Individual enlightenment weakness for the conservative political movement?

Started by Mountainshield, February 09, 2013, 02:35:13 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mountainshield

Is individual enlightenment a weakness for the conservative political movement as a collective?

I couldn't think of a better formulation of the question in this moment (if someone has then please post and I can change the title), but basicly the conservative movement is made up out of people with strong values, individualism, macro economic comprehension, fascination with history/historical accuracy and of course the good stuff like quirky traits that make our movement so diverse and lovely compared to the other side. Gun enthusiasts, biblical fundementalists, interventionalists (against tyrannies), isolationists, history freaks and extreme libertarian economists etc etc  :cool: all this make it very hard to form a united movement.

One of the structural benefits of the socialist-communist movement is that they all share a defined creed and manifesto they all adhere too and worship, both socialists, anarcho-syndicalists (at least in practice) and communists worship the communist the manifesto and marxism, some want radical change at a faster pace than others, but they all agree on the necessity of a totalitarian government. Now I think the end result, the utopia they envision may differ somewhat with regards to the state, as some marxist claim radical totalitarianism aka oligarchy will lead to a stateless society with material equality  :confused: while others, especially labor socialists seem to want perpetual state control over the entire economy to ensure material "equality".

They all agree on the agenda which is very simple, state control/expansion=progress. So getting behind a single movement is very easy to organize, the individual power wrestling may lead to different parties and conflict but the movement stays the same. The spanish civil war is a good example of this imo, Anthony Beevor book on this is very comprehensive and its fascinating to see all the different socialists, communists and anarchists were able to form a combined movement. The conservatives during this time were divided but Faith and biblical values held them together even though they supported different lineages in the monarchy.

We on the other hand, even though we all share love of freedom, believe the government that governs the least governs best (minimal regulation/taxation), biblical foundation, love strong social values, compassion through voluntarism/charity and economic freedom. Because every "faction" have their own priorities first and differ on the means to achieve these values the organizations are splintered and nobody seem to agree on the agenda for the progress of freedom. Take this election with the division in the republican party, the libertarians and the other groups that doesnt vote because the GOP establishment are rhinos etc caused Obama to win the election with only about 30% of the vote...

Same thing with the Taft vs Teddy election, Theodore Roosevelt was by no definition a progressive in the modern sense of the word, but because he believed in empire building as necessity to keep US strong, and the need to curb corporatism in the US there was a division between Taft fiscal conservatives/isolationists and Teddy interventionalists/right wingers that caused Woodrow Wilson to win the election.

Same thing in Norway, the Conservative Party and the Right Wing Party have majority, but because they can't agree 100% on the agenda the Red-Green Parties are able to form a coalition easily because they agree on the agenda. I.e Labor Party and Socialist Left Party are historical enemies due to the NATO issue, but because they both agree on the agenda which is expansion of the state and more state spending they form government without any real drama.

So because conservatives don't have a simple manifesto, and instead make our own opinions based on knowledge/wisdom are we weaker for this? Should we change this if possible? Or is it for the better that we don't have a single guideline?

kramarat

In the US, there is a simple manifesto for conservatives.........limited government that behaves responsibly, adherence to the constitution and our founding, and individual freedom.

When we say left and right, it is actually four entities, which then split into sub-groups:

On the left, we have the democrats in government, which are currently pushing a socialist agenda; and then we have the liberals in society that want all kinds of things. Some want to save the planet, some want to save the whales, some want same sex marriage..........Liberals share a commonality, in that they all want their ideas implemented by government, but they aren't typically socialists. In fact, many don't know the meaning of the word.

On the right, we have the republicans in government, which at one time in history, were really a party of constitutional conservatives. At the moment, the majority seem to also want big government and big government rule, but with different objectives, so we have a disconnect with conservatives in society.

We also have individuals that call themselves conservatives, but also want laws passed that are intended to control behavior, at the federal level; abortion and drug laws being an example. Personally, I think federal involvement should be kept to a minimum, with the bulk of decision making remaining with the individual states. I also think that, (within the states), the big ticket items like drug laws, gay marriage, abortion, etc., should be decided by popular vote.

The beauty of having 50 individual states that operate independently of the federal government, is that it opens the door for lots of different things to be tried, and the failures and successes will take place on a fairly small scale. The failures can be quickly shuttered, and the successes can be adopted by other states, if they choose.

Unfortunately, we currently have a full blown Marxist for a president, that has chosen to ignore his oath to uphold and defend the constitution, and sees fit to sue individual states that dare attempt to act independently. He firmly believes in collective salvation through government, and has been quoted as saying that we will rise or fall as a nation...........collectively.

For better or worse, to describe the conservative movement as a "collective", is an oxymoron. It is a group of widely dispersed individuals, that firmly believe in individual liberty and freedom, along with a strictly limited government role in our lives. It's a simple message that everyone should be able to identify with. Unfortunately, we don't have very many in Washington that can either identify with it, or say it out loud in a coherent manner.

Every major problem that we face in the US, can be traced back to government, either not doing it's job, (like securing our borders), or doing things that they are not authorized to do, (like using welfare as a means to redistribute wealth, and enable what could be productive citizens, to spend their entire lives doing absolutely nothing).

If things like abortion, drugs, gay marriage, etc., were decided by the states, individuals would have the freedom to go live in a state that fit their personal preferences.

The Stranger

Quote from: Mountainshield on February 09, 2013, 02:35:13 AM
Is individual enlightenment a weakness for the conservative political movement as a collective?

I couldn't think of a better formulation of the question in this moment (if someone has then please post and I can change the title), but basicly the conservative movement is made up out of people with strong values, individualism, macro economic comprehension, fascination with history/historical accuracy and of course the good stuff like quirky traits that make our movement so diverse and lovely compared to the other side. Gun enthusiasts, biblical fundementalists, interventionalists (against tyrannies), isolationists, history freaks and extreme libertarian economists etc etc  :cool: all this make it very hard to form a united movement.

One of the structural benefits of the socialist-communist movement is that they all share a defined creed and manifesto they all adhere too and worship, both socialists, anarcho-syndicalists (at least in practice) and communists worship the communist the manifesto and marxism, some want radical change at a faster pace than others, but they all agree on the necessity of a totalitarian government. Now I think the end result, the utopia they envision may differ somewhat with regards to the state, as some marxist claim radical totalitarianism aka oligarchy will lead to a stateless society with material equality  :confused: while others, especially labor socialists seem to want perpetual state control over the entire economy to ensure material "equality".

They all agree on the agenda which is very simple, state control/expansion=progress. So getting behind a single movement is very easy to organize, the individual power wrestling may lead to different parties and conflict but the movement stays the same. The spanish civil war is a good example of this imo, Anthony Beevor book on this is very comprehensive and its fascinating to see all the different socialists, communists and anarchists were able to form a combined movement. The conservatives during this time were divided but Faith and biblical values held them together even though they supported different lineages in the monarchy.

We on the other hand, even though we all share love of freedom, believe the government that governs the least governs best (minimal regulation/taxation), biblical foundation, love strong social values, compassion through voluntarism/charity and economic freedom. Because every "faction" have their own priorities first and differ on the means to achieve these values the organizations are splintered and nobody seem to agree on the agenda for the progress of freedom. Take this election with the division in the republican party, the libertarians and the other groups that doesnt vote because the GOP establishment are rhinos etc caused Obama to win the election with only about 30% of the vote...

Same thing with the Taft vs Teddy election, Theodore Roosevelt was by no definition a progressive in the modern sense of the word, but because he believed in empire building as necessity to keep US strong, and the need to curb corporatism in the US there was a division between Taft fiscal conservatives/isolationists and Teddy interventionalists/right wingers that caused Woodrow Wilson to win the election.

Same thing in Norway, the Conservative Party and the Right Wing Party have majority, but because they can't agree 100% on the agenda the Red-Green Parties are able to form a coalition easily because they agree on the agenda. I.e Labor Party and Socialist Left Party are historical enemies due to the NATO issue, but because they both agree on the agenda which is expansion of the state and more state spending they form government without any real drama.

So because conservatives don't have a simple manifesto, and instead make our own opinions based on knowledge/wisdom are we weaker for this? Should we change this if possible? Or is it for the better that we don't have a single guideline?

Maybe then one of my favorite statements is the biggest problem for the Republican party. I always say libs can not thing for themselves which is true, they mimic MM, the DNC and a few others.
I/we as Republicans or Conservatives think for ourselves so even though we may be of the same party we are different and think for ourselves?
"Every man is like the company he keeps."
"Show me your friends and I'll show you your Future"

kramarat

Quote from: The Stranger on February 09, 2013, 05:16:43 AM
Maybe then one of my favorite statements is the biggest problem for the Republican party. I always say libs can not thing for themselves which is true, they mimic MM, the DNC and a few others.
I/we as Republicans or Conservatives think for ourselves so even though we may be of the same party we are different and think for ourselves?

I also think there's a rift within the republican party, because a majority of republicans want to control Washington; while Tea Party types and conservatives want to set about removing and knocking down government control. Something's gonna have to give.

As a conservative, I have no more desire for a right wing, all powerful, controlling government, than I do a left wing socialist style government.

pisskop

Ultimately individual enlightenment is important.  If a minimal government is to be had than we all need to step up to ensure it stays that way.

In terms of the macro-scale, the constitution was written to prevent sweeping changes.  I think this is why Obama is focused on increasing presidental power.  Any conservative in power would be unable to completly rectify Ovama's damage, let alone completly fix our government.  It would take time, and 'they' on the left feel they have all the time in the world (how else could they justify there spending).

Pertaining to conservatives, individuality would of course be tempered with the idea of personal responsibility.  If we want to thrive, be sucessful, stay off Uncle Sam's left teet then we have to be able of some self government and collective community control.  Trafitionally it was through parental guidance, church, education, and
folk tales (remember hearing about how righteousness prevailed and undesirables got weeded out, how the hero(ine) would have to mature, take responsiblity of their own fate to survive) or other similar stories that taught the importance of our values.

Today tv plays a huge part in our countries woes.   We all know about some of the filth there.  But what about the slighly less innoculous?  Spongebob (the homosexual sponge), Dora the no-antagonist Explorer, and the Family Guy.  FG. . . I could go on for hours about that show and how it is a detriment to society.  Instead I ask you only to write down every time it asserts a liberal or erroneous claim (like Peter being catholic and regularly attending church, Lois being a rich Jew but them living in that hole, which is held together by Peter, who hasnt had a job since he was a fisherman.  so many more too).  The less obvious implications behind tv shows is as worrisome as the obvious, imo.

To rerail myself, individuality is essential to a conservative, but only when tempered by the proper morees.  The ones in office need to unify themselves, and push to wrest the power of administration away from these socialists.  Ill not call anyone comrade.  Perhaps we need to put forth a common goal too.  One that is definitive and somewhat in the future.  So what will happen when They are done with guns?  divided we fall one by one.
[MANNERISM_THREAD:lurk]

Today's ??? (_07JUL13_):

Summer of George

supsalemgr

Quote from: pisskop on February 09, 2013, 08:55:07 AM
Ultimately individual enlightenment is important.  If a minimal government is to be had than we all need to step up to ensure it stays that way.

In terms of the macro-scale, the constitution was written to prevent sweeping changes.  I think this is why Obama is focused on increasing presidental power.  Any conservative in power would be unable to completly rectify Ovama's damage, let alone completly fix our government.  It would take time, and 'they' on the left feel they have all the time in the world (how else could they justify there spending).

Pertaining to conservatives, individuality would of course be tempered with the idea of personal responsibility.  If we want to thrive, be sucessful, stay off Uncle Sam's left teet then we have to be able of some self government and collective community control.  Trafitionally it was through parental guidance, church, education, and
folk tales (remember hearing about how righteousness prevailed and undesirables got weeded out, how the hero(ine) would have to mature, take responsiblity of their own fate to survive) or other similar stories that taught the importance of our values.

Today tv plays a huge part in our countries woes.   We all know about some of the filth there.  But what about the slighly less innoculous?  Spongebob (the homosexual sponge), Dora the no-antagonist Explorer, and the Family Guy.  FG. . . I could go on for hours about that show and how it is a detriment to society.  Instead I ask you only to write down every time it asserts a liberal or erroneous claim (like Peter being catholic and regularly attending church, Lois being a rich Jew but them living in that hole, which is held together by Peter, who hasnt had a job since he was a fisherman.  so many more too).  The less obvious implications behind tv shows is as worrisome as the obvious, imo.

To rerail myself, individuality is essential to a conservative, but only when tempered by the proper morees.  The ones in office need to unify themselves, and push to wrest the power of administration away from these socialists.  Ill not call anyone comrade.  Perhaps we need to put forth a common goal too.  One that is definitive and somewhat in the future.  So what will happen when They are done with guns?  divided we fall one by one.

"Any conservative in power would be unable to completly rectify Ovama's damage, let alone completly fix our government.  It would take time, and 'they' on the left feel they have all the time in the world (how else could they justify there spending)."

I think pisskop may have swereved into a brilliant campaign strategy for the GOP in 2016. By election time all the regualtions and EO's will have placed our country in one hell of a mess. The GOP should research and doccument some of the most outrageous. Then in every speech and through advertising outline these and their impacts with a pledge to do undo them by EO on 1/20/2017. I think this could be an offensive and effective strategy. No more just defense in response to dem lies.

"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

kramarat

Quote from: supsalemgr on February 09, 2013, 09:41:45 AM
"Any conservative in power would be unable to completly rectify Ovama's damage, let alone completly fix our government.  It would take time, and 'they' on the left feel they have all the time in the world (how else could they justify there spending)."

I think pisskop may have swereved into a brilliant campaign strategy for the GOP in 2016. By election time all the regualtions and EO's will have placed our country in one hell of a mess. The GOP should research and doccument some of the most outrageous. Then in every speech and through advertising outline these and their impacts with a pledge to do undo them by EO on 1/20/2017. I think this could be an offensive and effective strategy. No more just defense in response to dem lies.

One small problem........

The GOP doesn't appear to be interested in undoing anything. :cry:

supsalemgr

Quote from: kramarat on February 09, 2013, 10:19:00 AM
One small problem........

The GOP doesn't appear to be interested in undoing anything. :cry:

Valid point. Why are they afraid? I can't believe they are so naive to believe that the MSM might be objective.
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

kramarat

Quote from: supsalemgr on February 09, 2013, 11:02:40 AM
Valid point. Why are they afraid? I can't believe they are so naive to believe that the MSM might be objective.

I don't think they're afraid of anything. I think they want to run Washington, and the best way to do it, is to run as fiscally conservative democrats. Although, even that is questionable.

Solar

Quote from: supsalemgr on February 09, 2013, 11:02:40 AM
Valid point. Why are they afraid? I can't believe they are so naive to believe that the MSM might be objective.
Kram kind of touched on it, but I'm guessing the RINO know that a lot of corporate entities are leaching off the tax payer via Dims in office, the RINO knows this and wants to tap into it.
I think they are planning long term, assuming the country survives. Lets take ethanol, a completely useless product where fuel is concerned, yet the Pubs refused to touch it and even helped it along.
Who is profiting from this? Big AG, those corps that own huge farms producing corn, not only do they make a killing in profits, but Govt subsidies make it a win win, and the RINO know they will get hammered if they kill it, so as the old saying goes, "If you can't beat em, join em.
Big AG, Big Pharma, all their money is going to Dims and RINO want a cut, rather than doing the right thing.

Politics is a disgusting industry, and it's one of the reasons you don't find Conservatives in politics, it's akin to a straight guy going to a gay bar, not only are you disgusted by the whole thing, you're not even welcome.
That's why I see Rand as a breath of fresh air, he's willing to say exactly what they don't want to hear.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

supsalemgr

Quote from: Solar on February 09, 2013, 03:04:12 PM
Kram kind of touched on it, but I'm guessing the RINO know that a lot of corporate entities are leaching off the tax payer via Dims in office, the RINO knows this and wants to tap into it.
I think they are planning long term, assuming the country survives. Lets take ethanol, a completely useless product where fuel is concerned, yet the Pubs refused to touch it and even helped it along.
Who is profiting from this? Big AG, those corps that own huge farms producing corn, not only do they make a killing in profits, but Govt subsidies make it a win win, and the RINO know they will get hammered if they kill it, so as the old saying goes, "If you can't beat em, join em.
Big AG, Big Pharma, all their money is going to Dims and RINO want a cut, rather than doing the right thing.

Politics is a disgusting industry, and it's one of the reasons you don't find Conservatives in politics, it's akin to a straight guy going to a gay bar, not only are you disgusted by the whole thing, you're not even welcome.
That's why I see Rand as a breath of fresh air, he's willing to say exactly what they don't want to hear.

:thumbsup:
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

kramarat

Quote from: Solar on February 09, 2013, 03:04:12 PM
Kram kind of touched on it, but I'm guessing the RINO know that a lot of corporate entities are leaching off the tax payer via Dims in office, the RINO knows this and wants to tap into it.
I think they are planning long term, assuming the country survives. Lets take ethanol, a completely useless product where fuel is concerned, yet the Pubs refused to touch it and even helped it along.
Who is profiting from this? Big AG, those corps that own huge farms producing corn, not only do they make a killing in profits, but Govt subsidies make it a win win, and the RINO know they will get hammered if they kill it, so as the old saying goes, "If you can't beat em, join em.
Big AG, Big Pharma, all their money is going to Dims and RINO want a cut, rather than doing the right thing.

Politics is a disgusting industry, and it's one of the reasons you don't find Conservatives in politics, it's akin to a straight guy going to a gay bar, not only are you disgusted by the whole thing, you're not even welcome.
That's why I see Rand as a breath of fresh air, he's willing to say exactly what they don't want to hear.

Nah. Corporations tend to hedge their bets and play both horses. Everyone in Washington is somebody's whore.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/corporate-campaign-contributions-industries-bipartisanship_n_1456071.html

Solar

Quote from: kramarat on February 09, 2013, 05:16:12 PM
Nah. Corporations tend to hedge their bets and play both horses. Everyone in Washington is somebody's whore.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/corporate-campaign-contributions-industries-bipartisanship_n_1456071.html
Yes they are, that's the whole point.
The Dims have been winning ever since Clinton, when he had the backing of the giants of industry, like ATT, GE, Monsanto etc. The left has done so much to line their pockets, look at the head of GE, had a seat in his Cabinet.
Is it any wonder RINO are worried?

Two things, Conservatives want to cut the cord where Govt manipulates the free mkt, RINO realize they will lose monitory backing if Conservative take power, as well as Dims, so the money is flowing to the left at the moment.

There's a vicious momentum building toward Nationalizing, business will do what it has to to stay afloat, even if it means dealing with the Devil.

And it continues to get worse, this graph is three years old, but you get the point.
Now you tell me why would business give to a Socialist party?


Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Solar

To help explain this phenomena, think of all the subsidies Husein doled out to his friends in the business community, nearly a trillion dollars of our money bought and paid for an entire new failed industry, the Green energy industry.
Do you honestly think these people were surprised like a child on Christmas day when he did this?
Of course not, he promised them nearly a trillion in handouts, a one thousand % return for their contributions to get him elected.
Read the following:

A decade ago, corporate PACs favored Republicans over Democrats by about a two-to-one ratio.

By the 2008 election cycle, however, when Democrats were poised to control both chambers of Congress and the White House, contributions from business PACs were split about evenly between Republican and Democratic candidates and groups. During the 2010 election cycle, that parity continued -- almost down to the last dollar.

Corporate PACs donated $164.3 million to Republican candidates and committees during the 2010 election cycle, according to the Center's research. During the same period, corporate PACs also contributed $164.3 million to Democratic candidates and committees.

During the 2000 election cycle, on the other hand, Democrats collected $67.9 million from business PACs, according to the Center's research. That's a 142 percent increase between the 2000 and 2010 election cycles in the amount of money business PACs have contributed to Democrats.

For their part, Republicans collected $123.4 million from business PACs during the 2000 election cycle, according to the Center's research. GOP groups and candidates experienced an increased flow of only 33 percent of money from these sources during that period.

All the while, labor union PAC contributions hovered between $59 million and $73 million, typically with 90 percent or more of those dollars supporting Democrats each election cycle, according to the Center's research.

While corporate PACs doled out 73 percent more money during the 2010 election cycle than they did during the 2000 election cycle, union PACs donated just 17 percent more.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/03/unions-businesses-vie-to-fill.html

Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

kramarat

Well, yeah. We also don't hear dems complaining about the pubs being bought by corporations anymore.

What the stupid RINOS don't realize, is that corporate America wants conservatism. It's the very best scenario for business to thrive.

I think the reason that we're seeing more corporate money going to buy off dems, is because the republicans won't commit to conservatism. They have to suck up to the dems or they'll be destroyed. It's basically extortion. They aren't paying off the dems because they love them.