Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 5:50 AM
22 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,194 Year: 5,231/19,786 Month: 1,353/873 Week: 249/460 Day: 1/64 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   What is a "Real Conservative"? - [i]The American Conservative[/i] magazine
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3709
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 7.8


Message 1 of 22 (199064)
04-13-2005 8:07 PM


The American Conservative magazine

In their November 8, 2004 issue (which I hope came out well before that date), various people offered up their views on the upcoming presidential election.

George W. Bush was Patrick Buchanan's choice. John Kerry was Scott McConnell's choice. Ralph Nader was Justin Raimondo's choice. There are also other essays available.

I will quote the first three or four paragraphs of three of the essays. There is much more there:

Coming Home

By Patrick J. Buchanan:

In the fall of 2002, the editors of this magazine moved up its launch date to make the conservative case against invading Iraq. Such a war, we warned, on a country that did not attack us, did not threaten us, did not want war with us, and had no role in 9/11, would be "a tragedy and a disaster." Invade and we inherit our own West Bank of 23 million Iraqis, unite Islam against us, and incite imams from Morocco to Malaysia to preach jihad against America. So we wrote, again and again.

In a 6,000-word article entitled "Whose War", we warned President Bush that he was "being lured into a trap baited for him by neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations..."

Everything we predicted has come to pass. Iraq is the worst strategic blunder in our lifetime. And for it, George W. Bush, his War Cabinet, and the neoconservatives who plotted and planned this war for a decade bear full responsibility. Should Bush lose on Nov. 2, it will be because he heeded their siren song "that the world was pining for American Empire"- that "Big Government Conservatism" is a political philosophy, not an opportunistic sellout of principle; that free-trade globalism is the path to prosperity, not the serial killer of U.S. manufacturing; that amnesty for illegal aliens is compassionate conservatism, not an abdication of constitutional duty.

Kerry's the One

By Scott McConnell

There is little in John Kerry's persona or platform that appeals to conservatives. The flip-flopper charge "the centerpiece of the Republican campaign against Kerry" seems overdone, as Kerry's contrasting votes are the sort of baggage any senator of long service is likely to pick up. (Bob Dole could tell you all about it.) But Kerry is plainly a conventional liberal and no candidate for a future edition of Profiles in Courage. In my view, he will always deserve censure for his vote in favor of the Iraq War in 2002.

But this election is not about John Kerry. If he were to win, his dearth of charisma would likely ensure him a single term. He would face challenges from within his own party and a thwarting of his most expensive initiatives by a Republican Congress. Much of his presidency would be absorbed by trying to clean up the mess left to him in Iraq. He would be constrained by the swollen deficits and a ripe target for the next Republican nominee.

It is, instead, an election about the presidency of George W. Bush. To the surprise of virtually everyone, Bush has turned into an important president, and in many ways the most radical America has had since the 19th century. Because he is the leader of America's conservative party, he has become the Left's perfect foil: its dream candidate. The libertarian writer Lew Rockwell has mischievously noted parallels between Bush and Russia's last tsar, Nicholas II: both gained office as a result of family connections, both initiated an unnecessary war that shattered their countries budgets. Lenin needed the calamitous reign of Nicholas II to create an opening for the Bolsheviks.

Old Right Nader

By Justin Raimondo

The Nader for President rally was a raucous affair and Mission High School was filled to capacity, with a substantial crowd packing the lobby and overflowing into the street. It was the logical place for such an event, the middle of San Francisco's Mission District, a hub of far-left activism where you?re as likely to see an advertisement for a forum by the International Socialist Organization as a billboard for Absolut vodka.

As I entered the auditorium, Nader's runing mate, Peter Camejo, was already warming up the crowd. Camejo, a former Trotskyist turned Green, gives a good speech: the stentorian voice, the slashing polemics punctuated by applause. There I was, surrounded on every side by rambunctious Reds, wondering: what the heck am I doing here?

As if in answer to my question, Nader finally strode onto the stage. He looked impossibly serene in the midst of that storm of applause, and his voice "steady and sure" reinforced an aura of integrity that seemed to emanate from his very person.

We?re getting poorer, he said. In spite of government propaganda about how things are getting better, our standard of living, compared to the way our parents lived, is declining. The Left, content to settle for less, has given up fighting for real progress, while the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans on such issues as "the concentration of power."

It sure seems that Bush vs. Kerry was looked upon as being a pragmatic choice between "the lesser of two evils", while Nader was actually liked.

Moose

(edited punctuation) PB

This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 11-01-2005 08:12 AM

This message has been edited by AdminJar, 11-01-2005 10:24 AM

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Trying to get italics in topic title to work. They did work when I first posted this topic.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Monk, posted 04-13-2005 8:42 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 3 by Monk, posted 04-14-2005 10:46 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Monk
Member (Idle past 2034 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 2 of 22 (199078)
04-13-2005 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
04-13-2005 8:07 PM


Nader
quote:
It sure seems that Bush vs. Kerry was looked upon as being a pragmatic choice between "the lesser or two evils", while Nader was actually liked.

You know, that guy has actually accomplished some significant things in his life. Who has done more in the last 30 years in the areas of general public safety and the environment than Ralph?

His problem, aside from running as third party candidate, is that he didn't seem able to expand his appeal beyond those topics.

This message has been edited by Monk, Wed, 04-13-2005 08:31 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-13-2005 8:07 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-01-2005 12:33 AM Monk has responded

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 2034 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 3 of 22 (199250)
04-14-2005 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
04-13-2005 8:07 PM


BTW, I'm not so sure most conservatives would agree with Pat Buchanan's brand of conservatism. I would add publications such as the National Review and the Washington Post
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-13-2005 8:07 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3709
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 7.8


Message 4 of 22 (255927)
10-31-2005 11:48 PM


American Conservative stuff from another topic
Berberry has posted a link in his Forging The Case For War message, at the "Karl Rove: Traitor" topic.

I would be interested in things flagged from this publication. Is AC an
outlet of "true conservativism", rather than the "false conservativism" of the neo-cons?

Moose


Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by berberry, posted 11-01-2005 2:00 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Silent H, posted 11-01-2005 5:11 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2038 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 5 of 22 (255929)
11-01-2005 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Monk
04-13-2005 8:42 PM


Re: Nader
eh. public safety should go the way of the dodo.
caveat emptor.
be smart enough not to buy an unsafe product. smoking kills. how do i know? ask bill maher... maybe the coughing?

{Off-topic - Hidden - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : {Off-topic - Hidden - Adminnemooseus}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Monk, posted 04-13-2005 8:42 PM Monk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Silent H, posted 11-01-2005 5:17 AM macaroniandcheese has responded
 Message 10 by Monk, posted 11-01-2005 9:33 AM macaroniandcheese has responded
 Message 18 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 12-28-2005 10:53 PM macaroniandcheese has not yet responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 22 (255932)
11-01-2005 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Minnemooseus
10-31-2005 11:48 PM


Re: American Conservative stuff from another topic
Moose, I'd prefer to stay away from phrases like 'true conservative' or 'false conservative' for the very reason that Rrhain used to frequently cite in his True Scotsman analogy. But if you mean 'traditional conservative' as opposed to 'neocon' then yes, it's my understanding that the distinction between the two is the raison dêtre for American Conservative magazine. Pat Buchanan is one of the founders. He considers himself a traditional conservative, i.e. one who is opposed to foreign intervention except when absolutely necessary to protect our own territorial integrity, who favors closed borders and who is generally distrustful of free trade. I don't follow the magazine or its website closely, but from what I know about it I would suspect that most if not all of the writers are opposed to the Iraq war.


"We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job. That's what I'm telling you."-George W. Bush, Gulfport, Miss.,
Sept. 20, 2005.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-31-2005 11:48 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Phat, posted 11-01-2005 10:17 AM berberry has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 7 of 22 (255943)
11-01-2005 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Minnemooseus
10-31-2005 11:48 PM


Re: American Conservative stuff from another topic
I wish I had seen this thread when it was first created. Thankfully Berb and you have resuscitated it.

I was going to agree with you regarding AC vs the Neocons, but berbs post was correct that it does slide into the True Scotsman fallacy.

The reason False sounds right for neocons (and why I was ready to agree) is that they profess overtly liberal agendas. But then if their ideas are picked up and carried on self-professed conservatives, does it not then become a form of conservativism?

So I think Traditional vs New is perhaps the best definer. I know schraf had a thread on this, and I was definitely arguing that neocons were not real republicans (or conservatives) there, but perhaps very very different conservative is better. How about FlipFlop Conservative?

Suddenly I feel like getting a subscription to American Conservative... well maybe not.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-31-2005 11:48 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 8 of 22 (255944)
11-01-2005 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by macaroniandcheese
11-01-2005 12:33 AM


Re: Nader
eh. public safety should go the way of the dodo.

Within limits. I think safety standards for products that use energy, produce energy, or can do extensive damage if used improperly (or fall apart) makes some sense.

There is no way we can all be mech engineers and test everything before we use it personally.

Without such things collapses of public buildings and structures, as well as stuck or falling elevators would be much more common. I could do without that.

{Off-topic - Hidden - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : {Off-topic - Hidden - Adminnemooseus}


h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-01-2005 12:33 AM macaroniandcheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-01-2005 9:26 AM Silent H has not yet responded

    
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2038 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 9 of 22 (255970)
11-01-2005 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Silent H
11-01-2005 5:17 AM


Re: Nader
agreed. but 'do n ot stop with genitals' warnings on chainsaws are really superfluous.

stupid people should not be winning law suits.

{Off-topic - Hidden - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : {Off-topic - Hidden - Adminnemooseus}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Silent H, posted 11-01-2005 5:17 AM Silent H has not yet responded

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 2034 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 10 of 22 (255974)
11-01-2005 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by macaroniandcheese
11-01-2005 12:33 AM


Re: Nader
quote:
eh. public safety should go the way of the dodo.
caveat emptor. Be smart enough not to buy an unsafe product. smoking kills. how do i know? ask bill maher... maybe the coughing?

Hi brennakimi

That's true when product dangers are clearly known and examples of hazards of a particular product are abundant. Cigarette smoking is a good example. I think it is a farce for individuals to continue to sue cigarette manufacturer's for a product they readily admit is dangerous.

But when the dangers are not clearly known, the public needs to be informed. Ralph's book entitled "Unsafe at any speed", published in 1965, drew national attention to unsafe practices in auto manufacturing. It was Ralph who pushed for fundamental safety items in vehicles that we now take for granted like seat belts. The industry and GM in particular had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the realization that auto safety needed to improve. GM even tried to discredit Ralph by hiring detectives to dig up dirt on him.

Sure, it can get ridiculous when interest groups crusade to protect the general public from any kind of product danger. (i.e. pushing to enact laws requiring radon detection in residences)

Safety issues can go to extremes but we can thank Ralph for first bringing the topic of consumer safety to national attention.

As I’ve said before, I like Ralph. His political problem was that he was a one issue candidate.

Aghast…….a conservative likes Ralph Nader……...page one story at the NY Times.

{Off-topic - Hidden - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : {Off-topic - Hidden - Adminnemooseus}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-01-2005 12:33 AM macaroniandcheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-01-2005 10:11 AM Monk has not yet responded
 Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 11-01-2005 10:34 AM Monk has not yet responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2038 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 11 of 22 (255979)
11-01-2005 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Monk
11-01-2005 9:33 AM


Re: Nader
eh. outside of products that malfunction, i don't think there should be much concern.

cigarrettes never should have been a suable issue. it's a product with known addictive properties. nicotine has been known as a poison since 1826. anything that makes you cough and doesn't let you quit easily should be avoided. it's common sense. people are just bred idiots and think they should be handed life.

and cars? really. you're putting yourself in a metal box connected to a constant explosion. and then. you're hurtling yourself down the road at some ungodly speed that no natural thing anywhere near that size can reach on land. and you're going to tell me that it's unreasonable to think it might burst into flames and kill you? or that maybe if you stop suddenly there's nothing to keep you from becoming forcibly aware of gravity and the motion (or relative stillness) of the earth and any attached trees?

it's really not rocket science. (well. it might be in the case of cars...)

{Off-topic - Hidden - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : {Off-topic - Hidden - Adminnemooseus}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Monk, posted 11-01-2005 9:33 AM Monk has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by NosyNed, posted 11-01-2005 10:39 AM macaroniandcheese has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 12254
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 12 of 22 (255981)
11-01-2005 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by berberry
11-01-2005 2:00 AM


Re: American Conservative stuff from another topic
I clicked on the initial link to the magazine here
and was intrigued yet appalled by the article warning of the ineveitable conflict with China. The basic advice given was that we should stay out of Asias sphere of influence as the third one who holds the coats while other powers squawbble, but the consensus was that a future conflict with China seems inevitable based on current U.S. strategies.

This nation does not need to go down like that, and I wonder if any of the voices of reason are aware of such realities?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by berberry, posted 11-01-2005 2:00 AM berberry has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Chiroptera, posted 11-01-2005 10:37 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 13 of 22 (255987)
11-01-2005 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Monk
11-01-2005 9:33 AM


Dangers
Cigarette smoking is a good example. I think it is a farce for individuals to continue to sue cigarette manufacturer's for a product they readily admit is dangerous.

Only after decades of lying and publishing misinformation did the "readily" admit anything.

Safety issues can go to extremes but we can thank Ralph for first bringing the topic of consumer safety to national attention.

Right on. The continued avoidence of safty issues decades later is an example of where government regulation is necessary. SUV's were, for years, not required to meet car safty standards so the manufacuter's didn't.

Finally, as the public becomes more aware they are stepping up to the issue.

{Off-topic - Hidden - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : {Off-topic - Hidden - Adminnemooseus}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Monk, posted 11-01-2005 9:33 AM Monk has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6532
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 14 of 22 (255991)
11-01-2005 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Phat
11-01-2005 10:17 AM


Not to derail the thread....
...but just recently The Nation had an article about the conservatives' latest attempt to restart the cold war with China.


"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Phat, posted 11-01-2005 10:17 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 15 of 22 (255996)
11-01-2005 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by macaroniandcheese
11-01-2005 10:11 AM


Cars
Forty years ago companies like Volvo put seat belts in all their cars. It took regulations for others to do so.

It is inherently dangerous to drive a car but to produce a product that you know is more dangerous than it has to be is unacceptable.

I agree that expecting that people can carry on without any responsibility for themselves is a flaw in the attitudes that we (and the courts) have but that doesn't mean that a manufacturer should ship a flawed product even if the customer doesn't require an improvement. The auto manufacture's are one example of egregiously careless (even willfully evil) behavior.

Many people are, indeed, short sighted and even stupid. However, the cost of their stupid behaviour is born by society at large so society at large should attempt to mitigate the stupidity.

{Off-topic - Hidden - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : {Off-topic - Hidden - Adminnemooseus}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-01-2005 10:11 AM macaroniandcheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-01-2005 10:48 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019