fiasco, from George, Sr., the “I did NOT have sex that woman.” of Bill Clinton. and the impeachment of Nixon. And don’t forget about “tickle down economics” theory from Reagan - who conveniently “forgot” the Iranian -contra Affair.
What do you expect - honest politicians? Absolute power corrupts Absolutely. Since we are no longer a REPUBLIC which has the necessary checks and balances, we somehow wandered in to a Democracy where the majority rule.

2. Republicans tend to be “hawks” and like it or not during a time of major economic stress it has almost always been wars that pulled America out of it economic turmoil. (i.e. WW I and WW II). (Read your history if you don’t believe me.) Democrats tend to be “doves”. In our world WHILE I HATE to admit it, we need both, but they have GOT TO TALK to each other and REASON OUT what the best course is for the whole country and frankly the world, these days.

3. Bush has done something that one other President has ever done - he instigated the invasion of Iraq. He ordered American troops invade a non-warring country. That has never been part of the American way . Oh yes, I know we have self-appointed ourselves to be the POLICEMEN of the world, but this invasion is totally apprehensible. No wonder the rest of the world is upset - who knows who will be invaded next? Even the UN is in turmoil because if they refuse to do what Bush and his compatriots want .—- Bush and the representatives are threatening to cut our funding to the UN in half. We fund the majority to the UN, and like it or not, we still need it. I suppose this is considered a smart move if one wants to regain respect for Americans. (sarcastically). Both parties are equally troublesome.regarding their method of handling political crisis. HOWEVER, neither Wilson who led us through WW I ,Franklin Roosevelt who led us into WW II, Truman who took us out of WW II and then into South Korea, and Eisenhower who led us into Vietnam, or Nixon who led us out, EVER ATTACKED With NO proof.

4. I know many of you are thinking ’ what about 9/11’? Well, all the members that actually appeared to have been in involved were and are Saudi Arabians. NOT IRAQIS. I still think that if we were to seek revenge (Heaven forbid) over terrorists, maybe, we should have attacked Saudi Arabia. -. Not a good idea - everyone knows we LOVE them because of their Oil. While on this subject, I’d like to suggest that each one of you thoroughly read the entire Patriot ACT. It scares the BEGESUS out of me. They people have NO RIGHTS - not even to go to the bathroom or drink a cup of water. Here we as, American’s preach about the inhumane treatment of other POW’s, but we seem to be the worse of all. I find that there are times when I am totally embarrassed to admit that I am an American.

5. Now as to the argument about Conservatives vs. Liberal. I have no idea where I fit. I tend to tell people I am a “Robocrat” or a “Demorubilicain”. I sincerely believe that with some very obvious exceptions that most of the Voting Americans feel the same way. Rush Lumbaugh, (whom I listen to for laughs). Senate Majority Leader Frist, who scares the heck out of me, “we don’t want to play by the rules so lets’ change them”, Howard Dean, the self-appointed representative of all Democrats are not my idea of most Americans. Even our illustrious President. ( I find it so hard to write that - President Bush?) . Most Americans are not filthy rich, (why is it called FILTHY Rich) or extremely poor, but in between trying to hang on to what little dignity they have regarding their place in our country and in the world as a whole. These are the people losing their jobs to oversea countries - $0.35 an hour in China, and we willingly buy them, mostly because there are so few alternatives.

6. As for the morals and values situations, I have TWO basic question to ask, “WHERE ARE THE PARENTS?
I know all about 2 family incomes, single -parenting, and low income homes. My home was not the biggest or best, or even the cleanest, I never served fancy dinners, but their friends were always welcomed., and I learned how to stretch every penny. My girls never had the name-labeled clothing - shoes, jeans, jewelry, etc. They even had to paid for their own cars when they went to college. But my children had several things that many children don’t have. A mother who encouraged education, read aloud to them and listened to them as they read to me. They knew that they had a roof over their heads, clean clothes, a decent food, safety and love.
I have dug though my sofa cushions looking for dinner money.

They have also worked since they were the ages of 10 and 12, selling basketball and football programs, fast food restaurants, writing web sites for churches and businesses, baby-sitting, even picking up cans for spending money; etc.

I read to them every night when I was home, and worked with them on the importance of education. I also managed to raise 3 young ladies who attend the churches of their choice, not because I told them where they had to go. They have goals for their lives, not guesses. They know how to write thank you notes, be respectful to their (heaven forbid) elders. They are all volunteers in one area or another - Rape Crisis Centers, anti-drug programs, and rescuing unwanted animals.

7. As for religion, my understanding of our constitution is that all religions are separated from church and state. If people want to teach the Bible, then they should teach the Koran, Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. I think I was told in my early schools years that one of the basic reasons for the immigration of the Pilgrims was so they could express their beliefs with out fear of retribution. I thoroughly read all of the above information regarding various religions and came to one conclusion- they TEACH the same basic ideals. The Ten Commandments, love one another, be kind to your neighbor and help out when needed, not steal. cheat, or steal. Yes there are some cultural differences, but most people adapt. I tried to expose a much of this information to my children as they grew up. We also visited many different organized and culturally different religious institutions.

Most importantly I tired to teach my children that all people are due respect, until they prove themselves wrong, and that they MUST always respect themselves. By repecting others, they will not have to worry about lies, or gossip, etc. and repect themselves will help them make serious decisions regarding drinking, drug use, etc.

I don’t know actually when “GOD, ALLA, NIVARNA”, and all the other beliefs, suddenly became an arguing point. I TRULY BELIEVE that NOT ONE PERSON ACTUALLY totally believes exactly WHAT OTHER BELIEVES unless they,have been, to use a favorite LABEL “BRAIN-WASHED”?


So again - I ask where are the PARENTS - when we now live in a society where children walk through metal detectors? That we must lock ourselves in, rather than locking the out bad guys? How many of you actually know your neighbors names, jobs, work schedule? How often have you heard car alarms go off , and simply done nothing, believing it was just an accident. And listened and listened and listened and complained about the noise?

One of the writers said he wanted to go back to the way things used to be - but I still vividly remember the story of the young woman violently killed outside a large apartment building, and “No one heard anything!” on the streets of New York.. That wasn’t all that long ago in terms of history. The “I don’t want to get involved” attitude.

Where were the conservatives and liberals then?

The problem in America is not who or what a liberal/conservative person is, as it is about an apathetic society. the people who don’t vote, don’t understand their own government and many who can’t even read. No one trusts anyone (with I’m afraid, good cause)

Is it any wonder the even the people on these blogs can’t agree with each other. You see, everyone believes they have a ‘corner on the truth’. My way or no way.

7. As for the morals and values situations, I have one basic question to ask, “WHERE ARE THE PARENTS?”
I know all about 2 family incomes, single -parenting, and low income homes.

My oldest has just completed Law school, Magna Cum Laude - on A full Scholarship, after graduating from Duke, my identical twins have graduated from UNC-Ch also on scholarships, one in Scientific laboratory work and is currently employed by Duke Hospital, and the other working on her Masters specializing in Animal Fertility at NC State, also on scholarships.They have all worked 30-40 hours a week to achieve these goals, with a little help from their Mom.

They have also worked since they were the ages of 10 and 12, selling basketball and football programs, fast food restaurants, writing web sites for churches and businesses, baby-sitting, even picking up cans for spending money; etc. I read to them every night when I was home, and worked with them on the importance of education. I also managed to raise 3 young ladies who attend the churches of their choice, not because I told them had to or where they had to go. They have goals for their lives, not guesses. They know how to write thank you notes, be respectful to their (heaven forbid) elders, and say “Please” and “Thank you”. They are all volunteers in one area or another - Rape Crisis Centers, anti-drug programs, and rescuing unwanted animals, to name a few.

So again - I ask where are the PARENTS - when we now live in a society where children walk through metal detectors? That we must lock ourselves IN, rather than locking OUT bad guys? How many of you actually know your neighbors names, jobs, work schedule? How often have you heard car alarms go off, and simply done nothing, believing it was just an accident. And listened and listened and listened and complained about the noise?

8. One of the writers said he wanted to go back to the way things used to be - but I still vividly remember the story of the young woman violently killed outside a large apartment building, and “No one heard anything!” on the streets of New York. That wasn’t all that long ago in terms of history. The “I don’t want to get involved” attitude.

Where were the conservatives and liberals then?

The problem in America is not so much who or what a liberal/conservative person is, as it is about an apathetic society. The people who don’t vote, don’t understand their own government, don’t trust, are the ones that we need to reassure. Even if it means crawling our from behind our comfortable envelopment a help people understand, FAIRLY, and teach those who can’t even read. Get involved in our high Schools, to Heck with the “NO CHLD LEFT BEHIND” POLICY, AND SIMPLY GET OUR HANDS DIRTY. Until we as American Representatives show that we are wiling to stand behind our words, how are people going to trust any one, honest or not and vote.No one trusts anyone (with I’m afraid, good cause)

Is it any wonder that even the people on these blogs can’t agree with each other. You see, everyone believes they have a ‘corner on the truth’. My way or no way.

Highlandangel,

Do you have any other books to post for us to read?

The GOP historically has been split between middle-America populist conservatives, characterized by isolationist foreing policy, tariff-based trade, and religious-based social or traditional values and the the more libertarian wing characterized by a strong anti-government philosophy a tax cutting zeal and a more internationlist bent.

The Cold War held this coalition together because the principles of our America viewpoint rang true to both factions. Now that it is over, there is an uncomfortable truce between the two sides.

My sense is that the libertarian wing of the GOP feels isolated. They care not a whit for flag-burning amendments, abortion politics, and whether a divinity scene can be built on public property. However, they cannot abide the standard tax and spend routine of the Democrats.

These folks vote Republican knowing they’ll get most of what they want and desparately wish that teir party would instead “get back to work” on more german matters when there is a Terry Schiavo-like situation.

Beagle
This ws NOT a “Book” and if you don’t want to read it, that is not my problem. I merely stated what I have learned from many people, over my life and wrote my conclusions.

I’ve been reading this Blog as well as the others for some time now, and while I admit that that my post was long, it was a cumilation of things that I have seen discussed.

Please feel free to write me back, or ignore me.

It is totally up to you.

Linda Haenchen

I have been a foster parent for a dozen years. My wife and I have adopted two boys who are half brothers. They have brilliant minds. We will encourage their growth to accept life without carrying the old baggage around. Their needs are being met. They are loved as much as any child we bring into this world. They will go far in life on anybodys standard for success. People label me as a conservative. I am a constitutionalist. I believe that many, many institutions in our government should not exist at the federal level. For instance, EPA, HUD, USDA, and it continues on. These institutions, if they exist at all, should exist at the state level or any other more local level. Problems are created by the federal government, then they produce solutions for the problem they created and when the solutions don’t work find another solution to fix the solution to fix the problem. This happens on a daily basis. This is also an daily event of both republican and democratic parties and induviduals in congress. Agencies of the federal government always need more money, and they continue to always need more money. Yes, your hard earned money. We are in desparate need of statesmen in Washington and not career welfare receipients. Lawyers should not be allowed to be legislators. That is the most severe conflict of interest. They pass laws that are vague so that two or more attorneys are hired, one for each side to argue the vague law in a court which has a head, a lawyer. Humanism is the religion of the day. Each individual is his own god. Humanism is one of the keys to our education system sliding down hill on a greasy slope.
It’s time to shut up. Thanks for your time.

Tom,

“Lawyers should not be allowed to be legislators. That is the most severe conflict of interest. They pass laws that are vague so that two or more attorneys are hired, one for each side to argue the vague law in a court which has a head, a lawyer.”

Lawyers shouldn’t be responsible for passing law?

Should engeineers not be responsible for engineering?

How about we let the lawyers perform as surgeons instead?

Who the hell else are we going to turn over our federal legal system to?

It’s the legistlative branches job to pass laws and the federal judicial’s job to ensure these laws fit within our constitution.

If we don’t like the laws, then we should vote for someone else.

One of the first points you made about conservatives is that they are in favor of less government. Great. But I just read that under Bush our government has increased something like 30%.

Yes, Paul, a very good point.

However, they cannot abide the standard tax and spend routine of the Democrats.

leaf, please see Paul’s point. The Republicans spend money that we don’t have like the some crazy aunt. Then the Democrats get elected, as Clinton did, and have to clean up the horrible mess. I don’t want my taxes raised at all, but I know it’s better than having fiscally irresponsible yo-yos driving the nation into the ground.

Right now the Democrat’s minority support is all that’s left here, making the state 60/40 GOP. That looks racist on the surface, but that’s my point in correcting your earlier post; there’s more to it than race.

George, There’s some truth in what you say, but I don’t think anyone would expect the Democratic Party in the South to collapse all at once after the Civil Rights Act. When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he’s reported as saying, “I think we have just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come.”

Yes, well, it took a less than a generation, but he was right. Reagan played a role but it shouldn’t be overemphasized. He benefited from a path that had already been partly cleared by Nixon, of all people. But I agree with you that there were other factors. Affirmative action, welfare, feminism, industrial changes in the South, etc.

But here’s the thing, and I know this is strictly anecdotal: I simply hear a lot more racist remarks coming from the Republicans I know than Democrats. That’s perhaps too small a sample from which to judge, but it’s my experience.

Reed

It might depend on what you call racist.

Some people think it is racist to be against affirmative action, or deny cases of racial profiling or assert that SAT tests are more or less fair, or dismiss as absurd claims of widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans in Ohio. Republicans tend to hold these positions. Of course those who think these things are racist are mistaken, but they still think it.

Tom L
Let lawyers serve as advisers to Congressmen so that they get good legal advise. Lawyers as legislators get too many laws passed that are found to be defective or unconstitutional. The defective laws are then thrown out thru the legal system or constant repairs by the same bodies of congress that passed them originally. As professional persons who are supposedly knowledgeable about law, lawyers do very poorly in enacting legislation.

Reed~

In my experience this is what I’ve seen: I lived in Missuori for 15 years and recently moved to Northern Michigan (suffice to say that it’s about 99% Democratic up here) and I have NEVER heard the word NIGGER so much in my entire life! And the funny thing is…I don’t even think half of them have met any blacks!! Racism is a human quality not a political quality!

Traci and jack,

Sometimes, it is true, I have interpreted talk about racial preferences and affirmation action (a complex subject about which people can generalize in quite ignorant ways) as not-so-subtle racism. But my take on this depends on the specific context and the subtilties of the debate. On the other hand, I’ve also heard my fair share blatant racial epithets. It probably depends on where you live and the circles you run in. I live in a pretty diverse community, both ethnically and politically.

Reed

I agree that it depends on the place and the culture. There is no reason to believe that either party is more racist.

I have not heard any of my friends use the “n-word” for at least twenty years. I have recently become a little apprehensive about my kids, who watch black comedians like Dave Chappel make racist jokes on TV. I turn off that fool whenever I can, but I know the kids watch when they get the chance. I don’t see the attraction and I think both liberal and conservatives should be a little more concerned about some of the racism and hate that passes for humor.

I don’t think, however, that it is fair to blame Republicans/conservatives for the racism of past Democrats, some of whom have now been disowned by the party, but some not. Consider that the only senator to have been a KKK member is a Dem.

The Heritage Foundation defines it mission promoting the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

I agree with this definition in terms of contemporary American politics.

Posted by David R. Remer: Why would anyone with a rational mind insist that a 300 year old document on how to run a country would be capable of defining apppropriate action today without modification or interpretation?

Couple of points should be addressed here ….

First, the US Constitution is not 300 years old. The original part is only about 216 years old, if you don’t count the time it took to ratify it.

Second, the US Constitution has been modified repeatedly since it was first ratified. There’s a process specified for making changes, and changes have indeed been made as they seemed needed, and sometimes rescinded when they didn’t work out very well.

If you are exaggerating for effect, it’s not helping. And if you don’t know this already, my respect for you has taken a mortal hit.

If you Dems want the Constitution to read differently, for instance to explicitly define a right to privacy the way you’d like it, start a movement to make the changes you think would improve it, and see if your view is acceptable to your fellow citizens. Inciting judges to invent contorted new “interpretations” is not self-rule; it’s rule by the elite.

Trying to claim that the Constitution is outdated *should* lead you to try to amend it, not to instigate and support judicial fiat.

After all, what if GWB replaced every single one of the liberal activist judges on the Supremes and large numbers of those federal liberal-activist judges in lower courts with *conservative* activist judges? Would you really want to live with conservatist activism on the bench for a generation?

Fortunately for you libs, GWB seems to be in favor of strict constructionists, not activists.

Posted by Reed Sanders: …it’s on the liberal agenda to maintain the right to free speech in the U.S., as unAmerican as that may seem. Meanwhile, a Republican-led flag-burning amendment moves through the House.

Campus speech codes (uniformly liberal where they exist) are free speech? Hah! How about the schools who refuse to allow either Boy Scouts or military recruiters on campus?

As for that flag-burning thing, *some* of us conservatives think it’s a *bad idea*. After all, the proper way of disposing of a flag too worn to fly is to give it a respectful cremation.

And why do some so-called conservatives try to insist that the government deserves our respect automatically? It doesn’t. The government, from all three branches on the federal level clear down to the least little part of the local level, deserves to be watched carefully, and yelled at whenever they are getting out of line. Keeping a careful eye on the government is, IMO, very patriotic, very respectful of the principles this nation was founded on.

Only individual persons deserve our respect, and only insofar as they earn it.

Posted by Jarandhel: … Republicans seem to have changed. At least on social issues, they’ve come to embrace a radical conservatism that not only desires to preserve the status quo, but actually roll things back in many cases.

When you’ve made a mistake, sometimes the only way to go is back. Americans do that, sometimes. For instance, Americans repealed slavery in the 13th - 15th amendments. And repealed Prohibition in the 21st amendment.

In the 20th c. Democrats made changes in this nation’s systems that didn’t work as expected. We Republicans, instead of sticking with ways that are proven abject failures, are trying to return, in certain specific instances, to older ways that were less harmful to both individuals and to the nation as a whole.

The idea that this should be a Christian nation because the founders were Christian, despite the founders establishing freedom of religion as a founding principle, is one such example.

We Christians are revolting against the illegal, unconstitutional suppression of our rights of freedom of worship and freedom of speech. Those of us with brains are well aware that our own right to worship as we choose is directly related to the rights of those we disagree with to worship, or not, as they choose. We are mostly NOT trying to establish our religion as the official religion of our nation; we are protesting the so-called liberals’ flagrant attempt to persecute us and deny us our right to free exercise of our religion/s.

Don’t bother telling me that Christians don’t get persecuted in the USA. I have *been* persecuted for my faith. Recently. By a jerk who tried to insist that he had more of a right to a religion-free existence than I had to wish my friends a Happy Easter in his hearing.

Posted by Reed Sanders: …we should distinguish between true conservatives (people who care about conserving American values and who care about fiscal responsibility and the environment) and people who vote Republican. They can’t possibly be the same people. There’s a direct contradiction. […] Genuine conservatives can no longer vote for the Republican Party in good conscience.

I vote Republican - most of the time. And I care *deeply* about traditional American values, including fiscal responsibility and proper stewardship of our natural resources.

It wasn’t until we had a Republican Congress that the deficit cutting of the so-called Clinton era got started. It’s remarkable what the deficits of his first two years were like.

I have to admit that I’m disappointed in our current crop of elected officials in the “fiscal responsibility” department, among others. I understand the 2002 budget, ditto 2003, even though I’m not happy about them. But by 2004 we should really have been back to cutting deficits. And believe me, my Congresscritters are hearing about it!

BUT - I haven’t forgotten what things were like when the Democrats were the majority in Congress. And when I scrutinize my voter’s pamphlet and fill out my ballot, I don’t just go by campaign promises, which are written on the wind as often as not. I go by voting records. Which, incidentally, are readily available on line these days. :) Republicans are far from flawless, but they are still a better choice than Democrats, most of the time, for the things I care about.

Posted by Paul Siegel: How can a true conservative be for a law that would make abortion illegal when he believes in less government? Restricting individual rights for pregnant women by forcing them to give birth is not an example of individual rights either. A true conservative would insist that abortion is none of the government’s business.

A true conservative, who cares about the rights of individuals, may well insist that the right of the infant to live is more important than the convenience of the mother. Anybody who can’t understand that POV is actively resisting understanding.

FWIW, most of us pro-lifers don’t have a major problem with abortion when the life of the mother is at stake. What we oppose is abortion on demand, for convenience, to prevent the public embarrassment of the mother, because teh baby is the wrong gender, any stupid frivolous reason that is just not important enough to kill a baby for.

There are tons of programs out there to help a woman with an unwanted pregnancy get through it and give the child up for adoption. Anyone who thinks that conservatives don’t care what happens to the mother are purely ignorant of how caring and helpful and supportive the people can be, who make up the many, many conservative organizations involved in this field of endeavor.

Bush has done something that one other President has ever done - he instigated the invasion of Iraq. He ordered American troops invade a non-warring country. That has never been part of the American way.

Um … “Remember the Maine.” Look it up. There’s more than a slight suspicion that the explosion was not an attack, that it was a boiler room accident used as an excuse for us to go to war with Spain: seized on and screamed about shrilly by the hawks of the time because in their opinion it was in the national interest for us to take a good part of their empire away from the Spaniards.

ET