Three Pillars of Leftdom

[Razgovory]

That's not true. The American conservative movement does not look at the past as being better, with the exception of Pres Reagan's presidency.
It was the Republican party who fought to end slavery and aborted Pres Andrew Johnson's, a Dem, attempt to reinstate the southerner ex-confederates.
It was the Democratic party who oppoussed the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

Andrew Johnson was not a Dem when he was President, he ran with Abraham Lincoln against McClellan and the Dems.  And the Democratic Party both opposed and supported the Civil Rights movement.  The Democrats managed to be the party of Segregation AND Blacks which was a pretty impressive political juggling act you have to admit.  Anyway the split of Conservatives being mostly Republicans did not occur until much later so it really has nothing to do with the modern parties.  The Democrats wish their tent was as absurdly big as it once was.

Anyway he was talking about classic Burkean Conservative types not whatever modern American Conservatism is.

Truth be told the clarification of what Barrister said about slow evolutionary changes is something I find quite attractive.  Shelf said I was conservative in temperament if not politics, which I think is correct.

The Democratic party in the civil right era was complicated.  They essentially sacrificed political power to do the right thing, something they knew they were doing at the time.  It was in my opinion the right decision, after all what is the point of holding office if not to serve your people well?  I wonder if the GOP would be willing to make a similar sacrifice.

[alfred russel]

Truth be told the clarification of what Barrister said about slow evolutionary changes is something I find quite attractive.  Shelf said I was conservative in temperament if not politics, which I think is correct.

Does it really make sense though? I don't think conservatives have generally been for slow evolutionary changes. They are for the divine right of kings in one era, against gay marriage in another, etc. Slow evolutionary changes aren't the product of conservatives--but often the result of compromises with those wanting more extensive or rapid change. That doesn't seem like an endorsement of conservatives vs. liberals/labor/other opposition, but rather an endorsement of a balanced political approach.

The explosive excesses of the French Revolution that BB cites were to a certain extent driven by the existence of a conservative order with considerable power (originally inside france, later threatening a resurgence, and at all times threatening externally), putting in question the durability of the republic.

[Martinus]

Yeah. BB's point is a bit like arguing for the superiority of the brake pedal over the throttle pedal.

[The Brain]

I must brake you.

[Razgovory]

Truth be told the clarification of what Barrister said about slow evolutionary changes is something I find quite attractive.  Shelf said I was conservative in temperament if not politics, which I think is correct.

Does it really make sense though? I don't think conservatives have generally been for slow evolutionary changes. They are for the divine right of kings in one era, against gay marriage in another, etc. Slow evolutionary changes aren't the product of conservatives--but often the result of compromises with those wanting more extensive or rapid change. That doesn't seem like an endorsement of conservatives vs. liberals/labor/other opposition, but rather an endorsement of a balanced political approach.

The explosive excesses of the French Revolution that BB cites were to a certain extent driven by the existence of a conservative order with considerable power (originally inside france, later threatening a resurgence, and at all times threatening externally), putting in question the durability of the republic.

I think he means changes inside the existing framework rather then revolutionary changes into the uncharted.  Not only are changes within an existing framework less violent, but they are more likely to succeed and become permanent.

[Syt]

With three pillars of leftdom and three pillars of rightdom we only need one more for the Seven Pillars of Wisdom!

With the three pillars of leftdom and the three pillars of rightdom I fear we will still need seven more pillars for the seven pillars of wisdom. 

[CountDeMoney]

No, the best are the true (classical, if you will) conservatives.  They figure everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.

Doesn't it sort of discredit those sorts of conservatives that they really came to the forefront in an era that we now recognize as really sucking compared to current times?

"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.", has been wrong for hundreds of years; sure that doesn't exactly prove it is wrong today, but a historical pattern has developed....

"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up"...when it's just about them, that is.
Those happen to be the same people that resisted abolition, desegregation, enfranchisement and suffrage...you know, everything that contributes to an egalitarian society.
Which is why they're assfuck douchebags.

[Tamas]

No, the best are the true (classical, if you will) conservatives.  They figure everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.

Doesn't it sort of discredit those sorts of conservatives that they really came to the forefront in an era that we now recognize as really sucking compared to current times?

"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.", has been wrong for hundreds of years; sure that doesn't exactly prove it is wrong today, but a historical pattern has developed....

"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up"...when it's just about them, that is.
Those happen to be the same people that resisted abolition, desegregation, enfranchisement and suffrage...you know, everything that contributes to an egalitarian society.
Which is why they're assfuck douchebags.

Yep. Conservatives, by their very definition are the group of people whose views are destined to lose to progress. ALL human progress has happened against the wishes of the conservatives of their times.

[DGuller]

That's not true. The American conservative movement does not look at the past as being better, with the exception of Pres Reagan's presidency.
It was the Republican party who fought to end slavery and aborted Pres Andrew Johnson's, a Dem, attempt to reinstate the southerner ex-confederates.
It was the Democratic party who oppoussed the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

This is the classic case of lying by omission.  Both of these facts are correct if you go by party labels, and not what these parties actually stood for.  If you pay a little closer attention, for both of these issues and stances, the Republicans in question would now be classified as Democrats, and the Democrats of the time would now be classified as Republicans.  I've called you out on this blatant disingenuity before, and I have no doubt I'll have to do it again in the future, but here we are.

[DGuller]

The Democrats wish their tent was as absurdly big as it once was.

No, not really.  Parties mean something beyond the letter after politicians' names.  Having a tent big enough to contain people with wildly different goals and values is beyond pointless, and is doomed to blow up much like the Democratic party of the civil rights era.  We can have a single Republicrat party tomorrow that would control all three branches of government and 100% of Congress, so what would that change?  Exactly nothing at all, except that instead of what we call hyperpartisanship now we will have what we would call hyperfactionalism.  Parties are just vehicles for people with similar values and objectives to band together for coordinating their political power, so by definition there is such a concept as balance between size of the tent and the tent's homogeneity.

[Eddie Teach]

That's not true. The American conservative movement does not look at the past as being better, with the exception of Pres Reagan's presidency.
It was the Republican party who fought to end slavery and aborted Pres Andrew Johnson's, a Dem, attempt to reinstate the southerner ex-confederates.
It was the Democratic party who oppoussed the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

This is the classic case of lying by omission.  Both of these facts are correct if you go by party labels, and not what these parties actually stood for.  If you pay a little closer attention, for both of these issues and stances, the Republicans in question would now be classified as Democrats, and the Democrats of the time would now be classified as Republicans.  I've called you out on this blatant disingenuity before, and I have no doubt I'll have to do it again in the future, but here we are.

Disingenuity on your part as well. Pro-slavery or pro-segregation stances would make one a pariah in both parties today.

[alfred russel]

This is the classic case of lying by omission.  Both of these facts are correct if you go by party labels, and not what these parties actually stood for.  If you pay a little closer attention, for both of these issues and stances, the Republicans in question would now be classified as Democrats, and the Democrats of the time would now be classified as Republicans.  I've called you out on this blatant disingenuity before, and I have no doubt I'll have to do it again in the future, but here we are.

That is overly simple too. The one thing that has been consistent since 1860 is that Republicans are the party of big business, Democrats are not.

Prior to roughly WWII, the agrarian south didn't have so much interest in big business, while the trade oriented north did. This reinforced the regionalism of the parties.

[Siege]

That's not true. The American conservative movement does not look at the past as being better, with the exception of Pres Reagan's presidency.
It was the Republican party who fought to end slavery and aborted Pres Andrew Johnson's, a Dem, attempt to reinstate the southerner ex-confederates.
It was the Democratic party who oppoussed the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

Andrew Johnson was not a Dem when he was President, he ran with Abraham Lincoln against McClellan and the Dems.  And the Democratic Party both opposed and supported the Civil Rights movement.  The Democrats managed to be the party of Segregation AND Blacks which was a pretty impressive political juggling act you have to admit.  Anyway the split of Conservatives being mostly Republicans did not occur until much later so it really has nothing to do with the modern parties.  The Democrats wish their tent was as absurdly big as it once was.

Anyway he was talking about classic Burkean Conservative types not whatever modern American Conservatism is.

Truth be told the clarification of what Barrister said about slow evolutionary changes is something I find quite attractive.  Shelf said I was conservative in temperament if not politics, which I think is correct.

The Democratic party in the civil right era was complicated.  They essentially sacrificed political power to do the right thing, something they knew they were doing at the time.  It was in my opinion the right decision, after all what is the point of holding office if not to serve your people well?  I wonder if the GOP would be willing to make a similar sacrifice.

The GOP will never do the right thing to serve the people well.
The GOP is in the hands of special interest, just like the Dems, and the GOP does not care about the conservative values, or liberty, or our constitutional republic.
The GOP is a tool of the corporations and the chamber of commerce, just like the Dems.
Different corporations perhaps, but not much difference.

[Siege]

That's not true. The American conservative movement does not look at the past as being better, with the exception of Pres Reagan's presidency.
It was the Republican party who fought to end slavery and aborted Pres Andrew Johnson's, a Dem, attempt to reinstate the southerner ex-confederates.
It was the Democratic party who oppoussed the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

This is the classic case of lying by omission.  Both of these facts are correct if you go by party labels, and not what these parties actually stood for.  If you pay a little closer attention, for both of these issues and stances, the Republicans in question would now be classified as Democrats, and the Democrats of the time would now be classified as Republicans.  I've called you out on this blatant disingenuity before, and I have no doubt I'll have to do it again in the future, but here we are.

Sure, because the Dems get to re-write their history and are forgiven for all their racism and discrimination.

[Siege]

This is the classic case of lying by omission.  Both of these facts are correct if you go by party labels, and not what these parties actually stood for.  If you pay a little closer attention, for both of these issues and stances, the Republicans in question would now be classified as Democrats, and the Democrats of the time would now be classified as Republicans.  I've called you out on this blatant disingenuity before, and I have no doubt I'll have to do it again in the future, but here we are.

That is overly simple too. The one thing that has been consistent since 1860 is that Republicans are the party of big business, Democrats are not.

Prior to roughly WWII, the agrarian south didn't have so much interest in big business, while the trade oriented north did. This reinforced the regionalism of the parties.

Every billionaire I can name is a Dem.