Conservatism’s core beliefs

[dogtowner]

Since I am not a European, how is this relevant?

Obama is not a european but he's a socialist.

 

[flaja]

I have never researched Christian Democrat ideology, but I will accept the outline reported here as true for the sake of discussion.

In common with conservatism, traditional moral values (on marriage, abortion, etc.), opposition to secularization, a view of the evolutionary (as opposed to revolutionary) development of society, an emphasis on law and order, and a rejection of communism.

Except that American conservatives do not support traditional moral values if the libertarians on the net who insist they are conservatives are any indication.

In contrast to conservatism, open to change (for example, in the structure of society) and not necessarily supportive of the social status quo.

Then I am by no means a Christian Democrat since I think our society has had too much structural change over the past 70 years- namely women’s lib and the resultant dissolution of the proper family structure.

In common with liberalism, an emphasis on human rights and individual initiative.

If American liberals were worried about human rights, they wouldn’t support abortion or euthanasia. And if American liberals emphasized individual initiative they wouldn’t support the welfare state.

In contrast to liberalism, a rejection of secularism, and an emphasis on the fact that the individual is part of a community and has duties towards it.

Agreed. This is part and parcel of conservatism.

In common with socialism, an emphasis on the community, social solidarity, support for a welfare state, and support for some regulation of market forces.

Again, I am not a Christian Democrat; I support welfare programs as long as they don’t create a permanent underclass that is dependent on public handouts or destroy the pillars of society- marriage, family, religion, or lead to bankruptcy.

In contrast with socialism, supports a market economy and does not adhere to the class struggle doctrine.

As a conservative I understand that class struggle is inevitable due to human nature. But as a conservative I also support regulating class struggle so society is not damaged by mass concentrations of wealth/power on one end or poverty on the other.

 

[GenSeneca]

I have never researched Christian Democrat ideology, but I will accept the outline reported here as true for the sake of discussion.

Do you hold traditional moral values: Yes or No
Do you oppose secularization: Yes or No
Do you support evolutionary development of society: Yes or No
Do you emphasize the importance of law and order: Yes or No
Do you reject Communism: Yes or No
Do you support changes in society: Yes or No
Do you emphasize Human Rights: Yes or No
Do you emphasize individual initiative: Yes or No
Do you believe individuals have a duty to serve society: Yes or No
Do you support the welfare state: Yes or No
Do you support market regulations: Yes or No
Do you support a Mixed Economy: Yes or No
Do you reject using the doctrine of class struggle: Yes or No

Based on everything you've said on this forum, I answered them for you and you agree with every tenet of Christian Democracy. I will provide your direct quotes if necessary to support my conclusions.

I noticed that where you tried to distance yourself from the ideology was not a matter of disagreeing with the stated tenets but instead discussing scale:

I am by no means a Christian Democrat since I think our society has had too much structural change

This is the first example of your "disagreeing" about scale.

You've said you're open to change but added the caveat that it should be for a good reason and not simply for the sake of change.

There is nothing stated about the Christian Democrat position that would lead one to believe they were in favor of change for changes sake.

I am not a Christian Democrat; I support welfare programs as long as they don’t create a permanent underclass that is dependent on public handouts or destroy the pillars of society- marriage, family, religion, or lead to bankruptcy.

The second and last example of you "disagreeing" based on scale.

There was nothing about the Christian Democrat position that would suggest they are in favor of using the welfare state to create a permanent underclass or support the welfare state in the destruction of the pillars of society.

Having said that:
1. You do support the welfare state.
2. The welfare state does create a permanent underclass dependent on government.
3. The welfare state has destroyed families (and marriage) by replacing the father with a government check.
4. The welfare state rewards parents of illegitimate children, the more children you crank out, the bigger your check.

 

[flaja]

like in prohibition ? not very well.

Yes very well as long as people respect the law. Back in the late 1980s there was a TV movie staring Art Carney and Jackie Gleason who played two elderly prohibition agents. The movie was based on a true story and at the end of it a note was given claiming that Americans drank less alcohol during Prohibition than they ever had before or have had since (at least up to the time the movie was made).

the SCOTUS had no difficulty realizing that the two were seperate and distinct last year

The two? Explain. To my knowledge the SCOTUS has never ruled that the federal government has no power to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. The only thing ever in legal dispute is the extent of that power.

because of those laws, public sympathy developed. before those laws the communities themselves managed to keep it in check.

Laws to regulate sex and confine it to heterosexual marriage have been around in one form or another for thousands of years. Statutory law and public sentiment always worked in tandem- until the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s.

google "cameras in british homes" and see the 73,300,000 topics
here is one

I don’t trust Google as adequate documentation for claims as outlandish as the one made here.

 

[flaja]

Obama is not a european but he's a socialist.

Again, how is this relevant? What are you trying to say?

 

[flaja]

Do you hold traditional moral values: Yes or No

Yes.

Do you oppose secularization: Yes or No

Depends on what secularization is. If it means allowing politicians and voters and judges to allow their religious beliefs to influence how they run the country, yes. If it means empowering a particular church or religious sect, no

Do you support evolutionary development of society: Yes or No

When something in society is blatantly wrong, slavery for example, I have no trouble with rapid and massive change. But when the least bit of change can threaten societal cohesion to the point that society’s survival is threatened, I don’t support change at all no matter how evolutionary it is.

Do you emphasize the importance of law and order: Yes or No

As long as the law is just and serves a purpose that is beneficial to society’s preservation. Otherwise unjust laws must always be resisted- with the understanding that we don’t all always agree that a law is just.

Do you reject Communism: Yes or No

Yes.

Do you support changes in society: Yes or No

See above.

Do you emphasize Human Rights: Yes or No

Yes and no. Life, (civil) liberty and property are legitimate human rights. Licentiousness is not. Living on welfare is not.

Do you emphasize individual initiative: Yes or No

Yes, but only to the extent that one person’s individual initiative cannot be used to gain them undue power.

Do you believe individuals have a duty to serve society: Yes or No

A duty yes; an absolute duty in all situations, no.

Do you support the welfare state: Yes or No

I support welfare programs. I don’t support the welfare state. Welfare programs are OK as long as they don’t disrupt the family or make people dependent on the largesse of others.

Do you support market regulations: Yes or No

Yes, but I would be willing to argue specifics.

Do you support a Mixed Economy: Yes or No

This is a non-issue since neither a totally capitalistic economy, nor a totally planned economy can survive in the real world for very long.

Do you reject using the doctrine of class struggle: Yes or No

Individual initiative (and the welfare state) make class struggle inevitable. But I reject the concept of caste where mobility between socio-economic classes is not allowed for socio-economic reasons.

Based on everything you've said on this forum, I answered them for you and you agree with every tenet of Christian Democracy.

Obviously not since I can give a simple yes or no answer to only 3 of your questions at most.

I noticed that where you tried to distance yourself from the ideology was not a matter of disagreeing with the stated tenets but instead discussing scale:

So why are you insisting that only yes/no answers are possible? The differences between Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. and Democrats and Republicans within their own parties (I am neither one) is a matter of scale.

There is nothing stated about the Christian Democrat position that would lead one to believe they were in favor of change for changes sake.

Like I said, I have never researched Christian Democrats so all I know about them is what I am being told here. But I suspect that reality is far more complicated than what I am being told here.

There was nothing about the Christian Democrat position that would suggest they are in favor of using the welfare state to create a permanent underclass or support the welfare state in the destruction of the pillars of society.

I may not be remembering what I have read, but weren’t the Christian Democrats a major component of Germany’s politics during the decades leading up to World War I? So what influence did the Christian Democrats have in creating Germany’s pre-war welfare system and subsequent Weimar Republic- that gave social welfare guarantees to Germans that the Weimar Republic could not afford to pay for?

1. You do support the welfare state.

Define welfare state.

2. The welfare state does create a permanent underclass dependent on government.

It has in America. We have women who were raised on welfare that now have grandchildren who are being raised on welfare.

3. The welfare state has destroyed families (and marriage) by replacing the father with a government check.

How is this not a sign of dependency?

4. The welfare state rewards parents of illegitimate children, the more children you crank out, the bigger your check.

Again a sign of dependency.

 

[GenSeneca]

neither a totally capitalistic economy, nor a totally planned economy can survive in the real world for very long.

Capitalism is the only moral, sustainable political and economic system. Mixed economies are volatile and unstable, planned economies are stable only in the consistency of their decline and both are immoral.

I have never researched Christian Democrats so all I know about them is what I am being told here. But I suspect that reality is far more complicated than what I am being told here.

You created this thread in an attempt to tell everyone what "real" Conservatives believe. Needless to say, much of what you claimed to be Conservative was met with confusion by those who consider themselves to be Conservatives.

As you continued to lay out your positions, it occurred to me that the values you espoused were similar to those of Christian Democrats, so I compared your statements to those of Christian Democracy and offered my findings.

Whether you accept or reject my statements is of no concern to me. I would certainly encourage you to check for yourself but you seem to be convinced that you're a Conservative and choose to reject the idea that your beliefs could be compatible with a different ideology.

I am a Capitalist, Libertarian, Conservative because I found that to cover my particular philosophical views, it was necessary to embrace more than one ideology. It could be that you are a Conservative Christian Democrat but if you are hostile to the concept of even considering multiple ideologies, then you will reject anything I offer to convince you otherwise.

 

[flaja]

Capitalism is the only moral, sustainable political and economic system. Mixed economies are volatile and unstable, planned economies are stable only in the consistency of their decline and both are immoral.

I don’t know where you learned history, but the opposite is true. Unregulated capitalism is invariably destroyed by greed. If the stock market and consumer credit had been better regulated in the 1920s we likely would not have had the Great Depression when the bubble that was the 1920s burst. We likely wouldn’t be in the mess we are in now if the dot coms and mortgage industry had been better regulated. Too many people were out to make a fast buck and they destroyed the economy in the process.

You created this thread in an attempt to tell everyone what "real" Conservatives believe. Needless to say, much of what you claimed to be Conservative was met with confusion by those who consider themselves to be Conservatives.

Because these people are libertarians, not conservatives.

As you continued to lay out your positions, it occurred to me that the values you espoused were similar to those of Christian Democrats, so I compared your statements to those of Christian Democracy and offered my findings.

So what are Christian Democrats- liberal or conservative? And on whose authority do you base your conclusion? Have you ever bothered to study politics or history as I have?

I am a Capitalist, Libertarian, Conservative because I found that to cover my particular philosophical views

Conservatism and libertarians are usually mutually exclusive. The dog-eat-dog chaos that libertarians long for is anathema to conservatives who want serenity.

 

[GenSeneca]

Unregulated capitalism is invariably destroyed by greed.

The failures you cite happened under our Mixed Economy, not under a system of "unregulated" Capitalism as alleged. Both the examples you cited were a result of governments failure to perform its proper role, to protect individuals from force and fraud. Laissez Faire Capitalists, such as myself, seek to limit governments role in society to its proper function, protection of our rights, in hopes that it won't be so woefully incompetent with such a limited scope of responsibilities.

Perhaps if our government weren't so busy manipulating the mortgage and housing industries, while getting political contributions and kickbacks from GSE's like Fannie and Freddie, they would have done their job and protected us from the fraud they themselves were helping to perpetuate.

Because these people are libertarians, not conservatives.

By what authority do you base your conclusions?

So what are Christian Democrats

You don't approach the things I have to say with an open mind but hostility, so I'll let those with an open mind consider what I have offered.

Conservatism and libertarians are usually mutually exclusive. The dog-eat-dog chaos that libertarians long for is anathema to conservatives who want serenity.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

 

[flaja]

The failures you cite happened under our Mixed Economy, not under a system of "unregulated" Capitalism as alleged.

How did we have a mixed economy in the 1920s?

And if capitalism was regulated in the 1920s, it obviously was not regulated enough. Things like FDIC and the SEC were created after the stock market collapsed and the nation had a banking crisis- not before. Since these things were put in place we haven’t had a 1929-style stock market collapse or a 1932-style banking crisis in this country.

And before the New Deal this country had no social welfare system apart from charity. We did not have social security or unemployment insurance before 1933 so the recession that started in 1929 was able to become the Great Depression by 1932.

 

[flaja]

By what authority do you base your conclusions?

My college education (40+ credit hours in history and political science to go along with my bachelor’s degree in biology) and a lifetime of independent study. Now what are your credentials?

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

My college education (40+ credit hours in history and political science to go along with my bachelor’s degree in biology) and a lifetime of independent study. Now what are your credentials?

 

[flaja]

I am raising a valid issue. No worthwhile political discussion is possible as long as the participants do not agree on terminology, so the issue of authority naturally arises. Based on my education and life experience I must conclude that most people on the net don’t know what it means to be a liberal, conservative or libertarian. When someone tells me that they know what these terms mean, I want to know what their source of authority is. I want to know what qualifies them to define these terms if they think they are qualified to use them to label me.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

I am raising a valid issue.

According to you and your standards...I'm sure that seems plausible and very explanatory!

No worthwhile political discussion is possible as long as the participants do not agree on terminology, so the issue of authority naturally arises.

So if anyone can't best/top your credentials they aren't worthy of your genius...hmmm
Seems as though you might need to form your own little community and make sure that your verify everyone's credentials before they can access your site. I mean given that this is the WWW web/Internet allowable anonymous posting/exchange of ideologies...we would just have to accept YOUR STATED CREDIENTIALS on face value {non-challenged lack of proof}...RIGHT?

Based on my education and life experience I must conclude that most people on the net don’t know what it means to be a liberal, conservative or libertarian.

OOPS, there go those ASSumptions again...but you are allowed your opinion...as we all are

When someone tells me that they know what these terms mean, I want to know what their source of authority is.

You seem highly fixated by control and that all mighty piece of accreditation piece of paper to prove someones worthiness...wonder why that makes the value greater in YOUR MIND then someone who is high I.Q.d but doesn't believe in a standardized testing {wall papered plastered with accolades and awards in those 8 x 10" frames}...so much for those overly endowed common sense humans...they won't ever meet your standards!

I want to know what qualifies them to define these terms if they think they are qualified to use them to label me.

Labels are like your choice in fashion...either go with the flow and wear/dress like them or make your own path and wear what you want too...you do seem overly sensitive and yet your have on several other topics awarded others around here with your very own LABEL MAKER NAMES.

 

[flaja]

So if anyone can't best/top your credentials they aren't worthy of your genius...hmmm

Not what I said. But I do want to know if someone is simply pulling their information out of thin air so I can determine whether or not they are worth my time and effort. If we cannot agree on a common set of ground rules for a discussion, discussion is pointless.