Skip to main content

View Diary: Conservatives: Endangered species? (18 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sure (0+ / 0-)

    but just try to get them to define "conservative".

    There's been a lot of earnest effort to find a workable definition in the right wing blogosphere in the past year.  They've given up.

    The operational definition at present is that "conservative" means people who are usually traditional Christians (or culturally part of that despite non-practice) and share a disagreeable attitude toward liberals, liberal constituencies, and liberal interests that became popular around 1970.

    •  That's kind of silly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      And the one of the most biased definitions of "conservative" I've ever read. I mean, you didn't even try to be objective.  You just define conservative in how they relate to liberals.  

      I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places...arousing and persuading and reproaching you.-Socrates

      by The Navigator on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 10:09:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not me, it's conservatives themselves (0+ / 0-)

        Here's a small sampling of where the current set think they really are.

        It's an incoherent and silly movement in their own eyes- and accusing me of not being 'objective', aka not finding much to revere about the reactionary project is beside the point.  I probably read more of them than you do, frankly.

    •  Really? I've never had any trouble, but... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Let's turn the question around: How do you define a liberal?  Better still, how do you define a progressive? From most of what I can see, progressives aren't very progessive, longing for a return to the halcyon days of 70 years gone by.

      Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

      by dinotrac on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 08:49:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Liberalism (0+ / 0-)

        in my opinion is, in our times, to firmly take the liberal side in the Constitutional argument of the age, about the governing interpretation and realization/enforcement of the guarantees in the 14th Amendment.  And to take that to its various political consequences.

        Progressivism...that is to focus on the realizations of the Left-liberal views of the times in material forms in public life- in matters of war and peace, economic rights, work life, and public office.  It's more robust than liberalism per se in jousting in the public arena but its relative rigidity is a vulnerability.  It's the practical political operator's simplification of the liberalism of the times but the downside is that it quickly becomes (and suffers from being) simplistic.

        There's a running clash between the two about the order in which things ought to be implemented.  Progressives tend to subscribe to a bottom-up, common folk reliant, political logic that economic and management/ethics-based change be done first and higher tier policy change will follow. Liberals subscribe to a top-down, elite reliant, political logic that foreign involvements and social rights policy have to be corrected sufficiently before economic rights changes and economic/political establishment changes can take place.  The Progressive view is always the more popular one, but the liberal one turns out to be historically vindicated time and again.

        •  Odd, (0+ / 0-)

          I would say that conservatism more fully embodies the ideals of the 14th amendment, but I agree that liberalism is indeed the stuff of elites.

          Those are two reasons why I am not a liberal.

          Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

          by dinotrac on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 04:48:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think the conservative take on the 14th, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            aka "strict constructionism", is inadequate, injustice, and intellectually corrupt.  Which is why I am a liberal.

            •  You oppose equal protection under the law (0+ / 0-)

              for all citizens and the right to substantive due process, ie, fundamental fairness?

              I'll readily agree that the limitation of voting rights guarantees to males seems quaint, but the 14th was enacted before the 19th, so it made sense at the time.

              Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

              by dinotrac on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 05:39:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Of course I do (0+ / 0-)

                but "strict constructionism" doesn't.  I think Roe, Lawrence, Goodridge, Brown v. Board, Griswold, Baker, Goldberg, etc. properly decided.

                •  Excuse me? (0+ / 0-)

                  You started with conservatism, but now you've moved on to strict constructionism.

                  Never mind that many legal scholars have found a lot to dislike about Roe v. Wade as a legal opinion -- not just strict constructionists. Ditto Griswold and the whole line of privacy cases.

                  Brown v. Board is a curious inclusion.  It was a 9-0 decision to overturn a long-standing precedent. In case you haven't figured it out, 9-0 means everybody, not just Earl Warren.

                  I suppose you need to be a liberal to find fault in a 9-0 decision supporting equal rights.

                  Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

                  by dinotrac on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 05:57:05 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site