is this offensive to Arab-Americans?

[USMC the Almighty]

What is it with you and the French?! Everytime I read a thread there's a least one post where you make some derogatory stab at the French. The French would love this movie! There at least as racist as we are and half as afraid to addmit it!

First of all, I only recall making two jokes about the French so I don't have some infatuation with them as you suggest. And there a countless reasons for my disdain of the French, but having spent some time there when I was in high school, I remember hating everything about the country and its people.

At any rate, I wish all you "Cons" would stop with this "Libs" b/s, as if Liberalism is some kind of whacky fringe movement. This may be a bit much for you to digest, but all - not some, but all of the Founding Fathers were self described liberals. Liberalism is what founded this country. Conservativism is what they fought a revolution against.

You obviously are lacking in historical knowledge so I'll try to educate you. The Founders were Classical Liberals as in fighting for liberty and a smaller, decentralized government that allowed people to assume responsibility of their own lives. They believed that people are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable right", they are not endowed by the government.

As Jefferson (or Thomas Paine, depending on who you ask) famously remarked, "that government which governs least governs best". This line is the bedrock of conservatism (at least historically -- pre 2000) and is the exact opposite of what today's "liberals" believe.

The Founders didn't fight against "conservatism" -- they fought against high taxes and big government. Ironically, those two things are at the top of the Democratic Party's platform.

 

[rmbarron]

I was going to go point by point through your argument, however there were too many flawed points and we're way off topic. I will, however, say this; First, living in France does not give carte blanche justification to hate a "country and its people." Secondly, there is no historical precedent for a conservative philosophy of small government. This was never part of the conservative platform until Goldwater. Prior to that, the Grand Old Party (which by the way, is only as old as Lincoln) was the party of the northern industrialists dedicated to the expansion of federal power as a means to promote corperate interests. In this capacity, the Republican party has never waivered, no matter what dressing Reagan hung on the windows. Thirdly, it is a mistake to associate Democrats with Liberalism. Democrats at best are watered down socialists. Very watered down. At worst they're Republicans lite. As usual you make an interesting argument, but it's nothing I haven't heard before. Thanks for the history lesson though.

 

[SW85]

Oy. I groan audibly when people say the Founders were liberals or the Constitution was radical. (Even if they were "self-described liberals," it was only true using the value judgments of the time, which differ vastly from those of today).

The Constitution is a profoundly conservative document -- it does not adhere to some worthless philosophical abstraction but instead cherry-picked from Greco-Roman, Christian, Lockean, Montesquieuian, and other philosophies, and even then modified and compromised them and loosed them on the world in the form of real political institutions; it recognized, among other things, the value of nationhood and quality of life in addition to freedom. The Articles failed precisely because they were so liberal, because they did not concede ground to any other values (i.e., because they were ideologically extreme, much like the liberal French revolutionaries who wrecked their country).

And it's worth pointing out that Edmund Burke, the father of political conservatism, regarded the French revolution, in all its bloodiness, as a particularly futile jerking around by people with no conservative discipline, and that many of the Founders agreed with him here. (Some of the Founders actually were liberal by the standards of the time, which is why some of them, like Paine, backed the French and told Burke to shove it. Only history has shown who was right in that regard).

Again, because there was no coherent left-right divide in the country at the time, I use the word "conservative" in its literal sense, as well as "liberal."

 

[rmbarron]

As much as I want to keep this going, I feel that, since I started it, I should be the one to point out that we've drifted too far off the topic to continue. I'm still just a "junior" member (whatever that means) and don't want to be accused of rampant rule breaking. Ergo, let's put on the brakes. By the way, nice use of the word "Oy."

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I was going to go point by point through your argument, however there were too many flawed points and we're way off topic.

This board has a laissez faire approach. As long as your not rabidly attacking other members, anything goes. We do tend to get off topic but often the discussion is very good. So long that it is, it's not a problem.

First, living in France does not give carte blanche justification to hate a "country and its people."

I never lived in France -- I just spent a couple months there on what I refer to as an "extended vaction". Anyhow, I know that technically I don't have any justification for my passionate dislike of everything French, but my experience with the country and its people has been very unpleasant.

Secondly, there is no historical precedent for a conservative philosophy of small government. This was never part of the conservative platform until Goldwater.

What are you talking about? Jefferson created his own party focused around a conservative philosophy. He was elected in the "Revolution of 1800". That was 207 years ago. Even if you don't accept Thomas "government which governs least governs best" Jefferson as being a core conservative, then I would point to the emergence of conservatism in the 1920s with Andrew Mellon and Calvin Coolidge. That's the first time we see the fiscal philosophy of low taxes, low spending, trickle-down/supply-side, multiplier effect, etc.

Prior to that, the Grand Old Party (which by the way, is only as old as Lincoln) was the party of the northern industrialists dedicated to the expansion of federal power as a means to promote corperate interests. In this capacity, the Republican party has never waivered, no matter what dressing Reagan hung on the windows.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the first Republican (an extension of the Free Soil Party) candidate was John C. Fremont in 1856, not Lincoln in 1860. More importantly, however, I'm not talking about Republicanism -- I'm talking about conservatism which means strong military/national defense, low taxes, secure border, strict constructionism, and minimal government interference everywhere else.

The Republican philosophy has shifted countless times from Lincoln through the Gilded Age into the Progressive Era, through the Roaring 20s, Cold War, Republican Revolution of '94.... but the true conservative philosophy has never wavered.

 

[rmbarron]

What are you talking about? Jefferson created his own party focused around a conservative philosophy. He was elected in the "Revolution of 1800". That was 207 years ago. Even if you don't accept Thomas "government which governs least governs best" Jefferson as being a core conservative, then I would point to the emergence of conservatism in the 1920s with Andrew Mellon and Calvin Coolidge. That's the first time we see the fiscal philosophy of low taxes, low spending, trickle-down/supply-side, multiplier effect, etc.

1) I think your point about Jefferson illustrates why people such as you and I find ourselves at loggerheads. Jefferson's party has been labeled (increasingly I should think) as conservative liberalism (or liberal conservativsim). This label is highly debatable. The conservativism of the day was autocratic and pro-monarchy (or at least pro ruling class). Now, a distinction could perhaps be made between radical and conservative branches of liberalism, but they would still be liberalism. The conservative leanings of men like Burke would not have been considered conservativism in their historical context. Was it as liberal as the Jacobins? No. But labeling Thomas Jefferson a conservative is going far too far. After all, he was often accused of being a Jacobin himself.

2) As for Calvin Coolidge, it is highly questionable if you can truly equate laissez-faire with Reaganonmics. I will however admit that Mellon seems more in the model of a modern conservative, however I don't know enough about him to speak on it.

That being said, I guess my real point was that this whole Liberal/conservative divide is something of a smoke-screen. It truly doesn't exist. Conservatives are merely conservative-liberals, rather than anti-liberal as many in this country like to think. Conservatives certainly don't seem to hold the kind of autocratic bent of their lineage. However, there is a strain of nationalism that seems to be running through modern conservatives that threatens to change that.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Fair enough.