The Future of Conservatism in America

[deleted3782]

What I said will happen. Wait, watch, and then remember this statement 4 years from now. It's not a conspiracy, it's reality, that's the premise of the party; they have 2 main types of voters, the wealthy who vote for fiscal issues, and social conservatives who vote for social issues. The social conservative base is rapidly growing and larger than the fiscal conservative base, and has been for awhile, as seen in the bans on gay marriage and adoption. 4 years from now, it is going to be these types of social issues that will drive the election and the GOP will press these issues over fiscal issues in hopes of gaining socially conservative liberals, like many blacks and latinos, to support their campaign, which is what happend with the gay marriage and adoption bans, who, for the most part, passed by very small margins.

It's not just a republican thing though, democrats will also be pushing the social movement as well, it's just they won't bring anger and hate to the campaign, while many GOP followers undoubtedly will, just like they did this year, but multiply that times 5.

It's a bit of a risk to construct a political party out of social conservatism...the candidates you bring forward have to be virtual saints, for it will be from them that stones are cast. The Sarah Palin's of the world, who's teenage daughters suddenly find themselves knocked up and unmarried, will be disqualified. They also run the risk of becoming a party built on hate, not acceptance.

I agree that the Republicans have abandoned the platform of fiscal conservatism, in practice but not in theory. They seemed a lot more comfortable in talking about "Joe Sixpack" and "Soccer Mom's" rather than skyrocketing debt and regulation/deregulation.

It will all be very interesting to see what is rebuilt...

 

[tripod]

I don't actually believe that there ever really was a conservative philosophy. The modern conservative movement was originally created to mask the greed and authoritarian beliefs of it's members. It is a psuedo philosophy at best, with charlatans like Ayn Rand writing a couple of works that seemed to somehow justify self centrism.

It's all really an elaborate conspiracy among the greedy and authoritarian types of people to say that they are conservative.

The movement has roots in the decline in power of the noble rulers.

Now obviously we are talking about American conservatism, but American conservatism is nothing more then the old European variety that began during the French revolution. The conservative movement in Europe is now quite different then what we have here in America. They've moved on, but the Yanks haven't.

Sadly, the conservative movement has aligned itself with corporations and the business from the very start here in America and won't be going anywhere as long as we buy products and services from corporations. As long as there is a stock market, we will always have conservatives... they invented that system and it does not exist without them.

Although... it is now DYING to infiltrate the Democratic party and leave the Republicans behind. Be vigilant and write emails to your local representative ESPECIALLY if they are a Democrat... they will actually have someone read them.

And let's vote out Burr in 2010.

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

It is a psuedo philosophy at best, with charlatans like Ayn Rand writing a couple of works that seemed to somehow justify self centrism.

Having been an Objectivist my entire adult life, this kinda irks me. Do you really think that she's a charlatan, or do you just disagree with her philosophy?

Why bring her into this?

 

[tripod]

Having been an Objectivist my entire adult life, this kinda irks me. Do you really think that she's a charlatan, or do you just disagree with her philosophy?

I am surprised that you didn't know that the modern conservative movement was based on objectivism.

I think that she is a Charlatan and I disagree strongly with he philosophy.

How the hell is objectivism not self centrism and ego centrism rolled up in one?

She has no philosophical accreditation and only took a few classes on philosophy in college.

Here is her view on the liquidation of American Indian land and identity. It is an excerpt from a speech that she gave at West Point in 1974:

They didn't have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using . . . . What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their 'right' to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent.

She is the fucking devil incarnate... shame on you for being an objectivist.

 

[JustAsking]

Having been an Objectivist my entire adult life, this kinda irks me. Do you really think that she's a charlatan, or do you just disagree with her philosophy?

Why bring her into this?

I think it is germaine. American Conservative philosophy wants to build an environment where an individual's competence, hard work, and the quality of the choices they make are the sole determinant of their success. It has an implicit notion that humans are perfectable and only occasionally stray away from a moral path. It also has an implicit notion that such a system can be built.

One can draw a connection between Objectivism and Free Market Capitalism. And one can draw a connection between Objectivism and an aversion to social welfare programs.

I think a kind of Objectivism is at the "ideal heart" of American Conservatism, but in practice this brand of conservatism has been exploited by lawmakers and corporations and turned into an evil twin of the actual ideal.

Objectivism also figures pretty well into Lakoff's "strict parent" narrative frame through which he figures that conservatives view the world.

Also, I agree that Ayn Rand was a charlatan who produced a basically nasty philosophy based on self-interest. At its best, it is still bad. When practiced by humans, it ends up being just a justification for selfishness and greed.

 

[artvandelay]

Conservatism isn't dead but neoconservatism is. They need to purge the extreme right from the party and they'll be fine.

 

[JustAsking]

It's a bit of a risk to construct a political party out of social conservatism...the candidates you bring forward have to be virtual saints, for it will be from them that stones are cast. The Sarah Palin's of the world, who's teenage daughters suddenly find themselves knocked up and unmarried, will be disqualified. They also run the risk of becoming a party built on hate, not acceptance.

I agree that the Republicans have abandoned the platform of fiscal conservatism, in practice but not in theory. They seemed a lot more comfortable in talking about "Joe Sixpack" and "Soccer Mom's" rather than skyrocketing debt and regulation/deregulation.

It will all be very interesting to see what is rebuilt...

I agree with you that the worst thing to base any political party on is social conservatism. That is just another name for imposing bogus religious morality on the whole of the populace through governmental force. Another word for that is 'theocracy', which is the one thing that the founding fathers wanted to be as far away from as possible. (Read The Handmaid's Tale)

What is worse, though is when you combine social conservatism with the second ingredient you mentioned, which is 'anti-intellectualism'. A government run by socially conservative Joe Sixpacks has to be the worst formula ever devised.

 

[tripod]

Conservatism isn't dead but neoconservatism is. They need to purge the extreme right from the party and they'll be fine.

Likewise the Democrats need to purge the Neo Liberals from their party... douches like Joe Loserman and Hillary Clinton.

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

I am surprised that you didn't know that the modern conservative movement was based on objectivism.

I think that she is a Charlatan and I disagree strongly with he philosophy.

How the hell is objectivism not self centrism and ego centrism rolled up in one?

She has no philosophical accreditation and only took a few classes on philosophy in college.

Here is her view on the liquidation of American Indian land and identity. It is an excerpt from a speech that she gave at West Point in 1974:

They didn't have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using . . . . What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their 'right' to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent.

She is the fucking devil incarnate... shame on you for being an objectivist.

Alright. Firstly, I'll go on the record that I am a cognitive objectivist, not a social objectivist. Having said that, I feel the need to defend Any Rand here. She may have been a racist, but that doesn't make her philosophies any less valid. She may not have had a PhD in Philosophy, but entire branches of modern philosopy, such as phenomology, have eminated from her brilliant work.

The the original conservative movement's polity that you are refering to was based on puritismism and congregationalism, having rejected britain's anglicanism. Republicanism came 'round much later -- after state religions were abolished. I really don't see the correlation between objectivist epistemology and the original conservative movement in colonial America--or the founding father's republicanism. Please explain this to me, especially how objectivist ego-centrism comes into play.

Her famous proof, below, shows that egoism excludes traditional republican altruism.

(1) |- man(x) <==> animal(x) & rational(x) [definition]
(2) |- man(y) [hypothesis]
(3) |- y = y [by Axiom of Identity]
(4) |- rational(y) [by (1) and (2)]
(5) |- knows(y, y=y) [by (3) and (4)]
(6) |- rational(y) & value(y, v) ==> v [Rational Value Theorem]
(7) |- egoist(x) <==> value(x, x = x) [definition of egoism]
(8) |- not(egoist(y)) ==> not(value(y, y = y)) [from (7) instantiating x = y]
(9) |- not(egoist(y)) ==> value(y, not(y = y)) [by not-propagation]
(10)|- not(egoist(y)) ==> not(y = y) [by (9) and (6)]
(11)|- not(egoist(y)) ==> false [by (10) and (3)]
(12)|- egoist(y) [by (11) ad absurdum]
(13)|- man(y) ==> egoist(y) [by (2) and (12) by ==> introduction]

Step 7 argues that Objectivism rejects any form of altruism (living for others or for society), which is the republican credo, but not necessarily the conservative credo.

The connection that you draw between objectivism and republicanism is unfair, and more appropriate for libertarianism--especially when you consider the GOP's new model of congregationalism. You can't compare America's republicanism to, say, the French revolution's républicanisme or Irish nationalist republicanism, or other social contracts that mandated canon and discouraged dictatorship. If anything, American republicanism has become the antithesis of it's classical origins. All I've heardfrom them lately is the "You betcha. We can do it together" rhetoric during the election campaign.

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

Also, I agree that Ayn Rand was a charlatan who produced a basically nasty philosophy based on self-interest. At its best, it is still bad. When practiced by humans, it ends up being just a justification for selfishness and greed.

I disagree. According to Rand, a man is an island. I'd add that islands can work together in harmony, peace, and for mutual benefit.

This seems like another unfair attack on one of history's greatest ontologists

 

[D_Bob_Crotchitch]

This election was a lot like the election of 1992. The economy was in a down cycle, the signs of recovery had not begun to show, and we were in Iraq at war. On the whole, the US public cares more about it's own personal comfort than anything else. So, they voted against the war and economic downturn. If it was death of conservatism as some claim, the anti-gay marriage measures would not have passed in states where Obama carried the vote.

 

[B_Nick4444]

On the whole, the US public cares more about it's own personal comfort than anything else. So, they voted against the war and economic downturn.

nail on the head!

 

[deleted15807]

Sadly, the conservative movement has aligned itself with corporations and the business from the very start here in America and won't be going anywhere as long as we buy products and services from corporations.

Exactly. The 'conservative movement' seems to revolve exclusively around giving business what it wants. As long as we give business what it wants only goodness and light will follow.

It is God​

the US public cares more about it's own personal comfort than anything else

That is objectivism

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

—Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged 35th anniversary edition
​

If it was death of conservatism as some claim, the anti-gay marriage measures would not have passed in states where Obama carried the vote.

No. The death of conservatism will not be swift. Death rarely is. It will be a long slow painful death. It still has many more people to kill and impoverish.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

The modern conservative movement was originally created to mask the greed and authoritarian beliefs of it's members.

nail on the head.

 

[deleted3782]

Alright. Firstly, I'll go on the record that I am a cognitive objectivist, not a social objectivist. Having said that, I feel the need to defend Any Rand here. She may have been a racist, but that doesn't make her philosophies any less valid. She may not have had a PhD in Philosophy, but entire branches of modern philosopy, such as phenomology, have eminated from her brilliant work.

The the original conservative movement's polity that you are refering to was based on puritismism and congregationalism, having rejected britain's anglicanism. Republicanism came 'round much later -- after state religions were abolished. I really don't see the correlation between objectivist epistemology and the original conservative movement in colonial America--or the founding father's republicanism. Please explain this to me, especially how objectivist ego-centrism comes into play.

Her famous proof, below, shows that egoism excludes traditional republican altruism.

(1) |- man(x) <==> animal(x) & rational(x) [definition]
(2) |- man(y) [hypothesis]
(3) |- y = y [by Axiom of Identity]
(4) |- rational(y) [by (1) and (2)]
(5) |- knows(y, y=y) [by (3) and (4)]
(6) |- rational(y) & value(y, v) ==> v [Rational Value Theorem]
(7) |- egoist(x) <==> value(x, x = x) [definition of egoism]
(8) |- not(egoist(y)) ==> not(value(y, y = y)) [from (7) instantiating x = y]
(9) |- not(egoist(y)) ==> value(y, not(y = y)) [by not-propagation]
(10)|- not(egoist(y)) ==> not(y = y) [by (9) and (6)]
(11)|- not(egoist(y)) ==> false [by (10) and (3)]
(12)|- egoist(y) [by (11) ad absurdum]
(13)|- man(y) ==> egoist(y) [by (2) and (12) by ==> introduction]

Step 7 argues that Objectivism rejects any form of altruism (living for others or for society), which is the republican credo, but not necessarily the conservative credo.

The connection that you draw between objectivism and republicanism is unfair, and more appropriate for libertarianism--especially when you consider the GOP's new model of congregationalism. You can't compare America's republicanism to, say, the French revolution's républicanisme or Irish nationalist republicanism, or other social contracts that mandated canon and discouraged dictatorship. If anything, American republicanism has become the antithesis of it's classical origins. All I've heardfrom them lately is the "You betcha. We can do it together" rhetoric during the election campaign.

You had me at Alright. :07:

 

[D_Bob_Crotchitch]

You should pay closer attention to who is surrounding Obama before you start saying one group favors business and another doesn't. Obama was surrounded today by the pro-auto industry governor of Michigan. Also, start digging into where those campaign contributions came from and you'll see huge business ties. Goldman Sachs alone gave his campaign over $799,000. The PAC for the UAW give him millions. Securities and Investment firms gave him over $12,000,000. Follow the money.

 

[B_Nick4444]

for the love of all that is good, right, and beautiful, listen to the man!

You should pay closer attention to who is surrounding Obama before you start saying one group favors business and another doesn't. Obama was surrounded today by the pro-auto industry governor of Michigan. Also, start digging into where those campaign contributions came from and you'll see huge business ties. Goldman Sachs alone gave his campaign over $799,000. The PAC for the UAW give him millions. Securities and Investment firms gave him over $12,000,000. Follow the money.

 

[D_Bob_Crotchitch]

The whole purpose of federally funded campaigns was to stop influence buying. It hasn't worked in a single campaign to date. argggggg

 

[Notaguru2]

Goldman Sachs alone gave his campaign over $799,000.

Public companies cannot contribute to political campaigns, nitwit. Nice try...

 

[D_Bob_Crotchitch]

Public companies cannot contribute to political campaigns, nitwit. Nice try...

NITWIT public companies contribute to PAC's and national party coffers. Nice dumbass try.