What does conservatism, as such, have to offer our society any more?

[CornusKousa]

You sound like certain vulgar-libertarian assholes I've read about who oppose democracy because they can't count on it to produce libertarian outcomes.

Or outcomes that are liberal in any way. As "vulgar libertarianism" is just pejorative control freak authoritarian types use to avoid coming out and saying they just hate liberalism and individual liberty of any sort.

Democracy is just a way for authoritarians to validate their bullying control freak politics and has a long history of this, including in the USA, such as right now.

When freedom and liberty loving folks attack that validation, the authoritarian types get pissed and start name calling. Everything from 'vulgar libertarian' to "FreeDUMB" and 'toxicshitsludge ideology'.

American lefty Democrats fucking HATE liberty...."progressive" folks always do.

 

[WillJ8787]

You sound like certain vulgar-libertarian assholes I've read about who oppose democracy because they can't count on it to produce libertarian outcomes.

Just so you know...Cubantripod is Also:

CornusKousa
Rightguide
Bigshygayguy
Cand_cane
And used to be BotanyBoy...aka..Bobo as we refer to him.
I'm sure I'm missing a few of his alts

It's all one asshole troll.

 

[CornusKousa]

Just so you know...Cubantripod is Also:

CornusKousa
Rightguide
Bigshygayguy
Cand_cane
And used to be BotanyBoy...aka..Bobo as we refer to him.
I'm sure I'm missing a few of his alts

It's all one asshole troll.

WillJ is making shit up, because he got REKT too many times by everyone on that list.

 

[pecksniff]

Or outcomes that are liberal in any way.

"Liberal" =/= "libertarian".

As "vulgar libertarianism" is just pejorative control freak authoritarian types use to avoid coming out and saying they just hate liberalism and individual liberty of any sort.

Vulgar libertarianism (otherwise known as "LOLbertarians", "brogressives", or "glibertarians") is a term used to refer to libertarians who approach that political philosophy with an altogether cynical attitude[1] or more generally as a term that describes libertarians who exist for the purpose of justifying unfair socio-economic hierarchies using appeals to laissez-faire capitalist and socially liberal ideology. The term was coined by the "free market anti-capitalist" blogger Kevin Carson as an analogue to 'vulgar Marxism'.

The shoe fits. Wear it.

 

[CandK_inSE]

Democracy is a system where 50.0000001% of the population could vote for the murder of 49.9999999% of the population, and there's nothing that minority could do about it.

As for the Senate filibuster, no, it is not in the Constitution, but neither was direct election of Senators.

There are plenty of reasons why the Founders and their progeny put rules in place where 50% + 1 couldn't win the day. The main reason being a change in leadership should not trigger a 180 degree change in direction. As we have seen many times in other nations, some being "democracies", massive upheaval and outright revolution when the opposition wins, be it right or left.

 

[pecksniff]

Democracy is a system where 50.0000001% of the population could vote for the murder of 49.9999999% of the population, and there's nothing that minority could do about it.

There is a quote sometimes misattributed to Benjamin Franklin: "Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

Which is clever, and wrong. In real life, democracy is three sheep and a wolf voting on what to have for dinner, because the sheep always outnumber the wolves, and that fact and democracy are the only defenses they have.

 

[CandK_inSE]

There is a quote sometimes misattributed to Benjamin Franklin: "Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

Which is clever, and wrong. In real life, democracy is three sheep and a wolf voting on what to have for dinner, because the sheep always outnumber the wolves, and that fact and democracy are the only defenses they have.

Yes, but the sheep always lose 75 - 25. What "defense" is it if the sheep are going to get eaten anyway?

 

[pecksniff]

Yes, but the sheep always lose 75 - 25. What "defense" is it if the sheep are going to get eaten anyway?

No, the sheep always win 75-25.

 

[CandK_inSE]

No, the sheep always win 75-25.

You reversed the quote. It's usually three wolves and a sheep.

 

[pecksniff]

You reversed the quote. It's usually three wolves and a sheep.

That's the point -- the quote is wrong. In real life it's three sheep and a wolf. I am speaking, of course, as was the author of the original quote, of those animals' relevant metaphorical analogues in human society. In real life, the wolves are in the Hamptons, not in the 'hood.

 

[Rightguide]

The issue wasn't how the filibuster can be changed or abolished; it was whether or not it was written into the Constitution. It wasn't.

No shit Dick Tracy.

Fuzzy said this:

"So it is a procedural rule, based upon a 1806 rule change...IE it is not constitutionally protected, not ingrained anywhere in the constitution to promote bipartisianship, and can be erased at any point time, if so voted on....

The definition of "Ingrained:" firmly fixed; deep-rooted; inveterate:
ingrained superstition.
wrought into or through the grain or fiber.

My point was, contrary to Fuzzy's assertion to the contrary the filibuster rule is constitutionally protected by the Senate's enumerated constitutional right to make it's own rules. So yes, it is ingrained in the Constitution as a penumbra of congressional power. His final point was the rule can be changed by vote, which is true. So, you are in error, his point was about change tangentially. Which I also replied to.

 

[Rightguide]

No, the sheep always win 75-25.

Pure democracy is three wolves and two sheep meeting to decide what's for lunch.

 

[pecksniff]

Pure democracy is three wolves and two sheep meeting to decide what's for lunch.

See post #85.

 

[CornusKousa]

"Liberal" =/= "libertarian".

Never said they were.

But libertarians are liberals.

The shoe fits. Wear it.

I'm a liberal, not a libertarian, so no it doesn't.

There is a quote sometimes misattributed to Benjamin Franklin: "Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

Which is clever, and wrong. In real life, democracy is three sheep and a wolf voting on what to have for dinner, because the sheep always outnumber the wolves, and that fact and democracy are the only defenses they have.

No, the sheep always win 75-25.

That's the point -- the quote is wrong. In real life it's three sheep and a wolf. I am speaking, of course, as was the author of the original quote, of those animals' relevant metaphorical analogues in human society. In real life, the wolves are in the Hamptons, not in the 'hood.

^^ Look at the wolf trying to convince us he's really a sheep.

Apparently has never studied the absolute human tragedy "democracy" has resulted in time and time again.

You reversed the quote. It's usually three wolves and a sheep.

They have to reverse the quotes and manipulate the language, they have no other method of 'debate'.

 

[pecksniff]

But libertarians are liberals.

Actually, no, they're not. You do not get to claim such an honorable name.

Apparently has never studied the absolute human tragedy "democracy" has resulted in time and time again.

For example?

 

[Rightguide]

See post #85.

Don't have to I write my own material. It tells the same story.

 

[pecksniff]

Don't have to I write my own material. It tells the same story.

Your story is wrong, if it involves the "human tragedy" of democracy.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Since the Goldwater campaign in 1964, American movement conservatism has incorporated several allied strands:

1. Warhawkery, most recently expressed in the form of neoconservatism, a movement for taking a hard line in the Cold War that found new direction after 9/11. But it is clearly fading away as a political force. Even Trump rejected it. Nobody really cares any more about American military hegemony.

2. Supply-side economics, neoliberalism, economic libertarianism in general. That has had its day. It was tried, here and elsewhere, tried very thoroughly, and it never accomplished anything but its real intended purpose, which was to make the rich richer. It is about as thoroughly discredited now as Stalinism. Things in general go much better in social democracies.

3. Religious-right social conservatism. Since this is the Lit and we're all pervs here, I hope we can all agree there is no value whatsoever in that.

4. Racism/nativism. Usually expressed in dog-whistle form, as in Nixon's Southern Strategy, it got a lot bolder when the Tea Party emerged and morphed into the Trump movement.

What good is any of it? What good was any of it, ever?

There are varieties of conservatism. I always vote Democrat, but I am pessimistic about human nature and human potential. I believe that there is often wisdom in tradition. The social reforms of the 1960's were followed by increases in crime, illegitimacy, and divorce. I believe it is reasonable to suppose that those changes happened because of the social reforms of the 1960's.

I have expressed my generally positive ambivalence about the religious right in other threads.

If the civil rights legislation passed into law during the 1960's had not been followed by in five years of black ghetto riots, and more enduring increases in black social pathology, Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy would not have worked. Indeed, Nixon would not have been elected president in 1968. A Democrat dove would have been elected. He would have negotiated an end to the War in Vietnam. Instead the War continued for seven more terrible wars.

At the beginning of the 1960's white racial moderates had the right to believe that by supporting civil rights legislation and the War on Poverty they were buying racial peace. When they got the black ghetto riots instead they felt betrayed and began voting Republican. Dog whistles and code words have become necessary because of taboos and sanctions against candidly discussing the existence and causes of racial problems.

Diversity is not our strength. It is the ultimate source for the polarization that has made it difficult for us to solve problems that would have been manageable before 1964.

 

[pecksniff]

Diversity is not our strength. It is the ultimate source for the polarization that has made it difficult for us to solve problems that would have been manageable before 1964.

So what conceivable solutions are there? Revival of Jim Crow?

 

[The_Trouvere]

So what conceivable solutions are there? Revival of Jim Crow?

A country with a large black population faces an unpleasant moral dilemma. If it denies blacks equal rights it will deny them to the minority of blacks who have adopted white values, and who behave and perform as well as most whites. If it gives blacks equal rights it will experience the social problems I have mentioned previously.

I supported the civil rights movement as a child, a teenager, and a young adult. I have since then come to suspect that in states with large black populations Jim Crow may have been based on sound instinct. It is reasonably clear to me that the civil rights legislation was forced on whites with extensive experience with blacks by whites with little experience. I was one of those whites with little experience with blacks. That is why I supported the civil rights movement when I was young.

At this point I think would be unwise to try to repeal the civil rights legislation. I want it to be interpreted in ways that prohibit affirmative action and racial reparations, while allowing racial profiling. I also want the dialogue on race President Clinton called for. I want it to be an honest dialogue with no taboos and sanctions against mentioning facts that can be documented, and insights and conclusions that follow logically from those facts.