Don't you hard-right Liti-Cons realize you are undermining the Republican Party?

[KingOrfeo]

That piece misses the distinction between fiscal conservatism and social conservatism.

The Bush II years saw social conservatism on top among Republicans, that's true. But outcomes such as expansion of government, ballooning of the national debt, and TARP/partial nationalization of banks, indicate that fiscal conservatism has not been well represented in our government for quite some time.

In 1992, Perot ran on the message that (1) reducing the debt/deficit was priority #1 and (2) to do that we must raise taxes and cut spending at the same time. Well, we know how that worked out. Maybe the voters just don't want fiscal conservatism.

And in hindsight, it's hard to see how Perot's idea would have been a good idea at the time.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The operative word being 'social'. Neither you, nor the press, have the slilghtest clue what being a conservative is about.

I think Wooldridge and Mickelthwaite do (see post #23).

And you must understand that the views they describe are not those of the majority of Americans.

 

[unregistered]

 

[JMohegan]

Very few Americans are genuinely fiscal conservatives. Many favor "limited government" in theory, but they also favor government programs that benefit them. Ronald Reagan figured that out pretty early in his Administration. That is why he never made a serious effort to cut middle class entitlements, business subsidies, and farm subsidies. Bush II's extensions of government spending for health and education were popular with the voters.

Even writers for the National Review acknowledge this from time to time.

I live in an urban/suburban area of a very blue state, and actually know a fair number of fiscally conservative people. But they're also socially liberal, so they've got no party affiliation at all.

Do you have link to data supporting your first sentence here? That's something I'd be interested to see.

Of course, perspectives are likely to change over time. In the short term, FDR-style government may be popular, obvious reasons. Later on, the pendulum may swing back.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[JMohegan]

In 1992, Perot ran on the message that (1) reducing the debt/deficit was priority #1 and (2) to do that we must raise taxes and cut spending at the same time. Well, we know how that worked out. Maybe the voters just don't want fiscal conservatism.

And in hindsight, it's hard to see how Perot's idea would have been a good idea at the time.

Clinton did a pretty good job with fiscal restraint - though it's fair to point out that a booming economy helped boost the coffers. Even so, he was surely more of a fiscal conservative than his successor.

Only a fool doesn't worry about the level of our national debt at this point. Of course, we've got plenty of fools.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Only a fool doesn't worry about the level of our national debt at this point.

Only a bigger fool cuts taxes at the start of a war.

 

[Ishmael]

I think Wooldridge and Mickelthwaite do (see post #23).

And you must understand that the views they describe are not those of the majority of Americans.

First of all, who the hell are they?

Ishmael

 

[The_Trouvere]

The operative word being 'social'. Neither you, nor the press, have the slilghtest clue what being a conservative is about.

The only difference I can see between you and the Bible thumpers is what part of my life is going to be controlled. The Bible thumpers want to control what I can do in my bedroom, a place they have NO reasonable chance of regulating, and you want to control everyother aspect of my life. All in all, the Bible thumpers are significantly less a threat to individual freedom than you are.

Without those you dismiss as "the Bible thumpers" the Republican ascendancy, which began with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, would not have been possible.

Evangelical Protestants make up at least one third of Republican voters. There is no obvious reason they should vote Republican. They are rarely rich. The premillennial theology they usually adhere to counsels a passive wait for the second coming of Christ. According to this perspective, wide spread immorality is not something to legislate against; it is a sign that Jesus' coming is imminent.

In the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians 2:1-3 St. Paul wrote:
"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
Let no man deceive you, by any means; for that day [Christ's second coming] shall not come except there come a falling away first."

 

[KingOrfeo]

First of all, who the hell are they?

Ishmael

Wooldridge and Micklethwait are conservative British journalists (of The Economist, that should be conservative enough for you) who studied the modern American conservative movement very thoroughly and wrote a (mostly sympathetic) book about it. (The last chapter is titled "The Long Melancholy Withdrawing Roar of Liberalism." Of course, it was published in 2004.)

 

[JMohegan]

Only a bigger fool cuts taxes at the start of a war.

Agreed, most definitely.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Look, if you guys really want to go the third-party route, there's already the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party and the America First Party. Take your pick. Maybe they'll merge. Well, maybe the latter two will, there's not much difference between them.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Neither one of you clowns have a clue what a conservative is or thinks.

How do you know? Have you ever read Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France? Do you even know who Edmund Burke was?

What about The Conservative Mind, by Russell Kirk? Have you ever read National Review? Do you even know that the magazine exists?

 

[Ishmael]

Wooldridge and Micklethwait are conservative British journalists (of The Economist, that should be conservative enough for you) who studied the modern American conservative movement very thoroughly and wrote a (mostly sympathetic) book about it.

I read #23. And they have NO relevance. They wrote that Nixon and Bush were conservatives. Perhaps in their world. They have no status here. Haven't you heard, Obama has decreed that the UK is just another third rate nation on the same level as the Taliban.

Ishmael

 

[unregistered]

 

[The_Trouvere]

Long before you were the whimpering apprehension in your fathers eye. Have you ever read Russel Kirk?

I pointed out that I had.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I read #23. And they have NO relevance. They wrote that Nixon and Bush were conservatives. Perhaps in their world. They have no status here. Haven't you heard, Obama has decreed that the UK is just another third rate nation on the same level as the Taliban.

Ishmael

Who (in politics, not talk radio) do you consider a conservative?

 

[The_Trouvere]

I read #23. And they have NO relevance. They wrote that Nixon and Bush were conservatives. Perhaps in their world. They have no status here.

As I have pointed out, what you consider to be conservative can more accurately be called reactionary.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ishmael]

Who (in politics, not talk radio) do you consider a conservative?

Bobby Jindal for one, Sarah Palin for another.

Ishmael

 

[KingOrfeo]

Bobby Jindal for one, Sarah Palin for another.

Ishmael

And just how big a party do you think can be made out of (exclusively) Americans who share their politics?

 

[Ishmael]

And just how big a party do you think can be made out of (exclusively) Americans who share their politics?

Bigger than you might imagine.

Ishmael