9/11> a discussion

[sophist]

Should be noted that excess spending isn't republican like at all, neither is pro religious legislation (I feel the repub party is completely hijacked by the religious right) and if anything I think Bush wasn't even close to what a republican should be in terms of values and beliefs.  I merely see him as a cluster fuck of the religious right, which disregards the real tenants set forth by John Stuart Mill.  Real conservatism is based off of Utilitarianism.  The people who run the repubs now have shamed the party.  Real Conservatism can be found in the words of John Locke as well as Lincoln. 

Gotta run.  Good chatting Ikki. 

peace. 

[Hicks]

Well they sure as hell aren't liberals!   :wink:

Catch ya later phan. 

[sophist]

That would be an insult to many to lump them into such a category.  I would called them "social" conservatives, which I believe is the popular term.  Anyways, not my cup of tea.  I'll let this thread slide back into topic. 

[/thread jack]

[Guyute]

I would say excess spending isn't conservative at all.  Every republican president for since WWII has been a part of it, especially since Nixon.

[Hicks]

Paul Krugman lays it down:

Same Old Party
By PAUL KRUGMAN

There have been a number of articles recently that portray President Bush as someone who strayed from the path of true conservatism. Republicans, these articles say, need to return to their roots.

Well, I don't know what true conservatism is, but while doing research for my forthcoming book I spent a lot of time studying the history of the American political movement that calls itself conservatism — and Mr. Bush hasn't strayed from the path at all. On the contrary, he's the very model of a modern movement conservative.

For example, people claim to be shocked that Mr. Bush cut taxes while waging an expensive war. But Ronald Reagan also cut taxes while embarking on a huge military buildup.

People claim to be shocked by Mr. Bush's general fiscal irresponsibility. But conservative intellectuals, by their own account, abandoned fiscal responsibility 30 years ago. Here's how Irving Kristol, then the editor of The Public Interest, explained his embrace of supply-side economics in the 1970s: He had a "rather cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit and other monetary or fiscal problems" because "the task, as I saw it, was to create a new majority, which evidently would mean a conservative majority, which came to mean, in turn, a Republican majority — so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government."

People claim to be shocked by the way the Bush administration outsourced key government functions to private contractors yet refused to exert effective oversight over these contractors, a process exemplified by the failed reconstruction of Iraq and the Blackwater affair.

But back in 1993, Jonathan Cohn, writing in The American Prospect, explained that "under Reagan and Bush, the ranks of public officials necessary to supervise contractors have been so thinned that the putative gains of contracting out have evaporated. Agencies have been left with the worst of both worlds — demoralized and disorganized public officials and unaccountable private contractors."

People claim to be shocked by the Bush administration's general incompetence. But disinterest in good government has long been a principle of modern conservatism. In "The Conscience of a Conservative," published in 1960, Barry Goldwater wrote that "I have little interest in streamlining government or making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size."

People claim to be shocked that the Bush Justice Department, making a mockery of the Constitution, issued a secret opinion authorizing torture despite instructions by Congress and the courts that the practice should stop. But remember Iran-Contra? The Reagan administration secretly sold weapons to Iran, violating a legal embargo, and used the proceeds to support the Nicaraguan contras, defying an explicit Congressional ban on such support.

Oh, and if you think Iran-Contra was a rogue operation, rather than something done with the full knowledge and approval of people at the top — who were then protected by a careful cover-up, including convenient presidential pardons — I've got a letter from Niger you might want to buy.

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration's efforts to disenfranchise minority groups, under the pretense of combating voting fraud. But Reagan opposed the Voting Rights Act, and as late as 1980 he described it as "humiliating to the South."

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration's attempts — which, for a time, were all too successful — to intimidate the press. But this administration's media tactics, and to a large extent the people implementing those tactics, come straight out of the Nixon administration. Dick Cheney wanted to search Seymour Hersh's apartment, not last week, but in 1975. Roger Ailes, the president of Fox News, was Nixon's media adviser.

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration's attempts to equate dissent with treason. But Goldwater — who, like Reagan, has been reinvented as an icon of conservative purity but was a much less attractive figure in real life — staunchly supported Joseph McCarthy, and was one of only 22 senators who voted against a motion censuring the demagogue.

Above all, people claim to be shocked by the Bush administration's authoritarianism, its disdain for the rule of law. But a full half-century has passed since The National Review proclaimed that "the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail," and dismissed as irrelevant objections that might be raised after "consulting a catalogue of the rights of American citizens, born Equal" — presumably a reference to the document known as the Constitution of the United States.

Now, as they survey the wreckage of their cause, conservatives may ask themselves: "Well, how did we get here?" They may tell themselves: "This is not my beautiful Right." They may ask themselves: "My God, what have we done?"

But their movement is the same as it ever was. And Mr. Bush is movement conservatism's true, loyal heir.

[rowjimmy]

[youtube=425,350][/youtube]
Interesting bit on Maher's show last week.

[sophist]

Paul Krugman lays it down:

I disagree with his theory that the best model of conservatism can be found in the 1970's-1980's.  The "return to roots" saying is an allusion to the fathers of conservatism, not the neo-cons that morphed the agenda in the 70's, who have done nothing but ruin the ideology in my opinion.  I would suggest Mr. KRUGMAN do some reading about John Stuart Mills, Russell Kirk, and David Hume, whom are all more intelligent and well rounded than the dopes that were creating fiscal/monetary policy for the republicans in the 70's and 80's.

Conservatism started as a economic policy to counter big budget spending of the government, and thus reduce the amount of Government purchases in the GDP equation.  Remember:
Y= C+I+G+NX

Where
C=consumption in the private sector
I= Investment&Savings in the public and private sector
G=government spending (i.e. Govt consumption)
NX= Net Exports (Exports - Imports)

By reducing the amount of government spending, you keep the money in the private sector (at the time of its creation, multinational corporations were few and far between).  So the individual could impact the economy by manipulating "C" or "I."  The concept was to "return to the status quo" and allow the individual more rights than the state.  I feel Mr. Edmund Burke describes this perfectly in his essay entitled:"Reflections on the Revolution in France"

It is to the property of the citizen, and not to the demands of the creditor of the state, that the first and original faith of civil society is pledged. The claim of the citizen is prior in time, paramount in title, superior in equity. The fortunes of individuals, whether possessed by acquisition or by descent or in virtue of a participation in the goods of some community, were no part of the creditor's security, expressed or implied...
The public, whether represented by a monarch or by a senate, can pledge nothing but the public estate; and it can have no public estate except in what it derives from a just and proportioned imposition upon the citizens at large.

Now you will also find that the original conservative movement did have critiques with regards to the East India Company, as it has been noted that it went from Independent Business to an Institution with imperialistic ambitions, that manipulated the English government and caused much suffering throughout the world.  I happen to agree with the critiques as they painted an accurate picture of how big business leads society down a dark path when economic incentives become imperialistic.  Why do you think England acted in the manner in which they did during the 1700's and 1800's?  The influence of business corrupted the government.     

The injection of social policies into the conservative party can be traced back to two roots.  Russell Kirk and John Stuart Mills, who each took a different path.  Kirk was a Christian, and is the root of the "Family Values Campaign."  Mills was of the Consequentialism school, which is a theory that states "the ends justify the means"(which is the philosophy I follow).  Basically, if we perceive some action to create "good" consequences, then it is moral (i.e. when two people fall in love regardless of sexual orientation).  The huge swell of religious conservatives can be traced back to Nixon and his "moral majority" rhetoric.  This soon became the base of the party, and is now the "face" of the party.  Like I stated, the roots of the ideology are quite different than what we see in modern America today.  It should be noted that Nixon didn't follow the philosophical points of Kirk, but none the less used morality as a means of scare tactics to gain votes, which is a tactic still used today. 

[susep]

Y= C+I+G+NX

Where
C=consumption in the private sector
I= Investment&Savings in the public and private sector
G=government spending (i.e. Govt consumption)
NX= Net Exports (Exports - Imports)

Does this give us the right to destroy other cultures?   

[sophist]

Does this give us the right to destroy other cultures?   

no. 
please read my whole post next time.  See this:

Now you will also find that the original conservative movement did have critiques with regards to the East India Company, as it has been noted that it went from Independent Business to an Institution with imperialistic ambitions, that manipulated the English government and caused much suffering throughout the world.  I happen to agree with the critiques as they painted an accurate picture of how big business leads society down a dark path when economic incentives become imperialistic.  Why do you think England acted in the manner in which they did during the 1700's and 1800's?  The influence of business corrupted the government.   

[susep]

The influence of business corrupted the government.   

It most certainly has as Eisenhower warned in '61:

[youtube=425,350]8y06NSBBRtY[/youtube]

[Hicks]

I disagree with his theory that the best model of conservatism can be found in the 1970's-1980's.  The "return to roots" saying is an allusion to the fathers of conservatism, not the neo-cons that morphed the agenda in the 70's, who have done nothing but ruin the ideology in my opinion.  I would suggest Mr. KRUGMAN do some reading about John Stuart Mills, Russell Kirk, and David Hume, whom are all more intelligent and well rounded than the dopes that were creating fiscal/monetary policy for the republicans in the 70's and 80's.

Conservatism started as a economic policy to counter big budget spending of the government, and thus reduce the amount of Government purchases in the GDP equation.  Remember:
Y= C+I+G+NX

Where
C=consumption in the private sector
I= Investment&Savings in the public and private sector
G=government spending (i.e. Govt consumption)
NX= Net Exports (Exports - Imports)

By reducing the amount of government spending, you keep the money in the private sector (at the time of its creation, multinational corporations were few and far between).  So the individual could impact the economy by manipulating "C" or "I."  The concept was to "return to the status quo" and allow the individual more rights than the state.  I feel Mr. Edmund Burke describes this perfectly in his essay entitled:"Reflections on the Revolution in France"

Now you will also find that the original conservative movement did have critiques with regards to the East India Company, as it has been noted that it went from Independent Business to an Institution with imperialistic ambitions, that manipulated the English government and caused much suffering throughout the world.  I happen to agree with the critiques as they painted an accurate picture of how big business leads society down a dark path when economic incentives become imperialistic.  Why do you think England acted in the manner in which they did during the 1700's and 1800's?  The influence of business corrupted the government.     

The injection of social policies into the conservative party can be traced back to two roots.  Russell Kirk and John Stuart Mills, who each took a different path.  Kirk was a Christian, and is the root of the "Family Values Campaign."  Mills was of the Consequentialism school, which is a theory that states "the ends justify the means"(which is the philosophy I follow).  Basically, if we perceive some action to create "good" consequences, then it is moral (i.e. when two people fall in love regardless of sexual orientation).  The huge swell of religious conservatives can be traced back to Nixon and his "moral majority" rhetoric.  This soon became the base of the party, and is now the "face" of the party.  Like I stated, the roots of the ideology are quite different than what we see in modern America today.  It should be noted that Nixon didn't follow the philosophical points of Kirk, but none the less used morality as a means of scare tactics to gain votes, which is a tactic still used today. 

hmmm, well Democrats controlled congress from the '50s-1994 and LBJ and JFK sure as hell weren't "conservative", so you really can't argue that the Conservative movement had any real power until Nixon.  I guess you could make a case for Eisenhower, but did anything actually happen in the '50s besides the Korean War?   :-D

Maybe the theorists like the ones you mentioned (which I admit I'm not familiar with) had good intentions but regardless of whether Nixon followed their doctrines closely or not, he was the end result of the conservative ideology.  If Nixon and Reagan weren't true "conservatives" and the term only applies to the theory in its hypothetical state and maybe Eisenhower then how useful it?

Even so, if they called themselves conservative and the vast majority of people accept this label, then I think we can apply the "If it walks like a duck. . ." rule and go ahead and call it conservatism because that is how our society as a whole conceptualizes it.

[sophist]

I agree with what you say, however, the term conservatism is vague in its definition, and has many forms.  I tend to define it by its origin, which many people fail to realize.  I actually had a similar discussion with my folks the other night. 

[navajo]

big gov't was not directly involved in 9/11, says chomsky.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/10/chomsky_on_911.html

[susep]

big gov't was not directly involved in 9/11, says chomsky.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/10/chomsky_on_911.html

he sounds so uninspired in this clip.  I've heard his view before on 9/11 and he himself is unconvincing.  Who cares he asks if it was an inside job or not?  He thinks conspiracists are diverting attention away from real issues when the events of 9/11 were the very catapult which triggered our current mess in the middle east.
its not so much big govt. as it is rogue members in the govt. domestic and foreign  past, present, and future.

[susep]

From this perspective, 9/11 acts as a catalyst towards a universal currency via electronic chipping.  Interesting mini-doc if your not familiar with the Federal Reserve Bank.  What I find most annoying is we're taxed = 1/3 of the year soley to pay off the interest incurred from the U.S. currency that is loaned to us from the Federal Reserve Bank.  Wtf?