14th August 2012

“Conservativism values hierarchy and tradition and rejects evidence-based reasoning in favor of arguments from authority. The imaginary god provides the perfect conservative authority; a completely evidence-free, ultimate authority.”

Amanda Marcotte

7 Responses to “14th August 2012”

  1. R J Says:

    ,,,,,,,,,,evidence free ???????? ……….

    that is a GREAT UNDERSTATEMENT !!!!!!!!

  2. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    Conservatism: a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes.

    Liberalism: a political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution.

    Constitutionalism: government in which power is distributed and limited by a system of laws that must be obeyed by the rulers.

    Where it all goes wrong is when Conservatism holds to outmoded thinking, is when Liberalism throws the baby out with the bath water(radical changes), and Constitutionalism institutes rules that rob individuals of their liberty.

    I am a fiscal conservative, I want to make sure our money is well spent, our resources well used. I am a social progressive and as such I’m very much interested in social progess through reforms.

    What makes me different is that I don’t think the government ought to be spending very much money on things that produce nothing.

    So bridges and roads I’m all for, foodstamps for people who would otherwise starve I’m all for, welfare for people who can’t work I’m all for.

    Where I get hung up is payments to able bodied citizens living generation after generation on public assistance, never working. Or low income individuals who use public assistance to augment their spending on luxury items.

    Think: Obesity rate among America’s poor. No other nation has the problem of obesity among their poor. No other nation has HDTVs, cars, cell phones, et cetera common among their poor.

    People should prefer to be off public assistance, not on it.

    I’m all for education as I think it brings about the appreciation of productive contribution.

    I don’t like Mitt Romney because I think he is more interested in being President as a personal legacy matter than to really serve as a public official interested in improving the lives of Americans.

    I don’t like Paul Ryan because he lacks an understanding that can only be gained from private sector experience. That and his budget ideas are absurd, his goals are fine, how to get there absurd.

    I don’t like Barack Obama because he is the classic lawyer unable to secure a position with a firm who chooses politics because it is lucrative.

    Four years from now it is not going to matter who got elected because economic conditions are going to continue to decline until someone comes along and protects out currency’s value, protects our markets (capitalism), and rejects corporatism. Neither major party candidate has any interest in this.

  3. Atheist MC Says:

    Sinjin: Your definition is of “small c” conservatism, exemplified by the British Conservative Party (mostly). What passes for conservativism in the US is a completely different animal as far as I can see. mainly because it is so firmly rooted in evangelical christianity.

  4. Jeff Says:

    Sinjin,

    I think you may have just showed a certain “fact-free” zone of American conservatism when it comes to the current president. Do you honestly think that as an African-American, Summa cum Laude graduate of Harvard Law and editor of the law review that he was “unable to secure a position with a firm”? The man made a series of SPECTACULARLY unsophisticated life choices that could not have been predicted to land him at 1600 Penn Ave by Nostradamus. In fact, taking a community organizing job on the south side of Chicago with a student debt that even HE admits was only paid off a few years prior his election to the Presidency must have been seen as ludicrous by any member of his class who was aware of it.

    Without an examination of his tax returns, I’m willing to bet even money that his wife earned more than he did until he took his seat in the Senate, and possibly until she took her LOA from her firm to move into the unpaid position in the White House. Con Law professors who double as State Reps don’t make all that much.

    That’s the real problem that I see with American conservatism. It currently lives in a fact-free zone, inaugurated by the tale of the “Cadillac driving welfare queen”, not a single example of which has EVER BEEN PRESENTED. Circa 1980, I believe.

  5. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    AMC if so, only since the inclusion of the Southern Democrat (Barry Goldwater 1964).

    It is the Southern Democrat that is the theological conservative. The origins of the Republican party are as a small party from the Northeast that is fiscally conservation and socially progressive: Think Teddy Roosevelt, Susan B. Anthony, Dwight Eisenhauer.

    The Republican party still hosts a variety of views and is most certainly not as you say all evangelical animals. Albeit the party is being dominated by the evangelical Southern Democrat/Confederates.

    I know this because I am a Republican, fiscally conservative, and socially progressive and active in the party.

    There are people that are conservative and not theologically conservative, or socially conservative. Just as there are progressives that are not spendthrifts.

  6. Jeff Says:

    BTW, I just checked the Obama’s biographies, and realized that they met when they were both associates at Sidley Austin in Chicago. He did get a position at a major firm.

  7. R J Says:

    SINJIN…………………….

    i dont like romney either.

    i think he wants to be president cuz

    the idea gives him a hard-on