Who are the 'REAL' conservatives?

[Mountain Man]

...an example of pseudo-conservatism's difficulty with empirical reasoning, as stated.

What Sam is trying to say is that "real" conservatives agree with liberals. Heck, I still remember that time on the old tWeb when he tried to convince us that Obama was really a Reagan-esque fiscal conservative.

[Sam]

Yeah, Sam's position, IIRC, has been summed up in the statement in that article - "Just as swiftly as right-wing supporters celebrated the find, liberal critics were quick to point out that Chivers never said the bombs were the same WMDs that Bush described; they were from the 1980s and early 1990s."

Saddam could have averted war by fully opening up his facilities for inspection and not playing cat and mouse games with the inspectors.

And even the liberals of the day were touting the danger Iraq presented with WMD.

You remember less correctly than you should: the bulk of time spent discussing this last time was refuting your implication, reasserted here, that Hussein did not "open up his facilities" to weapons inspectors prior to the Iraq War. He did and weapons inspectors were in the process of verifying that Hussein lacked an active weapons program when the Bush administration led the invasion into Iraq. This bit of diversion serves as an example of pseudo-conservatism's difficulty with empirical reasoning, as stated.

—Sam

[Cow Poke]

Probably because of recent reports that we really did find chemical weapons stockpiles in Iraq.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articl...-found-in-iraq

The sticking point, of course, is that some people claim these were abandoned stockpiles as opposed to an active program, never mind the fact that the weapons were still very useable and very dangerous.

Yeah, Sam's position, IIRC, has been summed up in the statement in that article - "Just as swiftly as right-wing supporters celebrated the find, liberal critics were quick to point out that Chivers never said the bombs were the same WMDs that Bush described; they were from the 1980s and early 1990s."

Saddam could have averted war by fully opening up his facilities for inspection and not playing cat and mouse games with the inspectors.

And even the liberals of the day were touting the danger Iraq presented with WMD.

[Mountain Man]

This looks like something written in Chinese and transliterated into Engrish.

I'd like to see that "recent poll", please.


ETA: I think I found it...

And I think this is what you were trying to say:

Source: Politico

In a Public Mind poll from Fairleigh Dickinson University released Wednesday, more than half of Republicans — 51 percent — and half of those who watch Fox News — 52 percent — say that they believe it to be “definitely true” or “probably true” that American forces found an active weapons of mass destruction program in Iraq.

© Copyright Original Source

Interestingly, however, it ALSO says 46 percent of independents... who reported to watch CNN ...answered similarly.

Probably because of recent reports that we really did find chemical weapons stockpiles in Iraq.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articl...-found-in-iraq

The sticking point, of course, is that some people claim these were abandoned stockpiles as opposed to an active program, never mind the fact that the weapons were still very useable and very dangerous.

[Mountain Man]

Krugman's article today regarding the new GOP-led Congress hits new-style conservatism's ideology pretty square on the head.

Very first sentence of the article:

"Many of us in the econ biz were wondering how the new leaders of Congress would respond to the sharp increase in American economic growth that, we now know, began last spring."

When an opinion piece starts off with such a blatantly (and I assume deliberately) misleading statement, you know there's no point reading the rest of the editorial. I assume he's talking about GDP, and this "sharp increase" he's talking about that started last spring when growth was negative only gets the figure barely to the point it was two-years before Obama took office, and even 5% is not as rosey a figure as Democrats want us to think:

Source: Fortune.com

The economy is certainly better than it was just a year ago. But does it really feel 5% good? So far this year, the U.S. labor market has created an average of 240,000 jobs a month. That’s impressive, but it’s not 5% impressive. An economy growing consistently at 5% would be creating more like 575,000 jobs a month. We are a considerable distance away from that. And 5% GDP growth would put the U.S. in spitting distance to China, which, despite recent growing pains, is undergoing a major economic transformation.

And that’s the problem. A major contributor to the third quarter GDP growth figure was business from abroad. A smaller trade deficit—more exports and fewer imports—added 0.8 percentage points to GDP in the third quarter, or nearly 20% of the growth. It’s hard to believe the U.S.’s good trade news will continue, especially once we get into 2015.

First of all, the rest of the world’s economies appear to be slowing. And while the U.S. has continued to grow despite that, it’s hard to believe we can keep growing, especially at 5%, if the rest of the world is shrinking.

The dollar could pose an even larger problem. Over the past six months, the U.S. dollar has been up by more than 12% compared to a basket of international currencies. That makes it harder for U.S. companies to sell their goods overseas. That was a little bit of a drag in the third quarter, when the dollar started to appreciate, but it could turn into a major headwind in 2015.

http://fortune.com/2014/12/23/dollar-gdp-growth/

© Copyright Original Source

This is in addition to the fact that many experts do not believe that GDP is an indicator of overall economic health ("[GDP does] not reveal anything about the structure of the economy or its stage of development." -Huffington Post), and it certainly doesn't put more money in the pocket of the average American who is being held back by a continually rising cost of living, stagnant wages, a shrinking job market, and the lowest labor participation rate since Jimmy Carter. Tell the average American that there has been a "sharp increase in American economic growth," and he'll rightly laugh in your face.

I don't know if pointing all this out makes me a "real conservative" in your eyes or not, and frankly, I don't care.

[Cow Poke]

51% of Republicans recently polled still believe there an active weapons program was found by American forces during the Iraq War.

This looks like something written in Chinese and transliterated into Engrish.

I'd like to see that "recent poll", please.


ETA: I think I found it...

And I think this is what you were trying to say:

Source: Politico

In a Public Mind poll from Fairleigh Dickinson University released Wednesday, more than half of Republicans — 51 percent — and half of those who watch Fox News — 52 percent — say that they believe it to be “definitely true” or “probably true” that American forces found an active weapons of mass destruction program in Iraq.

© Copyright Original Source

Interestingly, however, it ALSO says 46 percent of independents... who reported to watch CNN ...answered similarly.

[Epoetker]

The "American Conservative" has been a laughingstock of traditionalists, neoreactionaries, and ethnonationalists, i.e.: the only recent conservative movements worth talking about, for quite a while.

[Jedidiah]

Cerealman, where are you?

Don't encourage him. Look how long it took to get the last one to stop.

[Darth Executor]

I'd say the difference between old-style conservatism and new-style conservatism (sometimes misnamed neoconservatism, which is a specific foreign-policy prioritized subset of new-style conservatism) has to do with three principle elements: change, empiricism, and tradition. Old-style conservatism (which is currently exemplified in much of the writing at The American Conservative and still somewhat in vogue at institutions like American Enterprise Institute) focuses on preserving the structures of society with incremental changes, using compelling empirical data and logic. New-style conservatism (currently exemplified by institutions like The Heritage Foundation and writing at sites like The Blaze, Daily Caller, Breitbart) eschews the traditional desire to update societal norms incrementally and shows a generalized disdain for empirical analysis. Krugman's article today regarding the new GOP-led Congress hits new-style conservatism's ideology pretty square on the head.

Old-style conservatism, in short, is real conservatism.

New-style conservatism, in short, is pseudo-conservatism.

51% of Republicans recently polled still believe there an active weapons program was found by American forces during the Iraq War. Traditional Republican reforms addressing climate change have morphed into a nearly universal denial of the crisis (sometimes even of the science identifying the crisis). Many GOP congressmen have famously signed a pledge to "oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals and business; and to oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates." A wide range of Republicans, politicians or otherwise, publicly decry the existence of cost-reducing health reforms like narrower physician networks and higher deductibles — despite those conservative reforms being key aspects of previously-touted conservative policies. None of these examples reach back to "traditional" conservatism and are all of the more radical and less empirical pseudo-conservatism.

Real conservatism is certainly a threatened species in American politics today. Just as neoconservatives moved from the political left to the political right, traditional conservatism has moved leftward, if not (yet) to the political left, leaving it as the "mushy middle" in a very much polarized spectrum.

—Sam

[Zymologist]

Cerealman, where are you?

[KingsGambit]

Says the liberal... I mean seriously, who elected you king?

I'm the only king around here. Well, the kind you move around a wooden board, anyway...

[Teallaura]

I'd say the difference between old-style conservatism and new-style conservatism (sometimes misnamed neoconservatism, which is a specific foreign-policy prioritized subset of new-style conservatism) has to do with three principle elements: change, empiricism, and tradition. Old-style conservatism (which is currently exemplified in much of the writing at The American Conservative and still somewhat in vogue at institutions like American Enterprise Institute) focuses on preserving the structures of society with incremental changes, using compelling empirical data and logic. New-style conservatism (currently exemplified by institutions like The Heritage Foundation and writing at sites like The Blaze, Daily Caller, Breitbart) eschews the traditional desire to update societal norms incrementally and shows a generalized disdain for empirical analysis. Krugman's article today regarding the new GOP-led Congress hits new-style conservatism's ideology pretty square on the head.

Old-style conservatism, in short, is real conservatism.

New-style conservatism, in short, is pseudo-conservatism.

51% of Republicans recently polled still believe there an active weapons program was found by American forces during the Iraq War. Traditional Republican reforms addressing climate change have morphed into a nearly universal denial of the crisis (sometimes even of the science identifying the crisis). Many GOP congressmen have famously signed a pledge to "oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals and business; and to oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates." A wide range of Republicans, politicians or otherwise, publicly decry the existence of cost-reducing health reforms like narrower physician networks and higher deductibles — despite those conservative reforms being key aspects of previously-touted conservative policies. None of these examples reach back to "traditional" conservatism and are all of the more radical and less empirical pseudo-conservatism.

Real conservatism is certainly a threatened species in American politics today. Just as neoconservatives moved from the political left to the political right, traditional conservatism has moved leftward, if not (yet) to the political left, leaving it as the "mushy middle" in a very much polarized spectrum.

—Sam

Says the liberal... I mean seriously, who elected you king?

[Teallaura]

No, I know there all ]the historical Populist Party, but I see people registered to all different political parties associated with the general spirit of populism.

Yep - but that doesn't mean they can't co-op the term.

[Teallaura]

Well maybe you don't. Probably depends on the circles you know.

How many times do I have to tell you to quit playing with those nasty kids?

[Sam]

I'm an observer of US politics but obviously not an expert. I have a reasonable understanding of the English language too. I think I understand what the words 'liberal' and conservative' mean. IMO I think some Americans have very idiosyncratic definitions of those words.

In a recent thread, someone mentioned something about how 'liberal' the US was (with negative connotation). I replied that that was hard to see given the great success of the Republicans at the mid terms. I was told Republicans aren't really conservative. This kind of boggled my mind.

Could posters from the US educate me in what a real Conservative politician looks like? Is there a truly conservative US party in your opinion? Could a truly conservative politician or party (as you define them) ever gain electoral support in the US (or anywhere)? Are there conservative politicians in other countries you admire? Are there conservative governments elsewhere in the world?

I'd say the difference between old-style conservatism and new-style conservatism (sometimes misnamed neoconservatism, which is a specific foreign-policy prioritized subset of new-style conservatism) has to do with three principle elements: change, empiricism, and tradition. Old-style conservatism (which is currently exemplified in much of the writing at The American Conservative and still somewhat in vogue at institutions like American Enterprise Institute) focuses on preserving the structures of society with incremental changes, using compelling empirical data and logic. New-style conservatism (currently exemplified by institutions like The Heritage Foundation and writing at sites like The Blaze, Daily Caller, Breitbart) eschews the traditional desire to update societal norms incrementally and shows a generalized disdain for empirical analysis. Krugman's article today regarding the new GOP-led Congress hits new-style conservatism's ideology pretty square on the head.

Old-style conservatism, in short, is real conservatism.

New-style conservatism, in short, is pseudo-conservatism.

51% of Republicans recently polled still believe there an active weapons program was found by American forces during the Iraq War. Traditional Republican reforms addressing climate change have morphed into a nearly universal denial of the crisis (sometimes even of the science identifying the crisis). Many GOP congressmen have famously signed a pledge to "oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals and business; and to oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates." A wide range of Republicans, politicians or otherwise, publicly decry the existence of cost-reducing health reforms like narrower physician networks and higher deductibles — despite those conservative reforms being key aspects of previously-touted conservative policies. None of these examples reach back to "traditional" conservatism and are all of the more radical and less empirical pseudo-conservatism.

Real conservatism is certainly a threatened species in American politics today. Just as neoconservatives moved from the political left to the political right, traditional conservatism has moved leftward, if not (yet) to the political left, leaving it as the "mushy middle" in a very much polarized spectrum.

—Sam