Why We Fight...Conservatism: A META, Meta-article

Any article that sparks a rare sighting of both Raat and Dennis must be a good piece.
This is an excellent piece of work, Mr. Atticus. Off to go direct people here to come read this.

Dennis!

And here I was lead to believe that you had left!

These silly rumors...how they spread...like wildfire...

Any article that sparks a rare sighting of both Raat and Dennis must be a good piece.
This is an excellent piece of work, Mr. Atticus. Off to go direct people here to come read this

If Scoop has clipped it it must be good ! (~)

If Scoop has clipped it it must be good ! (~)

Oh boy.

Note to self: be careful what you clip, barry's watching.

LOL...

Better stop my habit of clipping as a way to remember to read something later. I did that on ED Kain's piece and later realized some may have seen that as an endorsement when it was the opposite, more a test of my blood pressure.

And here's another thing. If someone wrote an article that said that liberals were just bad and unamerican (or that their philosophy was) I would completely disagree, rather than just congratulate them blindly. I think a diversity of political views is healthy, and will defend (not attack as this article goes to such long and great lengths to do) other views than my own.

Indeed, E.D., you are well known as a picture of balance and restraint. I've often seen you defend views that you do not agree with. I myself have considered defending Hitler's fascism and Stalin's communism but luckily some degree of integrity always stopped me at the last moment ;)

That's a lighthearted comment, please just think about it as pointing out a possible incoherence in the view you raised, it's not intended as any kind of personal attack.

That's a lighthearted comment, please just think about it as pointing out a possible incoherence in the view you raised, it's not intended as any kind of personal attack.

Naturally not all views merit defense. David Duke, for instance, can...well...I won't say it. And then there is theocracy and a wide swath of other views that are anathema to freedom.

But conservatism? Modern conservatism is just the echoes of what the founding fathers had in mind--though it can be distorted by others with agendas not true to conservatism.

I just find this attack piece very small and very uncalled for.

what, exactly, is conservatism trying to conserve

I've wondered that for the last couple of decades. Were it truly a conserving ethos, drilling for oil in national park lands, for one example among many, would definitely be a big NO-NO.

It's about conserving the power and wealth of the corporations. Mr Atticus (when asked so nicely, lol, how can I refuse?) is right in suggesting that the conservatives are apologists for this process, which is perhaps why their position is often incoherent.

Atticus

OK I'm still not sure I've got this because I've reread the article 3 times and all the comments twice. I can't quite make up my mind if this is attempting to discredit some form of ideology, or a direct confrontation of people who associate with some form of being a conservative. I'm tempted to think it's more of a denouncement of the current government than conservatives in general, but I'll try to answer the question of what's being conserved.

I see conservatives politically as falling into a combination of three groups. Social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and national security conservatives. The combination of these three generally make up the base of the republican party. The current leadership is a very poor example of any of the three groups.

Social conservatives are trying to maintain tradition and moral values from a christian standpoint. Things like being anti abortion, and protecting the meaning of marriage.

Fiscal conservatives strive to keep the federal government small and the power concentrated at the state level, the way the constitution meant it to be. They also attempt to keep taxes at a minimum and the government running a balanced budget without excessive debt.

National security conservatives favor a strong military and an best defense is a strong offense posture. Some of these probably fall into the group that's commonly referred to as neo-cons.

Now here's where it gets puzzling most democrats are supposedly big environmental defenders. That would make them environmental conservatives trying to prevent change in nature. But at the same time they promote massive federal government programs that are socialist in nature. And by being pro choice many are exhibiting libertarian qualities.

The way I see it the average American fits into several of these categories that often clash with each other. That's where the ones like me fit as I call myself a moderate. I'm a fiscal and national security conservative, but a social moderate, and an environmental defender. But on election day I normally vote republican because that party in general fits closer to my beliefs overall.

The way I see it most moderate democrats and republicans are basically politically on the same page, as we take the best of all these philosophies and combine them. It's only the far left or far right that tend to cause the gridlock in government and the bad policies. If everybody would stop trying to blame one party or the other for all the countries ills, they would see that we need to purge these radical elements from both sides. Then we'll be able to build the nation America was meant to be.

The word "purge" is really scaring me!

Its fun to jab at the term "conservative"... but you guys are thinking "conserve" as in to be sparing or to use in small amounts, which isn't at all what conservatism is.

Conservatism is preservation of traditional values be they religious, cultural, and other such nationally established constructs. In the political sense, conservatives are better defined by simply calling them "national traditionalists". This isn't to say that conservatives can't be progressive, but we don't view progression as haphazard as most modern liberals. Conservative operate on unity, and with that comes the negative stigmas that conformity can carry. Ironically modern liberalism operates on a loose interpretation of individual liberties where conformity isn't a standard. Ironically individuals in modern society more often than not prove to be fairly stupid, irresponsible, and show lack of self control.

But, both have a place on their own merit I suppose.

Conservatives are usually in favor of careful examination rather than rapid change. They favor caution. They prefer reason to emotion. Often they want the same things for the country as liberals, but don't believe that the State should be responsible for giving those things. They fear the ascendancy of the State to unreasonable proportions. This is often the number one gripe many conservatives have with the Bush administration--that they have actually increased the size and scope of the Federal government.

This is complicated further by national security. There are many Dems that favor a strong national security, of course, and often they are termed liberal hawks. There are also fiscally conservative Dems, the Blue Dogs, who are typically very socially conservative also.

It's all very complicated. There are tenuous alliances. This was one of the brilliant things about Reagan--he brought so many of these disparate conservative groups together again. (Credit to Buckley as well for cleaning house).

Then, too, there are the real "classic conservatives" that believe in the old order, are suspicious of free trade and capitalism, yearn for those aristocratic days of kings and nobles. This is why modern conservatives are more aptly described as classical liberals, as modern conservatives believe in capitalism, free trade, small government, etc.

So writing an essay just blindly attempting to discredit conservatism shows a huge lack of information and critical thought on the subject.

what, exactly, is conservatism trying to conserve

Good point right now they are they are looking at drilling for oil anywhere especially in areas previously considered Heritage,National Park of of other significant Natural Heritage. Whilst were at it we have to thwart attempts to look after the environment by those nasty greenies that want the Kyoto Protocol signed off on; As well as further measures to prever the natural environment. These Items and others seem to me to be the opposite of the original meaning of Conservatism

Except that you didn't actually read the bloody article! You've no idea what you're criticizing.

Skimming sections of a long boring article is not the same as "not reading" it. Besides, I've gone back through and re-read it now, and feel even more strongly about each of my views than before. Nice try, though. Try actually responding to the criticism laid at your feet, rather than playing this little dodge game.

what, exactly, is conservatism trying to conserve

The building of more wealth to the already wealthy on the backs of hard-working Americans who can't even afford decent health care.

The conservation of the military-industrial complex, which puts large shares of your tax dollars into bullets, bombs, and body bags...also mostly at the expense of hard-working Americans.

You can fill in the other goals for yourself. It's not that difficult to figure out.

what, exactly, is conservatism trying to conserve

The dog eat dog world.

Well precisely. The author starts out writing:

We parse these terms "liberal" and "conservative," but they're not real; they're inventions of the power structure designed to divide our people and create a wall between our leaders and just oversight. While certainly there are liberal and conservative trends among groups of people (and sometimes within especially conflicted individuals, myself included), NO ONE can be accurately labeled a liberal or a conservative in any meaningful way, any more than an economic system can be labeled purely capitalistic, socialistic or communistic. It's a mixed bag no matter what. Thus my target here isn't people who identify themselves – foolishly, I think – as conservatives, but conservatism itself.

If that isn't a tortured reasoning I haven't seen tortured reasoning. So no one is either "conservative" or "liberal" which would lead the rational mind to think that there are no ideas over the last three hundred years or so which serve as the intellectual basis of these labels and then in the next breath says but yes there is such a thing as conservatism and it's a malign influence. And it gets worse.

The author goes on to say that conservatism, properly understood in his mind of course, is a decidedly illiberal notion seemingly heedless of the ground from which these ideas sprang in the 18th and 19th century. The author is correct to say that what is best termed classical liberalism sprang up against the backdrop of the marriage of ecclestiastical and secular power in Europe. And that is true as far as it goes but the picture is far more complicated than that. The American rebellion (it was not really a revolution in the sense given that term by Crane Brinton) was a specific struggle against the English crown not giving its American citizens the same rights of redress (especially as regards taxes) as that enjoyed by Englishmen going back to the Magna Carta. This is the reason that the conservative hero Edmund Burke admired the American Revolution highly while recoiling in horror from the French expression of revolt. Modern "liberals" with their emphasis upon a highly centralized overweening government intruding into all sorts of areas are the antithesis of the style of governance favored by the author of the Declaration of Independence with his antipathy to strong central government and the coercive exercise of that power. The Founders to nearly a man feared this and purposely designed a loose federal republic with significant checks and balances built in which would give preeminence to the actual governing of men to those best suited to it, what Burke referred to as life's "little platoons", i.e. state and local governments closest to their citizens views.

What has become known as modern liberalism, i.e., the rational application of abstract notions by the so-called "best and brightest" in defiance of tradition and a loose republican style of governing, got its start with the revolution in France which sought to make the world and man over again. In the reaction to this, the horrors of the Terror and then the Thermidorean reaction that gave us Bonapartism, conservatives like Burke and "liberals" like John Stuart Mill were adamant in their opposition although the latter was incredibly naive in writing:

We have not now time nor space to discuss the quantum of the guilt which attaches, not to the authors of the Revolution, but to the various subsequent revolutionary governments, for the crimes of the Revolution. Much was done which could not have been done except by bad men. But whoever examines faithfully and diligently the records of those times---whoever can conceive the circumstances and look into the minds even of the men who planned and perpetrated those enormities, will be the more fully convinced, the more he considers the facts, that all which was done had one sole object. That object was, according to the phraseology of the time, to save the Revolution; to save it, no matter by what means; to defend it against its irreconcilable enemies, within and without; to prevent the undoing of the whole work, the restoration of all that had been demolished, and the extermination of all who had been active in demolishing; to keep down the royalists, and drive back the foreign invaders; as the means to these ends, to erect all France into a camp, subject the whole French people to the obligations and the arbitrary discipline of a besieged city, and to inflict death, or suffer it, with equal readiness---death or any other evil---for the sake of succeeding in the object.

Mill, of course, could not have known it at the time but the fate of all such attempts to make of man a thing anew all have lead to one place -- the butcher's block be they in Paris during the Terror, the Gulag or the killing fields of Cambodia. In order to make man anew one must kill lots of men. All of these tendencies in this regard be they bloody or compartively harmless as with modern liberalism have been thoroughly examined to great effect in the philosopher Michael Oakeshott's seminal Rationalism In Politics which is something of the modern conservative Bible for many of us in the Anglo-Saxon tradition:

For example, the idea of "natural rights" and the equality of man had salutary effects in the United States and resulted in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. While in France they led to a bloodbath and ultimately in the imposition of the Napoleonic Empire.

This did not mean that France was incapable of democratic/republican government, only that it had to be tailored to the traditions that were part and parcel - France. Edmund Burke clearly saw this when he supported the American Revolution but vehemently opposed the Revolution in France. Rationalism, for Oakeshott then was applying theoretical ideas to solve practical problems. And here is where the problem arose. Solutions sprouted in academe generally had some minor drawbacks; they were not based on practical experience and local factors were not taken into account.

Probably the most famous practical truth of this maxim occurred with the original Aid to Families with Dependent Children bill and the welfare system in this country as we knew it which destroyed much of the black family structure in the United States and herded tens of thousands of poor citizens into urban housing whose blight is only now being eliminated from the landscape.

The rest of the piece takes up such trite untruths (taken as gospel by the left) as the United States creating bin Ladenism in supporting the Afghan mujahedeen in the Soviet-Afghan war which is uttered constantly as if repeating it often enough would make it true.

Last, but certainly not least, I can only marvel at what a classical liberal like Mill would think of the decidedly undemocratic European bureaucracy whose underpinnings were set in the city the author now calls home.

The same old canard

Modern "liberals" with their emphasis upon a highly centralized overweening government intruding into all sorts of areas are the antithesis of the style of governance favored by the author of the Declaration of Independence with his antipathy to strong central government and the coercive exercise of that power.

I think you said it about three different ways, Bill, but it's a red herring. Liberalism has nothing to do with big government, and the term welfare state is pretty much propaganda from the right, without real substance. You want to argue social-democratic vs corporatism that's a separate fight. In any case government is often bigger under the conservatives than the liberals.

What liberalism is about is freedom, and focussing on the tax burden or the size of government (while also simply not backed up by the facts) is an attempt to steer out of that truth.

Here's a perfect example of how our "free market" and "welfare state" really operate.

The Archer Daniels Midland Corporation (ADM) has been the most prominent recipient of corporate welfare in recent U.S. history. ADM and its chairman Dwayne Andreas have lavishly fertilized both political parties with millions of dollars in handouts and in return have reaped billion-dollar windfalls from taxpayers and consumers.

Thanks to federal protection of the domestic sugar industry, ethanol subsidies, subsidized grain exports, and various other programs, ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period.

At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM's corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30

One of the most politically charged debates in Washington revolves around business subsidies known as "corporate welfare." A number of policy organizations have published studies examining the corporate welfare phenomenon: what qualifies as corporate welfare, how much it costs taxpayers, and how much it damages the economy.

This study examines the dynamics of corporate welfare somewhat differently by investigating ADM as a classic case study of how those subsidies are obtained, how the welfare state encourages such "rent seeking," and how such practices fundamentally corrupt the political life of a nation. Congress's expressed desire to foster a free marketplace cannot be taken seriously until ADM's corporate hand is removed from the federal till.

This is the product of a GOP Congress, though I see the problem as bipartisan this is the crowd who have been peddling smaller government. We see that talk is cheap, but policy priceless!

Bill needless to say, I agree almost completely.

I find this article to be little more than an attack on a straw man created by loose semantics. "Liberal" and "conservative" are very much nebulous and ambiguous terms when not placed in context. Modern American liberalism differs greatly from the liberalism of the 18th century and even from the liberalism of modern Europe. Likewise the same applies to conservatism.

Yet in this article, the author concocts his own imaginary definitions of liberalism and conservatism, painting liberalism positively as much as possible, and conservatism negatively. If I cared to take the time, I could write the same article only focuses on the negatives from every liberal definition with the positives from every conservative definition.

You want to argue social-democratic vs corporatism that's a separate fight.

First off, I don't think corporatism means what you think it means. Second that's a great example of what I was talking about previously with creating a semantic straw man to attack. You know very well that there are more options than just social-democrat and corporatism, just as you know that conservatism and corporatism are not in any way really all that tied together in a philosophical sense.

In any case government is often bigger under the conservatives than the liberals.

You also very well know that the connection between the GOP and conservatism is rhetorical at best at this point in time.

What liberalism is about is freedom, and focussing on the tax burden or the size of government

I find the correlation between liberalism and freedom to be very minimal indeed. When you take from a person, that's not exactly supporting their freedom. A government, the entire function of government is to limit our freedoms. In a limited set of cases this is good, government should limit freedom to kill, steal, etc, etc. But at this point government is limiting the good kind of freedoms, like to our speech, religion, property, bodies, etc, etc ... and liberalism is behind a great deal of that.

Mashing up the themes in this was a good idea. Go read wikipedia's analysis of trolling and then look at the reactionary responses here. By labeling controversial statements as Trolling or off topic we are watching the latest round of semantic strategies evolve.

Which side is doing the most drive by shootings isn't the point. Isn't it appropriate that both sides stop blaming the other for their trolls, and start working to reign in the trolls on their own side! How about a Troll patrol that goes out and sees whose trolling the most! Right now, the culprit seems to be the folks that don't give a shuck about their roll in causing this... MSNBC's seeds! MSNBC seeds! MSNBC seeds!

IF its war you want... Is not a good point to argue anything from except for more bloodshed. What happened to Dennis M wasn't simple Trolling but a full fledged Rovian attack.

Everyone on this blog should be ready for worse unless something is done by both sides, and with the liberal side of things in a current ascendancy online there isn't much likely hood that the corporate side of the equation is going to back down on its willingness to kill online debate, especially if its losing the battle.

It would be nice if the other side would surprise us for a change and acknowledge the vicious, dare I say corrupt behavior of the republican agenda of the last eight years. There were no Frist's DeLay's, Lays, Craig's, Steven's, Reed's K-Street gangs or Abramoff's just to name a few. What about those no-bid government contracts, that $500 billion plus price tag for an illegal invasion over oil not WMD's or Democracy. REPUBLICANS HATE DEMOCRACY!!!!

We are all sickened on this side of the street over the hardened attacks that have taken place from the lock step administration agenda. The Wall Street Bubbles popping here and there, huge tax loops for corporations and richest, where 2/3rds of U.S. corporations and even a higher percentage of offshore companies pay no taxes. Corporate welfare vs. social warfare. That is the question.

When the corporate speculators lose their shirts they come a crying for bailouts and wars against unfair foreigners who have hostile governments on their side.

Oh, if conservatives were willing to police their side of the street even a tiny fraction of how much they are willing to police the poor or the working middle class who are too busy trying to keep from going into bankruptcy... Oh, pardon, its now all but impossible for a dumb smuck to declare bankruptcy. We are bloody lucky we didn't lose social security this time.

Oh, how Trollie of me not be angry about the crimes of the rightwing Bush and his fellow bandits. Is he a conservative or just on your side of the ballgame? Please shuck the semantics.

End of anti-commercial break.

Back to the straw man war.

What destroyed the black communities in urban centers was the export of America's manufacturing base to the developing world by your ideological allies.

Good lord I'm surprised that anyone even passingly familiar with the debate over welfare in this country would even utter this considering that the late Pat Moynihan, whose absence from the body politic is felt more acutely each passing day, wrote about the reasons for it over many years beginning first in 1965 in his report on the problems of illegitimacy and broken families in the black community. This scourge is now wreaking havoc on blacks and whites alike in this country. And unfortunately, many of the old-style welfare programs only reinforced this problem which was reaching epidemic proportions long before there was a single textile factory in China or Micronesia.

Now as for the central tenet of this essay I would agree with you that many of today's so-called conservatives have certainly come to love the welfare state provided that it benefits them. In fact the Republican majority's special devotion to spending other people's money in the last Congress is the reason I turned in my RNC card several years ago. And this includes the POTUS who pushed the single biggest enlargement of a federal entitlement program since Medicare in the form of the Prescription Drug supplement to it. By the same token, however, the term "liberal" as originally put forth in Europe two centuries ago is at much at odds with its modern manifestation especially as regards its slavishness to "group" rights versus individual rights with those former rights to be enforced by an overweening central government.

Bill, Adam, thank you for your voices of sanity.

Important point to just throw out here: The Founding Fathers were classical liberals, most closely identified to modern conservatives, not modern liberals. This is not true on every single issue, especially those of the religious right, but it is in terms of size of government, taxation, etc.

Also, I agree with above statements on the utter lack of true conservatism alive in the GOP today. I am a registered indie, and will likely always be.

In any case, Bill and Adam have both said it better than I could so I will defer to their very thoughtful posts above...

OK Atticus,

I should first say thank you for instigating my reexamination of the prevailing political ideologies at play currently in our body politic. Also I should explain my political views so that my comments on your piece can be taken in context. I am a product of California culture(? oxymoron ?) and my teen years were spent following punk-bands around So Cal with a group of anarchist punkers, I witness the rebirth of a great nation from the stagnation and malaise of the Carter administration, yes I was once a member of the "Reagan Youth". I then joined the Army and under the wing of the best squad leader I had the pleasure of serving with, I learned about libertarianism and the true freedom that has been lost to bureaucracy and expanding government. I was a dues paying, card carrying member of the Libertarian party until 1999, I let my membership go because I have accepted the fact that a viable third party in America is not feasible, and not worth further effort. I still vote libertarian I am just not active with the party.

That being said, I have reread your article and some relevant resource material about both major ideologies that you identified in your piece and I have come a few conclusions:

1. Liberal vs. conservative thought is a nice tight package to lump many varied but connected interests into an us vs. them confrontation. Might make for good sound-bites and political theater but is woefully inadequate to frame a rational debate over issues and finding a happy medium and is the furthest thing from a base of real consensus building.

2. Freedom is the goal of Americans in general, for the "conservative" its freedom for governmental over-regulation and taxation, for the "liberal" it's freedom from heavy-handed policing and governmental involvement into their personal lives. I could expand on and on about the disconnect and intractable positions of both sides, but for the sake of brevity I will move on.

3. Conservatism was needed in the late seventies and into the eighties, to rein-in an out of control liberalism that had hamstrung this country, the left was in complete control of both houses of congress and the White-house, for the second time in as many decades and almost bankrupted the system, and our international standing was pathetic. We can quibble over the ramifications, but the result of Reagan's brand of "conservatism" was ultimately responsible for the USAs dominance over our cold-war enemy and our ability to watch the walls fall in Berlin. That is not recognizing the reawakening of our love for our country by most Americans be they left, right, or center which I firmly give credit to Mr. Reagan.

4. Modern conservative (I don't know if "neo-con" fits) have really dropped the ball in my humble opinion for they to had a good decade of governmental dominance and the result has been an ever-expanding "big brother" in so many ways, that I am actually stymied as to where to start listing the disappointments with the "Grand Old Party".

5. I have reinforced my determination that politics is a monster that responds not to the higher rational and logical aspects of human thought, but the baser emotional reactions of jealousy, fear, greed, and power for powers sake.

6. Your contention that conservatism is uncivilized, I can find no arguments for or against that come from a non-partisan source, I have determined it to be a theory without support other than opinion and your further contention the secularism=liberalism is false at face value being that I know many atheists that happily support a "right-wing" agenda, many are my fellow libertarians.

I do recognize the work and time you spent writing a very good if flawed article, it is something that has really made me think about a topic I have been ignoring for awhile so again I say "Thank you". BTW I fear I may have boiled down your theory to the "evil" level in my first comment, and that just goes to show we all can be guilty of hyperbolic language even unintentionally done.

Cheers, and Aloha :)

A historical example, I would sermise, would be the beginnings of the US federal government.

The problem with that thinking is that we already have a disproporitonate private/corporate sector and extremely expanded military powers, but I wouldn't call our current federal government "limited" by a long shot. In fact, I'd go as far as to call it "bloated."

In my opinion, whenever government is limited, the private sector is allowed to grow disproportionately.

Your in opinion is contrary to current facts. I'm assuming here that by private sector you really mean corporate power. If in fact you are talking about private rights, then I actually agree with you, but wonder why you are so against private rights?

So assuming we are really talking about corporate power, I'd actually say that corporate power is tied directly proportional to the size of the central government. Again, just look at the history of America, as central government has increased in size and power, so has corporate power. Big government leads to big business.

Now for the why. Why does big government lead to big business? Big government creates an economy of size. One of the prime reasons that a Walmart is able to run small "mom and pop" retail out of business is because our big central government has basically handed Walmart a relatively free distribution system in the Federal Interstate Highway System. A large national chain is able to get far more value from this free infrastructure than a local business.

Second, lobbying. Small local businesses have zero lobbying power in a strong central government. Big business does. In fact, the bigger the business the greater the ability to lobby government for more perks and privileges.

In contrast, if government power was dispersed amongst the plethora of local governments, a small local business with ties to the community would have a stronger pull with local government than some big faceless corporation. Also, rather than being able to easily lobby one government, a big corporation would now have to lobby thousands of individual local governments, who would already be pre-disposed to siding with the small local businesses.

Hell, just look at Fannie and Feddie or the entire Military Industrial Complex. Neither of those would have a chance to exist with a weak central government and stronger local governments. Big government breeds big corporate power.

Very good points, Adam. I would also add that curiously enough the progenitors of today's social welfare programs have their starting point in the governments of two conservative politicians namely Benjamin Disraeli and Otto von Bismarck although nothing as pervasive as what exists today. And what FDR envisioned as a limited program supplement designed primarily for "widows and orphans" in SS has now metastasized into the primary retirement vehicle for millions of Americans.

Fascinating points, Adam. I will have to chew on those for awhile, but I admit to not having thought about this in that regard...

Holy crap, Adam, it's like you took my last comment and made it BETTER. Kudos, sir.

Yeah, damn that highway system. :-P

And what FDR envisioned as a limited program supplement designed primarily for "widows and orphans"

Well, and Orson Welles...

Yeah, damn that highway system.

Well if global warming is true, let's just say that the Federal Interstate Highway System definitely contributed to a great deal of it...

And don't even get my started into how our highway system led to the most bass-ackwards development and suburban sprawl that is probably as big a cause as any for the decline of our local communities.

And don't even get my started into how our highway system led to the most bass-ackwards development and suburban sprawl that is probably as big a cause as any for the decline of our local communities.

Adam,

While I rarely agree with you, in this instance I completely agree with you. (Though I'd like to see a similar resolve to FDR's in building an efficient rail system.... yeah, yeah, I know, "Don't screw with the autos or airlines..." ;-)

Adam

It's a well-known fact that the interstate highway system was the brainchild of that fascist neocon Dwight D. Eisenhower and was based on his admiration for the autobahns he encountered in Germany at war's end. ;>0

The Highway System has one fatal flaw, albeit a simple one, that differs it greatly from the Autobahn.

They didn't (and still don't) make the road beds deep enough, instead going shallower than necessary to carry the amount of traffic they are expected to carry. So...they need constant replacement and repair.

There are no issues left until the corporate media is exposed.

hear, hear, energynet.

A democracy cannot survive without an informed electorate. You cannot get a more uniformed electorate than the American pubic. We are a sham of a democracy.

Atticus, would you do me the favor of responding to my point please? Thank you.

And also, the comment below at http://atticusmullikin.newsvine.com/_news/2008/08/15/1748421-why-we-fightconservatism-a-meta-meta-article#c2487136

what a steamroller...are you really looking for answers here? If so, I'd humbly suggest you quit looking for nits to pick...Are the innocents dying, on either side, the right way to deal with it? You're most impatient for the author's reply, and he's hardly your personal servant.....(inhale...exhale) he is not the enemy.... ( repeat )

The other thing that kind of ticks me off is that almost all meta articles written today complain about problems. No solutions, just the problems. What do you want conservatives to do? ....if I might interject... What is the grounds for complaint??? It is the inability of us to agree on what the problem is... It seems to be a major roadblock to the resolution of a problem that is of a societal nature. I can't resolve a problem of my own without first recognizing what the problem truly is.... I'd emphasize the word, truly because without that little detail, I'll not truly get past whatever the problem is. I further project that I'll need people to help guide me, in order to rise above whatever the problem may be. Fact is, we need each other...It takes patience...there's no 'gottcha' phrase that's going to make the difference, because we have to do this together...
Kind regards,
Walter

lovetrust:

The other thing that kind of ticks me off is that almost all meta articles written today complain about problems. No solutions, just the problems.

I have a solution, lovetrust.
Come to my column and see that I now start all of my political seeds with this disclaimer:

***Please note: I intend to be vigilant in keeping the discussions on this seed on topic. I will delete any comments I believe to be of an intentionally derailing or thread-jacking nature without further warning.

I was encouraged by NV admin to use this and I do.

Many of the people who have been free to do their 'let's not talk about Karl Rove's criminal act and bring this conversation around to Bill Clinton' (as an example) are none too happy with me but it is effective and sanctioned by the CoH.

Whoa..that was over the top....

Not to mention a coh violation, i.e a personal insult.

You know what, Scott. You're right. That was over the top. My apologies to nearing. I just don't like it when people imply that comments should be censored when those comments in question are perfectly reasonable within the framework of this discussion.

Regardless, that was an over the top comment on my part. I humbly withdraw it, while still advocating a different approach...

Just because you have freedom to speak, does not mean you have the right to be heard and the right to disrupt what others are saying in favor of what you say. The creator of or the seeder of any article has the responsibility to maintain the integrity of the discussion and edit as they see fit. Go write your own article, no one will stop you.. We will have the right to go and read it or not. Don't cry that you are being censored if no one comes. And Just because you can't get an audience to listen to your rambeings, don't think that gives you a right to hijack someone else's audience and spout and rant as is they have all come to hear you. :P

Half the time, Dan, I'm just trying to figure out what the heck you're talking about...

Sorry, I misspelled rambeings rambling's. Is that what threw you?

Simple. Allow me to reiterate. You have the First amendment right to speak and the government does not have the right to stop you or make a law saying you don't.. That's the GOVERNMENT. In my article, or in my home for that mater, or anyone else's, They can tell you to shut the hell up or get the hell out and stop spouting any crap you might think is your right to say wherever and whenever you get the urge. Is there That's not in the First amendment, or any where in the constitution. If it's honestly over your head, ask me to help, and I will try to make it clearer to you, but I think this is a ploy, and that you like to play, "Dumb". "I don't get it. I don't understand." You think this relieves you of any responsibility to act accordingly or respectfully towards others. But Really?, is it that hard, or are really you just avoiding the issue with this "tactic" to evade the point? Tell the truth. What do you think it means and do you think you have the right to say whatever you want in another persons article? Are you really that rude? Perhaps others more intelligent than you pretend to be have no trouble with the concept. Maybe if you were more specific... is it english you have trouble with? I know some German, and I get by pretty well in Spanish and French. And know just enough Japanese to keep from getting poisoned when ordering food in Japanese restaurants? What don't you understand?

Maybe there's some form of Tourette's Syndrome for typing I never heard of?

Click

Dan Hallo, aka, Zoilus:

You have the First amendment right to speak and the government does not have the right to stop you or make a law saying you don't.

The creator of or the seeder of any article has the responsibility to maintain the integrity of the discussion and edit as they see fit. Go write your own article, no one will stop you.

Very well put, Dan!

OK, fine by me. Can you add a link to the end of the article when it's up? Thanks.

To me, this article fans the flames of that hatred. Have you noticed just who is fanning the flames here? ...course you have... but, doesn't this article, in it's intent, ask us to take the labels off??? I hear no 'us against them' being advocated within the intent of the author, lest it be his observation that we've been nullified as a citizenry, at the mercy of those in the ivory towers, who no longer believe we can handle the truth. They're going to do what's best for us, call it social engineering....whatever... nowadays, they know we're so divided that they don't even worry about the bad news any more... we're helpless, the way we are...it seems...

but, doesn't this article, in it's intent, ask us to take the labels off???

No. It asks us to condemn an entire group of people. And so long as nobody follows this group's ideology, then it becomes okay to stop labeling...

Most Americans are neither conservatives or liberals in a complete sense but rather a combination of both. I think more usefulness would be served by minimizing the use of such blanket labels and trying to get meaningful discussions going on how to correct problems rather than laying blame on labels.

The way I read it, that was exactly what he attempted to do, separate misapplied labels from the reality of the political policies. You may want to take another look to see if you missed something.

It was a very long article and by the time I got to here I may have inadvertently combined the article with some of the comments on it. My initial impression though was it was an attack on general conservative values rather than political policies. I'll go back and take another look.

It's always wonderful to encounter an open mind, thanks for bringing that to the vine!

I'm something of a hybrid myself as is my fellow Virginian, Mr. Amused. For instance my social views are pretty liberal considering I have little use for Bible-thumpers or the self-proclaimed moral arbiters of any stripe. That said, I am a Christian and as everyone will attest a forthright national defense hawk who supported removing Saddam Hussein from power and supports that decision to this very day despite all of the bumbling along the way by the current administration.

Right with you Bill.

I'm something of a hybrid myself

Bill, that will give you much better milage, which is a blessing no matter what road you travel! :~)

This is all good. But I can speak from recent experience that it's harder than it looks to be both civil and ruthless at the same time.

*smirk* Heh... tell me about it... thus my need for a break (news in general can be stressful, politics doubly so). I will say, though, that I learned a lot from watching Brad Farris here.

Right...but we're all very glad to see you back, Aine. Especially since I think the next six months are likely to represent a critical hinge point, not only for Newsvine, but probably for the U.S. and arguably, all of us.

As Atticus describes in this article, it's probably too tempting to avoid discussing this tipping point in Manichean terms, but as he also seems to suggest, maybe it's not completely a 50-50 proposition, either, as to which side of this seemingly binary set of choices is the more useful one.

Certainly I'd like to think so.

but, doesn't this article, in it's intent, ask us to take the labels off??? I hear no 'us against them' being advocated within the intent of the author, lest it be his observation that we've been nullified as a citizenry, at the mercy of those in the ivory towers, who no longer believe we can handle the truth. They're going to do what's best for us, call it social engineering....whatever... nowadays, they know we're so divided that they don't even worry about the bad news any more... we're helpless, the way we are...it seems
....the cause and effect is all there...I clipped this wonderful piece...it's gold....platinum to the spirit...it gives me hope...the solution requries agreement, as to the problem....right?

When the student is willing, the teacher will come
ancient chinese proverb

Kind regards,
Walter

That being said, the real problem here on this website is because of those evil devils, the conservatives, who are trolls and mean

But please follow my example in not calling names

Was that a bad joke?

Heh. I tell you what was a bad joke and that's Mangini deciding to go with a fg tonight to tie up a friggin' exhibition game and send it into ot and then Nugent doinking it off the left upright.

Bill, don't get me started on that in this thread. I almost long for the days of Herman "I don't even have the Internet" Edwards. Almost.

Adam @ 25.1: You'll have to ask the original author if he meant his plea to not divide by labels, and his plea not to just call each set of labels bad names, while then proceeding to do just that for conservatives, was a bad joke or not. My post, as it stated was a personal "executive summary" of the gist of the piece.