Socratic discussion of Conservative Values

[Makalakumu]

A socratic discussion is not a debate. A socratic discussion is a discussion used to come to a deeper understanding of a topic. I am interested in learning more about conservative values. My fear is that many of my current beliefs are based off of misconceptions so I am looking for the word straight from the horses mouth. Please, do not use this thread to bash conservative values. Feel free to start a new thread off of anything posted.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Makalakumu]

This is my current understanding of conservative values in a nutshell.

1. Small government in order to protect individual freedom.
2. A citizen should be held accountable for every decision they make.
3. A citizen must work for a living.
4. Safety nets only enable and do not teach a person how to live.
5. The economic market is more efficient then the government as performing social change.
6. The traditional values of this country are christian based.

Feel free to add to my list or expound on any point. If I have misrepresented conservatism, please enlighten.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Tgace]

Beliefs and attitudes about things like God and country (patriotism), family, faith, work, morality, and the role and function of government are what separate conservatives from liberals. There is a spectrum of beliefs along the political continuum among conservatives, so it’s a mistake to paint all conservatives with a broad brush. Too many (predominately young) people let the media, TV and Hollywood do their thinking for them. Until they have children and they begin to discover that maybe their conservative parents (or grandparents) might have known a thing or two about what makes people happy and able to lead successful and productive lives.

Conservatives dont want the government intruding into every aspect of their lives, telling you what to think, what to drive, how to spend or invest your money (what little they leave you), what you can and cant do with your own property, what to eat, how much you should weigh, which doctor you can see … the list goes on infinitely.

 

[OULobo]

I think that these particular labels are becoming more and more outdated. While they are still sufficient now, there is a growing group of younger individuals (maturing gen X and new gen Y) that would be considered liberal, but have adopted many of the traditional conservative values.

 

[psi_radar]

Also, although smaller government might be a tenet of conservatism, or for simplicity's sake, the republican party, it's not a motivator in reality. Republicans are just as eager to spend our budget--and beyond--as well as create new branches of government--Department of Homeland Security--as liberals, or (so we're clear who I'm talking about) democrats. Typically the spending focus is on different areas--liberals want to spend money on social programs, while conservatives spend money on the military, law enforcement, and business development.

Libertarians are the only party I know of who preach and practice efforts toward smaller government, though there might be other fringe elements who do the same.

 

[Makalakumu]

Also, although smaller government might be a tenet of conservatism, or for simplicity's sake, the republican party, it's not a motivator in reality. Republicans are just as eager to spend our budget--and beyond--as well as create new branches of government--Department of Homeland Security--as liberals, or (so we're clear who I'm talking about) democrats. Typically the spending focus is on different areas--liberals want to spend money on social programs, while conservatives spend money on the military, law enforcement, and business development.

Okay.

So you are saying that my belief that Republicans/Conservatives stand for fiscal responsibility is a misconception? Can anyone show how the Republicans fit this standard of fiscal responsibility? If not, should we redefine our beliefs about the Republican party - they are not fiscally responsible?

Perhaps "responsible" is the wrong term. A bit inflamitory. I'm not sure what to replace it with though...

 

[psi_radar]

Let me clarify my position:

I think the Republicans in recent years have mistaken smaller government with decreasing taxes vis a vis Reagan's trickle-down economics. While income decreases, expenditures increase in some areas (military, etc.) while decreasing elsewhere (department of the interior, social programs) generally leaving a moderate increase in budget.

To the republican's credit, they usually have a goal in mind with these huge budgets. Reagan went over the top in military spending to the point that the Russians simply couldn't keep up anymore. Thus the end of the cold war.
The current Bush has his "War on Terrorism." However you feel about this war, all must agree it's expensive.

Also, the way government is structured, it's hard to make sweeping changes in the short terms of office our politicians hold at the executive and legislative level. Our founding fathers established the checks-and-balances system so that government is purposefully slow and indecisive.

On a more general theme of governmental economics, remember that politicians get to be where they are by compromising and dealing with other politicians, which doesn't encourage the dismantling of government systems or the lessening of budgets. You get where you want to be by promising MORE pork, not less. Because in the end, all politicians buy votes by promising goods to their constituents. At the local level, they get funding for community centers and parking garages. At a state level, they can promise bridges and education, plus contracts for large revenue and job-producing corporations. At the Fed level, the same, only on a larger scale. Listen to any campaign or State of the Union speech--they'll promise all these new fantastic programs and initiatives, as well as a tax cut. Add 2 new burdens to the budget, then decrease revenue. Crazy, but it buys votes.

You wouldn't manage your own finances this way. By the way, if you think I'm nuts, I've witnessed the wheeling and dealing in person--I worked in state government as a press secretary for two years. An eye opening experience.

OK, that was coming close to a rant, hope I reined it in well enough.

 

[Makalakumu]

Beliefs and attitudes about things like God and country (patriotism), family, faith, work, morality, and the role and function of government are what separate conservatives from liberals.

What is a conservative definition of patriotism? I am way too biased to take a stab at this, so please enlighten.

OK, that was coming close to a rant, hope I reined it in well enough.

It was fine. To stay in a socratic format, though, disputation of a claim is not really allowed unless you think it is a misconception of an actual conservative value. From my point of view, I think that conservatives do believe that they are being fiscally responsible. Is this a misconception on my part?

The purpose in this Socratic format is to come to a deeper understanding of conservative beliefs. So if anyone can help out and elucidate why republicans consider themselves to be fiscally conservative, that would be great. This has been an interesting discussion so far. I hope everyone is okay with trying to stay focused on that. If someone presents something that is a misconception of a conservative belief, please correct.

Ender and Mistermike, where are you?

 

[michaeledward]

Beliefs and attitudes about things like God and country (patriotism), family, faith, work, morality, and the role and function of government are what separate conservatives from liberals.

Please help me understand.

What exact 'Belief' and 'Attitude' about God separates liberals from conservatives?
How does a conservative express their beliefs and attitudes about patriotism that is different than a liberal?
How is a conservative family different from a liberal one?
What uniqueness about faith separates a liberal from a conservative?
How does a liberal point of view affect a persons work life that is different from what a conservative presents?
What are the moral differences between a liberal and conservative?

Now, when you get to 'role and function of government', there may be some differences we can discuss. But as with the other attributes you say separate liberals from conservatives, help me understand what you think the conservative view is.

Thanks, Mike

 

[Touch Of Death]

If you ask, what about the weak, the helpless, and the small? A conservative smiles and says F*** 'em all.
Sadly, I did not write this poem. Its off of "small parts, isolated, and destroyed" by No Means NO; I did, however, take a few liberties. Oddly enough, so do the conservatives %-}
Sean

 

[psi_radar]

It was fine. To stay in a socratic format, though, disputation of a claim is not really allowed unless you think it is a misconception of an actual conservative value. From my point of view, I think that conservatives do believe that they are being fiscally responsible. Is this a misconception on my part?

They may state they're fiscally responsible; if you choose to believe them, then it's a misconception on your part. I take fiscal conservatism to mean in the most basic sense, staying within budgets and minimizing expenditures wherever possible. If this is accepted as a universal definition, then no, on a federal level conservative politicos are not fiscal conservatives, especially where foreign policy is concerned.

 

[Makalakumu]

So, if conservative politicos are not fically conservative, then their spending all comes down to priorities. I know the liberal priorities pretty well What are the conservative priorities? Why do conservatives think that stuff is important for the country?

 

[psi_radar]

I'd say consolidation and preservation of wealth at a class level is certainly a motive, as is control, both foreign and domestic. At a policy level, support for legislation that reinforces their belief system. But I'm getting tired of hearing myself talk. Anyone else?

 

[Tgace]

Patriotism differences at the root as I see it, starts with hypnenation. X-American this and X-American that, each with their social agenda and policy/law changes. Just being an American and working for a common goal never seems to be good enough.

 

[michaeledward]

Patriotism differences at the root as I see it, starts with hypnenation. X-American this and X-American that, each with their social agenda and policy/law changes. Just being an American and working for a common goal never seems to be good enough.

So, have we eliminated from the differences between conseravtive and liberal the other attributes? God, family, faith, work, morality.

The difference between liberal and conservatism starts with identifying ones-self as part of a sub-set of Americans, who may have shared experiences and goals. I am extrapolating here, but are you saying that African-Americans, because they as a subset of citizens desire political change contributes to the fact that they are liberal, rather than conservative?

What then is the conservative 'common goal'?

 

[Tgace]

No...I just started with patriotism because I dont like spending so much time discussing politics on a martial arts forum....

The difference starts when you identitfy yourself more with your special interest than you do with your fellow Americans...Im through with these politics threads...back to martial arts politics for me.

 

[Makalakumu]

No...I just started with patriotism because I dont like spending so much time discussing politics on a martial arts forum....

The difference starts when you identitfy yourself more with your special interest than you do with your fellow Americans...Im through with these politics threads...back to martial arts politics for me.

You know, fighting for you believe in, through the avenue of politics is very much a part of what martial arts is all about. There is a scholarly aspect of martial arts that is very important and the whole concept of honing the weapons of your mind parellels the concept of developing your external weapons. I discuss politics quite a bit. It is a part of my life and I have been very active in my home town. I have to say, though, discussing politics with Martial Artists is a special thing because the what I mentioned above. Don't give up!

Back on topic...

As far as my understanding goes, the conservative environmental policy is to let the states make decisions regarding their environments. That would account for the dismantling of the federal EPA by the Bush administration. Can anyone explain why giving states sole rights to decide what is right for the environment is better then having a federal agency overlooking the environment of the country?

upnorthkyosa

 

[MisterMike]

You know, fighting for you believe in, through the avenue of politics is very much a part of what martial arts is all about. There is a scholarly aspect of martial arts that is very important and the whole concept of honing the weapons of your mind parellels the concept of developing your external weapons. I discuss politics quite a bit. It is a part of my life and I have been very active in my home town. I have to say, though, discussing politics with Martial Artists is a special thing because the what I mentioned above. Don't give up!

Back on topic...

As far as my understanding goes, the conservative environmental policy is to let the states make decisions regarding their environments. That would account for the dismantling of the federal EPA by the Bush administration. Can anyone explain why giving states sole rights to decide what is right for the environment is better then having a federal agency overlooking the environment of the country?

upnorthkyosa

I think because local control is always better than national control.

If the Fed restrictions became to great, the states could do nothing. If there are looser or broader restrictions by the feds, the states can take it upon themselves to regulate more closely.

It's like whittling, once you carve off too much, you can't put it back on.

 

[michaeledward]

I think because local control is always better than national control.

If the Fed restrictions became to great, the states could do nothing. If there are looser or broader restrictions by the feds, the states can take it upon themselves to regulate more closely.

It's like whittling, once you carve off too much, you can't put it back on.

What about items that cross local boundaries?

For instance, the asthma incidence in New England is higher than anywhere else in the country; especially among children. There is some speculation that this could be caused by the microscopic particulates getting into the air from powerplants in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Massachusetts does not have the ability to affect regulation from these power plants.

This is just one example of where local control breaks down.

Mike

 

[MisterMike]

What about items that cross local boundaries?

For instance, the asthma incidence in New England is higher than anywhere else in the country; especially among children. There is some speculation that this could be caused by the microscopic particulates getting into the air from powerplants in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Massachusetts does not have the ability to affect regulation from these power plants.

This is just one example of where local control breaks down.

Mike

That is an issue of one state dumping on another. To me that should be handled by the feds if an agreement between those 2 states cannot be made.