Now tell me what they have in common

They're all listed by Andy even though some of them aren't conservatives?

So tell us, why is arketekton so far off base? What other sort of "individual freedom" do this quite representative gathering of self-described "conservatives" really stand for as a group?

What arketekton is essentially saying is that modern day "conservatism" is like the Emperor's New Clothes. Prove that he's wrong.

Andy: You may have noted that Brooks was talking about the c20, and when I think of c20th conservatism, I think intially of Reagan, Buckley, and Kirk. Rather than play the game you devised, for whatever reason, I'm more interested in having Ark answer a fairly straightforward question I placed to him: what do you mean - you're for individual freedom and a smaller state bureaucracy, or something else?

then tell us why you keep trying to associate the likes of Al Sharpton with "liberalism."

Am I doing this a lot, Andy? WTF is up with you?

then tell us why you keep trying to associate the likes of Al Sharpton with "liberalism."

Am I doing this a lot, Andy? WTF is up with you?

Indeed. I don't get the impression at all that people associate Sharpton with liberalism; I get the impression that they associate Sharpton with Sharptonism.

It's just that liberals kiss up to him and overlook his race-baiting more than conservatives do.

Jeez, you should read some of the Hillary-supporting blogs. He's the new Rove in their eyes.

That's nothing... I've seen supposedly respectable places that have compared him to George Wallace.

But still, the politics of association are a game that the guy that's supposed to be my messiah says we shouldn't play, so I try not to hold fervent supporters against candidates.

The Clintons can hit below the belt with the best of 'em -- but they're not the Tyson-esque ear-eaters of the internet.

Indeed. I don't get the impression at all that people associate Sharpton with liberalism; I get the impression that they associate Sharpton with Sharptonism.

It's not just that. It's that I asked a respectful (I think) straightforward question, and I'm invited by Andy to play pin the tale on the conservative and to apologize for calling Sharpton a liberal, which I haven't done, and to listen to Andy drudge up accusations about Buckley's racism. For a guy hoping for post-partisan politics and a cleaner campaign, Andy seems to be jagging for some partisan argument at the site.

The reason I think Sen. Obama will pick a woman, such as Gov. Sebelius, is to salve the wounds among the feminists who are bitter that their candidate lost.

What he needs is a moderate white guy who can draw in the independents.

Sucking up to NOW will only drive the independents away into the arms of the Republicans.

Really, where else are the feminists going to go? They are going to have to genuflect before Obama and hope if elected he doesn't throw them completely under the bus like McCain will.

It's that I asked a respectful (I think) straightforward question, and I'm invited by Andy to play pin the tale on the conservative and to apologize for calling Sharpton a liberal, which I haven't done, and to listen to Andy drudge up accusations about Buckley's racism.

:-)

Yeah, for a guy who announced he had been trying to stay out of that argument, he sure made quite an entrance.

The complain about arkitekton (at least on arguments, not personality) isn't that he doesn't fit in with rigid requirements to be a conservative but that he doesn't seem to share any beliefs of conservatives. And when cornered (I assume he's still doing it, I don't read his posts), he gives the lame "It's to conserve something, therefore it's conservative" drivel.

If I described myself as a progressive instead of a libertarian, I'd definitely be called on it. And to say "well, I think libertarian ideas would progress our society, therefore I'm a progressive after all" would be completely lame.

Sucking up to NOW will only drive the independents away into the arms of the Republicans.

I don't know anything about her beyond what I just read on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure that picking the governor of Kansas as his running mate would be "sucking up to NOW".

Personally, I think lately the strongest running mates have been people who were picked because they got along well with the person on the top of the ticket - Gore, Cheney. I'm not sure that VP's really add much to a ticket these days. Having said that, though, the group of Hillary voters that Obama needs to win, I think, are moderate white women. Moderate white men are already Republicans. Obama can't win the election if he doesn't win the female vote and probably win it pretty big.

I do think, though, that there is a risk to either Obama or McCain if they blatantly pick an unqualified woman as an obvious pander to Hillary supporters. Then again, Hillary Clinton strikes me as a blatant and unapologetic panderer, so maybe her supporters would appreciate some pandering by one of the remaining candidates.

I don't know anything about her beyond what I just read on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure that picking the governor of Kansas as his running mate would be "sucking up to NOW".

To NOW, they're OK with anything that doesn't have a dick.

Moderate white men are already Republicans.

I disagree with that. This administration has alienated a lot of people, including a lot of white males.

To NOW, they're OK with anything that doesn't have a dick.

Right, but the downside of "sucking up to NOW" is if she turns off men (or feminist-hating women, I suppose), and she's a pretty popular governor of a pretty conservative state. Her lieutenant governor is a former head of the Kansas state Republican Party, for example. So, outside of guys who wouldn't vote for anybody without a dick, I'm not sure that Gov. Sebelius would necessarily be a turnoff for mainstream independent voters.

This administration has alienated a lot of people, including a lot of white males.

Of course, this administration has approval ratings in the 30-35% range. If everybody who's been alienated by the Bush administration votes for Obama, then he'll win in a rout. I think the white woman vote is the group that's absolutely essential to put him over the top. Moderate white men would just be the icing on the cake if he gets their vote (by the way, I would classify myself as a moderate white man, and I intend to vote for Obama).

But I guess more to the point, I don't think the mere act of picking a woman as his running mate would automatically cost him the moderate white guy vote.

See, this is the thing, Kiko. Your average woman doesn't like to vote for another woman. It's the alpha female mentality. You get a likable white guy who's good-looking and comes off as reasonably intelligent, the women will vote for him.

Your average woman doesn't like to vote for another woman.

Except Hillary's been doing better with women. (then again, my wife's an Obama supporter, so a lot of this argument I'm making is sort of against my personal experience)

But to go back to what I said in my first comment on this topic, if I were Obama, I'd pick the person that I felt most comfortable with that I thought would make the best VP and not worry about the person's gender or race or home state. But if that happens to be Gov. Sebelius (or some other woman), I don't see that hurting him with moderates, either male or female.

I'd pick the person that I felt most comfortable with that I thought would make the best VP and not worry about the person's gender or race or home state.

I wish it were that simple, Kiko. Alas, I don't think it is.

Kudos to you for maintaining at least some idealism. That was beaten out of me years ago.

Now tell me what they have in common

They're all listed by Andy even though some of them aren't conservatives?

Why? Because some of them embarrass you? They sure all call themselves conservatives.

Was Stalin a Communist? Was Mao? Was Hoxha? Certainly not by any honest examination of what that philosophy means in theory. In fact, all they were were totalitarian dictators who used the rhetoric of "socialism" and / or "communism" to disguise their rather plain goals of amassing total power for themselves.

But to themselves, and to the world, they were "communists." And the left has been tarred by that association forever. Why is it that only the left gets stuck with its false practicioners?

-------------------

then tell us why you keep trying to associate the likes of Al Sharpton with "liberalism."

Am I doing this a lot, Andy? WTF is up with you?

That wasn't directed at you, JC, but at the sort of people who keep saying that Sharpton is some sort of "black spokesman" who has to be "repudiated" about every fifteen minutes, even by people who've never agreed with or engaged in any of his mau-mau tactics themselves. Read Richard Cohen about every tenth column for an example of this. The whole Rev. Wright issue is but a variant of this tactic---not the initial call for disassociation from what he said, but the refusal to let it go after Obama's repeated disavowals of Wright's inflammatory remarks, not to mention the complete lack of ideological influence on Obama on Wright's part.

--------------------

Indeed. I don't get the impression at all that people associate Sharpton with liberalism; I get the impression that they associate Sharpton with Sharptonism.

It's just that liberals kiss up to him and overlook his race-baiting more than conservatives do.

That's fair point, Ray, as long as you acknowledge a corresponding reluctance of conservatives to deal with the likes of Jesse Helms and Lee Atwater, not to mention the entire race-baiting "southern strategy." It seems screechingly obvious to any neutral observer that the common point here is clearly "no enemies to the left [or right]".

To the extent that any liberal defends Sharptonism, he has little standing to complain about Atwaterism. And to the extent that any conservative defends the southern strategy, he has little standing to complain about Sharpton. If either shoe fits, don't complain about the shoe salesman.

------------------

It's not just that. It's that I asked a respectful (I think) straightforward question, and I'm invited by Andy to play pin the tale on the conservative and to apologize for calling Sharpton a liberal, which I haven't done, and to listen to Andy drudge up accusations about Buckley's racism. For a guy hoping for post-partisan politics and a cleaner campaign, Andy seems to be jagging for some partisan argument at the site.

Again, JC, this wasn't a dig aimed at you, but an attempt on my part to find out what a real world common definition of "conservative" entails. I guess to me that's far more important than all these abstract debates that get us nowhere.

I listed two dozen of the 20th century's more prominent self-described "conservatives," all of whom either led or lead public lives under that label, and I wanted to know what they have in common beyond defending big business against regulation. I'd still like to know the answer to that empirical question. It isn't irrelevant just because it may not lead to the answer you're looking for.

And you certainly have to acknowledge that there is a lot more to conservatism than Reagan, Buckley and Kirk. Just as there's more to liberalism than FDR, I.F. Stone and Reinhold Niebuhr. Let's get real here.

----------------

The complain about arkitekton (at least on arguments, not personality) isn't that he doesn't fit in with rigid requirements to be a conservative but that he doesn't seem to share any beliefs of conservatives. And when cornered (I assume he's still doing it, I don't read his posts), he gives the lame "It's to conserve something, therefore it's conservative" drivel.

My question is also directed at arkitekton. A similar list of "liberals" could also be drawn up and aimed at me. Although since I usually denounce the Sharptons of the world on a fairly regular basis (see the Imus thread if you doubt that), I might not be quite the sitting duck that you imagine.

If I described myself as a progressive instead of a libertarian, I'd definitely be called on it. And to say "well, I think libertarian ideas would progress our society, therefore I'm a progressive after all" would be completely lame.

I pointedly omitted libertarians from my list, though in many cases they overlap with conservatives, and in more than a few cases they defend conservatism's seamier side---usually by saying that "oh, those aren't really conservatives," but even more often by simply defending their nastier tactics outright. "No enemies to the right" seems to be the working philosophy in those cases, or at least "no enemies to the right if they don't actually use the 'n' word any more in their public speeches"---almost any code word gets spun into innocence.

But OK, Dan, from your libertarian's point of view, what exactly DO those two dozen prominent conservatives have in common? You don't have to call yourself a conservative to answer the question.

Andy:

All I'm interested is simply what Ark means when he calls himself a conservative.

Fine, JC, and so am I. But I'm also interested in what some of our other resident "conservatives" mean by the word, as applied to the real world outside their own internal sentiments. We see the term "conservative" thrown about in so many ways that it's almost become meaningless, and it's not only arky who's vague about his definitions and examples.

Come on, people, we have to get to 4,000 posts, even if it means declaring free agency and signing with the Expos.

I pointedly omitted libertarians from my list, though in many cases they overlap with conservatives, and in more than a few cases they defend conservatism's seamier side---usually by saying that "oh, those aren't really conservatives," but even more often by simply defending their nastier tactics outright.


Nobody's defending their tactics, as far as I can tell, but mostly shrugging it off as normal politics, which it is. Both political parties engage in fearmongering and both political parties have a small, but significant number of their base that is fueled by hatred. What I object to is decrying one while defending the other. Unlike DMN, I do find problems with the Philadelphia, MS speech, but I'm not so naive to think this was some important watershed event, just another example of something both parties do.

"No enemies to the right" seems to be the working philosophy in those cases, or at least "no enemies to the right if they don't actually use the 'n' word any more in their public speeches"---almost any code word gets spun into innocence.

This isn't true. In fact, there's quite a split among libertarians in which side to stomach. Younger libertarians tend to put a priority on the social fascism of Republicans and are far more likely to vote Democratic. Self-identified libertarians in the 18-29 range, 17% of the libertarian total, voted for Kerry 71-24 in 2004. As libertarians get into the prosperous years of their life, they tend to make voting against economic fascism a priority, and those numbers flip from 30-49 and 50-64 before going back to even 65+ or older.

When it comes down to it, I tend to worry more about the economic tyrants than social tyrants. Conservatives tend to go for fringe issues, while the liberals tend to go for the pocketbook, wherefrom I feel all rights are devised. Money isn't just stuff, it's a representative of human activity and human work. The more money the government takes away, the more they're controlling your day-to-day activities. On a personal level, gay marriage or abortion or pledges in school, or the government knowing what books I checked out at the library has little effect on me, while the amount of money that is taken from me affects every personal choice I make, from what to eat to where to go to what to do. So I tend to be forced to stomach the Repugnicans more often than the Spendocrats, though I didn't vote for Bush in either election (Browne and Nader).

. Younger libertarians tend to put a priority on the social fascism of Republicans and are far more likely to vote Democratic. Self-identified libertarians in the 18-29 range, 17% of the libertarian total, voted for Kerry 71-24 in 2004.

You think this is a function of social issues and not foreign policy / war issues? Also, could you link to your source? thanks

We see the term "conservative" thrown about in so many ways that it's almost become meaningless, and it's not only arky who's vague about his definitions and examples.

But is it meaningless? That you were able to make a list of conservatives suggests that the label does have meaning, even if it's not an exact set of rigid criteria. Yes, conservative can mean different things, just as liberal can, but its meaning is generally understood in the context of our politics. Nobody would think that arkitekton or Mikhail Suslov are conservatives in the context of current American political thought.

You think this is a function of social issues and not foreign policy / war issues? Also, could you link to your source? thanks

It was a Cato Institute study done in 2006 before the mid-terms.

Obviously, the war's gotta be in there too - I wish Cato had broken that down a little more.

Strangely, Bush did a lot better with libertarians in 2004 than Congress did. In 2000, libertarians voted for the Republican in congressional elections by 73-23 in the House and 73-23 in the Senate, while in 2004, that went down to 53-44 and 54-43.

And I think it's a necessary question if we are going to get away from all of this LCD politics where we categorize people and then argue with their associations rather than their actions, and I'm certainly not saying that I've avoided that behavior.

But it does get incredibly lame when people make derogatory comments (rather than critical comments) about Jackson or Sharpton or Wright and then anyone who lives in their communities and/or reacts with a nuanced response--"I disagree with them, but disagreeing and vilifying is not the same thing" gets marginalized as well.

I've sat with Jackson and/or his congregation when we were fighting to keep families warm when their heat was being cut off, or their neighborhood schools were being cut, and I haven't been impressed with the response.

I'm underimpressed with the self-appointed and sometimes popularly selected leaders of our communities.

But if you tell me that the main people with them is that they are "divisive" or outrageous to mainstream America, I'm going not tell you that the problem is opposite, and I don't mean along racial lines.

The racial issues is only surfacing because that's where a major perspective fault exists on these issues, not because of some active racism one way or another.

But we do have to acknowledge the fact that any study of people's reactions to Wright is going to breakdown unequally along racial lines. I mean, my "Bush is the Best" Asian American friends were more sympathetic with Obama on this lastest conflict than with his critics.

Instead of calling each other racists (which I've done some of, but certainly not as much as I've received), we probably should be asking why that breakdown exists.

Because if we just sit and vilify, the default explanation on both sides is that anyone who disagrees with me is stupid and racist--a sentiment which we have seen a lot of on this thread.

I'm sure you can go back on pull quotes and call me a hypocrite, and it's been made abundantly clear that my life experiences are worth nothing, so many are just going to see this as another opportunity to attack.

But the fact that most inner-city teachers are going to agree with me, shouldn't makes you stereotype and attack that group, it should make you ask some questions. The fact that Obama is getting 90% of the vote in areas shouldn't make us assume that dem blacks are a racist people, it should make us wonder what our society is like that--despite no biological explanation--we are molded to consider social issues including that of race so differently--because any "I'm right so you're racist" thinking is to generalize over a whole group of people in a way that judges unequally on the issue of race whether you mean to or not. (Sorry about the rambling nature of the sentence. Please feel free to mock my Saturday morning before work poor grammerness :P Attacking internet grammar really does make you a better human being. Let's do standardized test scores next!)

Because otherwise this entire race--no matter how it turns out--may result in policy changes, but mostly it will turn into what the OJ case did--another racial bogeyman to poison reconciliation for the next decade.

You don't have to agree with the majority of non-white America on Wright and Obama, or anything else. But a general respect for opposing viewpoint is absolutely vital. A blatant disregard for the intelligence of those with different experiences in life may not be strictly defined as "bigotry" but we must acknowledge the damage it does to the society.

We can even consider the latest police beating video. I have no idea what happened. However, we all know that we probably have a racial breakdown in terms of who automatically assumed that the police were in the right or wrong and even who reserved judgment.

In a race-neutral society, the "reserving judgment" is probably the best option. But when you consider that personal experience and perspective are simply not going to breakdown equivalently along racial lines, that's might be a correct answer, but it's not a fair or constructive judgment to make.

Building a better society is not just about being right in some technical way. It's about understanding the psychology of the society and making people feel respected and important along all lines, yes including even racial lines (after all, there is a history and a present that have made many feel disrespected).

In this discussion, I have failed to do that to those in the ethnic majority (and I use the term because there's nothing particularly unique about white privilege compared to other majority privilege). I think often people feel disrespected even by the point that ethnic minority folks might have myriad perspectives that are not seen by a large portion of the majority. But I've gone beyond that in this thread because of its proximity to the death and hurt that I experience in my daily life. If you judged that, I understand. I just hope you are consistent, and just yourself and others when they act similarly when they have to deal with the hurt and death of loved ones.

Furthermore, I will remind you that that respect must flow both ways, and if you look at the level that some have sunk in this discussion, it's not really even comparable.

Remember, it's not ethnic minority folk's sole responsibility to improve racial and ethnic atmosphere in the country. We all have power and a refusal to move off one's own limited perspective is damaging no matter who it is doing it at a direct ratio to the amount of mainstream power capital one has.

It was a Cato Institute study done in 2006 before the mid-terms.

Oh, it's the "libertarians are 13% of the electorate" poll? I have serious problems with the way that was put together. Just being relatively socially liberal and relatively economically conservative does not make you a libertarian. The Washington Post editorial page would be libertarian by this metric. The vast majority of the people that poll calls libertarians are not self-identified libertarians, and it's a perfectly normal word. They basically took a chunk of the electorate that disagrees massively with self-identified libertarians on key issues and called them libertarians in order to pretend they constitute a social movement.

I'd like to see a poll of how many of the "libertarians" Cato discovered support the elimination of social security and medicare, for instance.

Dan, I've always wondered about libertarians in '92 and '96: did they throw a lot of support to Ross Perot? I still can't figure him out in a lot of ways, even though I lived in his neighborhood at the time, and knew a lot of his supporters. They seemed to be fierce on the subject of taxes and deficits both (fearing deficits more than hating taxes, though, as opposed to most Republican economic conservatives). And The Peronistas were pretty libertarian in terms of social issues, like a lot of Texans, actually (I sense that do-what-you-like-on-your-own-ranch Texans outnumber Bible-Belt-authoritarian Texans). I sense that Perot had a major role in tipping the '92 election to Bill Clinton, and then a major role in keeping Clinton focussed on budget-balancing for the next eight years. But where did the Perot vote really come from, and where did it go to? Still one of the larger political mysteries of recent times ...

Dan, I've always wondered about libertarians in '92 and '96: did they throw a lot of support to Ross Perot? I still can't figure him out in a lot of ways, even though I lived in his neighborhood at the time, and knew a lot of his supporters. They seemed to be fierce on the subject of taxes and deficits both (fearing deficits more than hating taxes, though, as opposed to most Republican economic conservatives). And The Peronistas were pretty libertarian in terms of social issues, like a lot of Texans, actually (I sense that

Perot got 33% of the libertarian vote in 1992, so I get the sense that your feeling about the role of libertarians in the 1992 election is probably accurate. (Source is again Cato, but they're obviously far more interested with libertarians than most thinkthanks). I was a couple of years too young to vote in 1992, so I'm not sure how I would have voted - trade protectionism tends to be nearly a litmus test for me.

I sense that Perot had a major role in tipping the '92 election to Bill Clinton

This isn't borne out in the post-election polling. According to post-election polls, Perot's voters were evenly split between Clinton and Bush

Now, I guess it's possible that Perot's presence in the race caused shifts in the electorate that can't be determined merely by a second-choice poll, but I'd need to see argumentation and data to support it. (1992 post-election poll analysis)

I tend to worry more about the economic tyrants than social tyrants.

Didn't someone say awhile back in this Long Walk of a thread that this was one of the main bell-curve indicators of the difference between the left and the right?

The fact that Cato shows that libertarians would have voted for Perot, whose policies were far, far from libertarian, suggests again that the people they're talking about aren't libertarians at all.

Perot's key issue was NAFTA - he ran quite specifically against the neoliberal consensus on trade and against outsourcing. His social positions were all over the map - he was pro-choice and pro-gay rights, but he was also in favor of a large expansion of the "wars" on crime and drugs, both major libertarian bugbears.

Ross Perot was the least libertarian general election candidate of the last several decades. If your poll finds significant "libertarian" support for him, then your poll is either mistaken on who libertarians are, or finding that libertarians are pretty silly people.

Come on, people, we have to get to 4,000 posts

Now that Hillary appears done, what do people think about her Hall of Fame chances?

Ross Perot was the least libertarian general election candidate of the last several decades. If your poll finds significant "libertarian" support for him, then your poll is either mistaken on who libertarians are, or finding that libertarians are pretty silly people.

Neither Clinton or Bush I struck me as all that libertarian either. Since libertarians never really have mainstream candidates very close to them politically, it's all a choice of what the particular finds important, whether it be tax policy or deficits or trade or social issues. You might not agree with Obama on everything, but I'm fairly certain that he's closer to most of our left-leaning friends on this site on most issues than any candidate ever is with libertarians.

Perot's key issue was NAFTA

Yes, of course, the "giant sucking sound." I think Perot supporters didn't press this issue in my North Dallas neighborhood because the various businesspeople there had a lot to gain by NAFTA. The theme I associated more with Perot was "how will our grandchildren pay off this deficit," which was a strong third option in contrast to the Republican principle cutting of taxes at any cost and the Democratic tendency to spend and spend.

I pointedly omitted libertarians from my list, though in many cases they overlap with conservatives, and in more than a few cases they defend conservatism's seamier side---usually by saying that "oh, those aren't really conservatives," but even more often by simply defending their nastier tactics outright.

Nobody's defending their tactics, as far as I can tell, but mostly shrugging it off as normal politics, which it is. Both political parties engage in fearmongering and both political parties have a small, but significant number of their base that is fueled by hatred. What I object to is decrying one while defending the other. Unlike DMN, I do find problems with the Philadelphia, MS speech, but I'm not so naive to think this was some important watershed event, just another example of something both parties do.

I agree that both parties have often engaged in fearmongering and demagoguery. But where I differ is that I see the interjection of racial code words as going beyond "normal politics," since it strikes at something far more important than mere political divisions. This is far worse than Daisy ads or Swift Boating John Kerry, bad as those two campaigns were, because their consquences are far more corrosive to a social contract.

Obviously this isn't to say that all racial issues should be beyond the realm of discussion, even the more marginal ones, but it's one thing to ask Michael Dukakis to explain why he paroled a violent criminal---that's a perfectly legitimate question---and another thing altogether to repeatedly run ads with mug shots of a disheveled Willie Horton along with them. Certainly you can't deny the screechingly obvious appeal to racial fears in those ads that go way beyond the question of parole policy. That's not "hardball politics"---that's stirring up racial fears for purely partisan advantage.

"No enemies to the right" seems to be the working philosophy in those cases, or at least "no enemies to the right if they don't actually use the 'n' word any more in their public speeches"---almost any code word gets spun into innocence.

This isn't true. In fact, there's quite a split among libertarians in which side to stomach. Younger libertarians tend to put a priority on the social fascism of Republicans and are far more likely to vote Democratic. Self-identified libertarians in the 18-29 range, 17% of the libertarian total, voted for Kerry 71-24 in 2004. As libertarians get into the prosperous years of their life, they tend to make voting against economic fascism a priority, and those numbers flip from 30-49 and 50-64 before going back to even 65+ or older.

That's what some of us might call a "nuanced" take on the point I was making. And I'm not going to disagree with it. For my own part, I see big splits within the libertarian ranks along the same lines that you're mentioning, even if I'm obviously not agreeing with terms like "social fascism" or "economic fascism." (Those sound too much like the sort of leftist rhetoric I've heard way too much of in my life---in fact "social fascism" was a term first used by Stalinists in the 1930's.)

And I think that even many of us "leftists" often have strains of libertarianism within us. I'm not keen on many smoking bans or helmet laws, so long as people who smoke or don't wear helmets are willing to own up to their contributory negligence when bad things happen to them. And though I understand the sentiments behind recreational drug bans, as a practical matter they're mostly a disaster.

When it comes down to it, I tend to worry more about the economic tyrants than social tyrants. Conservatives tend to go for fringe issues, while the liberals tend to go for the pocketbook, wherefrom I feel all rights are devised. Money isn't just stuff, it's a representative of human activity and human work. The more money the government takes away, the more they're controlling your day-to-day activities. On a personal level, gay marriage or abortion or pledges in school, or the government knowing what books I checked out at the library has little effect on me, while the amount of money that is taken from me affects every personal choice I make, from what to eat to where to go to what to do. So I tend to be forced to stomach the Repugnicans more often than the Spendocrats, though I didn't vote for Bush in either election (Browne and Nader).

Obviously I don't agree with either your premises or your preferences here, but that's an honest take on social policy.

We see the term "conservative" thrown about in so many ways that it's almost become meaningless, and it's not only arky who's vague about his definitions and examples.

But is it meaningless? That you were able to make a list of conservatives suggests that the label does have meaning, even if it's not an exact set of rigid criteria. Yes, conservative can mean different things, just as liberal can, but its meaning is generally understood in the context of our politics. Nobody would think that arkitekton or Mikhail Suslov are conservatives in the context of current American political thought.

I completely agree with that last sentence, but what brought me into this whole discussion in the first place was that the ONLY thing that seems to unite the "conservatives" on that list was their distaste for business regulation---and don't be fooled by George Wallace's "little man" rhetoric on that score; Birmingham's "big mules" were among his biggest fans.

That's the point that arkitektron was trying to make about modern "conservatism" in general, and so far I haven't seen much refutation of it. I don't think either of us (certainly not YT) were trying to equate real world examples of conservatism with principled libertarians, even though the two groups often overlap on some matters. I'm not trying to hang Jesse Helms around Friedrich Hayek's neck.

her Hall of Fame chances

These voters have been deadlocked – not to say probably dead by now, in fact – for a very long time.

You might not agree with Obama on everything, but I'm fairly certain that he's closer to most of our left-leaning friends on this site on most issues than any candidate ever is with libertarians.

I think you make a good point here, but I'd like to note that you've disavowed the Cato definition of libertarian to do so - now you're talking about an ideology that makes up maybe 1% of the electorate, and probably a good bit less.

I've sat with Jackson and/or his congregation when we were fighting to keep families warm when their heat was being cut off, or their neighborhood schools were being cut, and I haven't been impressed with the response.

Eraser, you confused me with this passage. Who or what were you not impressed with? Jackson? The community response to Jackson? What?

Please advise.

I tend to worry more about the economic tyrants than social tyrants.

Didn't someone say awhile back in this Long Walk of a thread that this was one of the main bell-curve indicators of the difference between the left and the right?

That's probably true, but it also depends on your terminology. To some people, progressive income taxes are "economic tyranny," while others find "social tyranny" in a moment of silence to open each public school day. And some of us find such rhetoric ridiculous in both cases---where does that leave us?

Now that Hillary appears done, what do people think about her Hall of Fame chances?

Hillary's done when you pry her cold, dead fingers from her two-ended vibrator.

Here's the difference between liberals and conservatives:

1) Conservatives are primarily motivated by money.

2) Liberals are primarily motivated by sex.

Once you understand that, the rest is gravy.

The fact that Cato shows that libertarians would have voted for Perot, whose policies were far, far from libertarian, suggests again that the people they're talking about aren't libertarians at all.

I see a possible rationale that has little to do with whatever Perot's actual policy positions were.

Namely, that if he had somehow won the White House or at least had carried a bunch of states, it represented another potential power base beyond the existing two parties. It might have given people the idea that it was something other than a waste of time to vote for a third party.

Perot had no chance. It became pretty clear early on that he was a complete whackjob.

Plus, getting trounced in a debate by Al Gore was not exactly encouraging either.

You might not agree with Obama on everything, but I'm fairly certain that he's closer to most of our left-leaning friends on this site on most issues than any candidate ever is with libertarians.

For whatever reason, probably because Hillary somehow morphed into Huey Long in a pantsuit, Obama hasn't really played up what I feel are some rather strong libertarian credentials.

While I accept Dan's fiscal libertarian view, I have friends that took Obama's constitutional law course at U of C - and they all (both of them :-) say he at least taught from a much more libertarian POV than he's been running.

I think some of that DOES come through in his voting record and platform...the lack of mandates and penalties in his healthcare plan (children under 18 excepted, which is something I frankly have no problem with)... several of the infamous 'present' votes in the IL state senate dealt with an internet child predator bill that passed overwhelmingly, on the basis of liking the intent of the bill, but feeling it breached privacy on the web...

I wish he'd been more of a leader on things like FISA - but he's still voted the right way at every turn.

On the fiscal libertarian side of things, it's certainly a bit murkier, but then -- I think so is the definition. "low taxes" does not automatically equal fiscal libertarianism in my mind at least...

I tend to worry more about the economic tyrants than social tyrants.

Actually, I have a better question here for Dan specifically on this particular statement. Who specifically are these economic tyrants you are worrying about, as most of the tyrants that have gained a foothold in history aren't described that way. I know the Libertarians see FDR as some kind of economic tyrant but the pain and terror and death he caused just doesn't seem to rate.

I sound snarky here, but I am really interested in the definition and historical impact of these economic tyrants. I'm not sure where or how I would start as I freely admit to having had little interest in economic history, save for the tulip problem and benchmarks of that nature that are more common knowledge.

I EXPECT that names like Mao and Mussolini would come up, some of the Roman tyrants who started all this organized tyranny, maybe?

It's odd to me how social tyranny may seem to come from economic tyranny from your description, Dan, when it would seem to me that exactly the opposite is true. Economic tyranny grows out of personal social beliefs over who deserves the benefits of a country's economy. Because god knows someone with power over the economy certainly doesn't believe it's EVERYONE, right? Hence the horrible economic consequences of such power.

EDIT: kevin, #3942 is probably the first time you've ever me smile. Credit due, excellent post.

I'm really not a Clinton hater, I'm just tired of their brand of politics. I can certainly appreciate a Clintonian POV; that they learned how to play the game on the mean streets of Gingrich Avenue, that they've only been responders, yada yada... but I no more want to spend the next 4 years refighting the 90s than I do the 60s.

I don't really understand how the "fight" is supposed to be different in an Obama presidency. Are the Republicans going to fight any less hard against environmental regulations or universally affordable health insurance if it's Obama proposing it instead of Clinton?

I think the liberal/conservative divide is largely over swimming pools. Liberals either can't imagine having tens of thousands of dollars for a private pool, or kind of like swimming at a public pool (often both). Either way, they are happy to be taxed a couple of bucks a month to maintain the municipal pool. Conservatives either have their own pools or can't abide the thought of getting into other people's water, so they bitterly resent the coupla bucks.

the idea that it was something other than a waste of time to vote for a third party

American politics is interesting in that third-option Presidential candidates have often been very high-profile and sometimes had a big impact on the outcome of an election (2000, most arguably). Yet they have almost never been able to translate that excitement into actual broad-based and active third parties. I am probably being cynical here, but it's a lot more fun running around for one leap-year summer singing "Crazy" or saying "there's not a dime's worth of difference" than it is getting up every morning in an off-year and promoting a third-party slate of city-council candidates in Sioux Falls or somewhere.

I don't really understand how the "fight" is supposed to be different in an Obama presidency. Are the Republicans going to fight any less hard against environmental regulations or universally affordable health insurance if it's Obama proposing it instead of Clinton?

Probably not. But the end result of the Clinton years wasn't good from the Democratic point of view. Republicans in control of all 3 branches of government, all sorts of policy debates shifted well to the right, entire states and demographics abandoned to the Republicans, Democrats spending all their time defending against bimbo eruptions and overlooking strategic capitulations, etc.

I almost think the party would have been better off if Bush the Elder had won a second term - thought that would have contributed to a "Dems can't win the White House" perception that might have been harmful in its own way.

I think the liberal/conservative divide is largely over swimming pools. Liberals either can't imagine having tens of thousands of dollars for a private pool, or kind of like swimming at a public pool (often both). Either way, they are happy to be taxed a couple of bucks a month to maintain the municipal pool. Conservatives either have their own pools or can't abide the thought of getting into other people's water, so they bitterly resent the coupla bucks.

The more I think about it, the more that does seem like an almost perfect symbol of the philosophical split between the two belief systems. Of course in applying that test to history it becomes a bit complicated by the fact that so many southern whites were perfectly happy to support municipal swimming pools with tax dollars---so long as those pools were segregated.

But with the collapse of Jim Crow the hemming and hawing began, and it's still with us.

So were those southern whites "liberals" back then, and "conservatives" now?

Of course in applying that test to history it becomes a bit complicated by the fact that so many southern whites were perfectly happy to support municipal swimming pools with tax dollars---so long as those pools were segregated.

They were "Democrats" then, Andy.

And largely "Republicans" now.

were those southern whites "liberals" back then, and "conservatives" now?

And that question points to a great paradox of American politics. The terms don't even make much sense in that context. I have the impression (though the actual details are hideously complicated, I know) that the most segregationist leaders of the South (guys like Theodore Bilbo, James Eastland, Richard Russell) were also pretty happy about the New Deal, in large part because it redirected a lot of federal resources towards their (white) constituents. But the paradox is much older, going back to Thomas Jefferson being a democrat and a slaveholder ...

And largely "Republicans" now.

And they flipped at exactly the time when the racial divide stopped being a sexual chasm and started being an economic one, Andy.

The thing is Andy that there is no clear definition of conservative. For myself, I'd define it something along these lines... A conservative believes:

(1) That we live by and large in a good and free country with a tradition and culture that ought to be preserved.
(2) That taxes should be "low" and that there shouldn't be "a lot" of government regulation.
(3) That the government should respect the laws and the rights of its citizens - including their economic rights.
(4) That appeals to abstract ideologies not grounded in reality (and in particular not grounded in our own country's tradition and culture) are highly suspect.

Not perfect but I think it gets the job done?

EDIT: Of course in many ways being a "conservative" is just a self-selecting club. You're a conservative if you call yourself one and so do other conservatives, and there doesn't have to be any rhyme or reason to it.

I don't think it's only because Andy spoke my piece far, far more eloquently than I could, but I did want to note what a shame it is that his assertions and argument didn't receive the thoughtful, considered replies it deserved. Jesus--that post is eminently publishable stuff. Instead, a few people threw stones and then ran and hid in the bushes of obfuscation and complaint(as of 3915 or so). That's a tribute to the intelligence and organization of post 3899, but it's still a pity there hasn't been actual engagement with it. I'd be fascinated to see a response that takes on his central thesis, rather than nitpicks at the edges. And I'll try to get to his idea of a Platonic conservatism when I have more time.

JC wrote:

Andy:

All I'm interested is simply what Ark means when he calls himself a conservative.

A while back I wrote:

... it is indeed still possible to be an anti-corporate (no special classes, no special privileges, and yet pro-business), neutral on abortion (this would be the State's business, how, exactly), neutral on gay marriage (this would be the State's business, how, exactly), pro-education (yet anti-the current public school system), pro-comparatively small military, pro-impeachment (war crimes are war crimes), largely pro-States rights, pro-reparations (pay your debts and be done with it), pro-environment (CONSERVE) conservative.

JC, I'm reposting the above in the event you genuinely want to have a dialogue of some kind. When someone like Dan whines by taking the last few words of the paragraph out of context (since I have him on ignore, all I have in turn is that fragment Andy quoted) there's no point in responding.

On the other hand, if your interest is genuine, I've written here before that I believe in a system of government that maximizes personal liberty. What form that government would take is, transparently, a very open question. I happen not to equate maximizing personal liberty with maximizing the ability to accumulate money profits (and see the two as actually opposed in many ways), which puts me in the minority. I've written in this site that oligarchies resulting from unfettered corporate power are viciously antidemocratic, and so on. So, if you're interested in advancing the discussion, by all means have at it. There's plenty to take genuine issue with in what I've written on this site. I also believe greatly in personal responsibility, and that corporate charters, particularly in their current, unrestrained form, are also antidemocratic, and I would have them granted only, if at all, as they were granted originally, in extremely limited form. There was some talk earlier about how the Supreme Count went off the rails in the 1930s. I'd push that back at least to 1886 as regards commerce, when a clerk wrote into the decision of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, that corporations, in effect, had the rights of persons. I believe that corporations, qua corporations, have no ability to speak, therefore no right to speak. That's surely worth discussing.

If you want to claim I'm not a conservative because I think Bush should be (as Clinton and Reagan should have been) impeached, or because I think Karl Marx was a brilliant analyst of capitalism, go for it, I guess. That's just not an argument I'm going to get into. On the other hand, if you want to engage something I actually wrote, that'd be great. By all means, teach me something.

(JC, btw, if this hasn't done justice to your questions in 3889, 3902, let me know and I'll try to engage them this evening or tomorrow.)

I'll catch up with all this later. Is nine ball a liberal or a conservative sport?

If you want to claim I'm not a conservative because I think Bush should be (as Clinton and Reagan should have been) impeached, or because I think Karl Marx was a brilliant analyst of capitalism, go for it, I guess.

I agree with the second part of that. Marx was brilliant as a critic of capitalism. His problem was in not properly seeing how it was going to evolve in the far future and in constructing effective constraints on its excesses.

But he pegged its problems pretty accurately back in the day.

edit: hmm. The edit function isn't working. That should read "unfettered" rather than "fettered" corporate interests, and as for Andy's post not being engaged, when I wrote that I had read through 3915. I meant too to include an elision, asserting that corporate charters as presently granted also defeat the idea of personal responsibility.

I don't really understand how the "fight" is supposed to be different in an Obama presidency. Are the Republicans going to fight any less hard against environmental regulations or universally affordable health insurance if it's Obama proposing it instead of Clinton?

In a word... yes.

First - the American public as a whole is much, much more 'progressive' on environmental issues than they were 20 or even 10 years ago. I mean, we've got Pat Pobertson and Al Sharpton, Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich making environmental pitches together. I certainly expect there will be debates around the edges - and yes, I'm sure the bomb throwers aren't going away... but America doesn't have the same view on environmental issues that it once had. I don't think they buy the 'OMFG!!! Millions of jobs lost to save the spotted owl!!!!' hyperventilating anymore.

Ditto on health care. Support for some sort of universal/universal-leaning health care model, at minimum - an affordable, government funded option - is almost twice what it was in 1994.

I think we've seen a shift, and one thing all politicians (right and left, GOP and Dem, liberal and conservative) know is that you don't swim upstream. For all the GOP's talk about getting back to their "core principles" - the American public just isn't as interested in those core principles any more. The center has moved.

To a great extent, the bomb throwers just don't have the pull they once did. I mean, forget operation chaos -- Limbaugh, Coulter, and company couldn't even stop a dead and buried John McCain from getting the GOP nomination. These folks have lost an enormous amount of pull in their own party - never mind the general electorate. They're being defanged... FoxNew's ratings are cratering... folks that were formerly 'taken care of' aren't finding jobs (there was an article in WaPo a few weeks back about Alberto Gonzalez's trouble finding a job... imagine that... a former AG actually struggling to find a position at a top firm).

Both as a Democrat and American - I think it's the right time for someone like Barack Obama (and frankly, were I a Republican, I'd say the same thing about John McCain). The politics of destruction, of scorched earth wins against the 'other side' is coming to an end.

That doesn't mean the fringes on either side will just roll over, but their power has been greatly diminished.

Though I consider myself a lefty, that goes for the left side of the fringe, too. It's notable that while Barack Obama enjoys large margins of support from the left's answer to talk radio (the 'blogosphere') - he most certainly didn't kowtow to them. There are, in fact, a fair number of liberal bloggers, nominal Obama supporters, that have grumbled that Obama doesn't seem interested in playing on their turf, either.

I agree with the second part of that. Marx was brilliant as a critic of capitalism. His problem was in not properly seeing how it was going to evolve in the far future and in constructing effective constraints on its excesses.

But he pegged its problems pretty accurately back in the day.

Heh... Karl Marx, the JP Riccardi of economics!

Interesting discussion. Once I'm gone, things pick up. Coincidence? Naw.

While I will let Alou, JC, Szym et al address the ideological elements of ark's positioning himself as a "conservative" should they choose to do so, I would also like to point out the obvious: a lot of snarking over the issue is simply because of the fact that ark uses inflmmatory rhetoric to flame McCain and Bush and almost always sticks up for Obama on a personal level, if not a political one. MOST of the "conservatives" here, from Republicans to Libertarians, have been fairly negative about Bush's recent policies and have distanced themselves from Bush's presidency, either saying they voted for him only as the lesser of two evils, or in some cases (Rich) did not vote for him at all. However, the "Bush is an idiot/psycho/criminal" stuff comes almost exclusively from the Democrats--with the exception of ark.

I am not saying this is good or bad or that no one else is aware of it--just that it is clearly part of the reason this is a side/meta issue on political threads.

William F. Buckley himself questioned Bush's intellectual capacity to perform the job and you can't get more mainstream a conservative than WFB, robin.

William F. Buckley himself questioned Bush's intellectual capacity to perform the job and you can't get more mainstream a conservative than WFB, robin.

I meant at BTF.

Well, Buckley did use to post here under the handle "Cyrano de Bordagaray."

RDF, Well done, BDMG.

Don't you just love the faux European accents of rich conservatives?

you confused me with this passage. Who or what were you not impressed with? Jackson? The community response to Jackson? What?

I didn't like Jackson or the Coalition's response on the issues. They didn't seem to do much other than to use the issues to promote the RC and while the issues may have been unwinnable at the point, there was a desperate to at least try, and I didn't see any of that occurring.

To a great extent, the bomb throwers just don't have the pull they once did. I mean, forget operation chaos -- Limbaugh, Coulter, and company couldn't even stop a dead and buried John McCain from getting the GOP nomination. These folks have lost an enormous amount of pull in their own party - never mind the general electorate. They're being defanged... FoxNew's ratings are cratering... folks that were formerly 'taken care of' aren't finding jobs (there was an article in WaPo a few weeks back about Alberto Gonzalez's trouble finding a job... imagine that... a former AG actually struggling to find a position at a top firm).

It's not the Limbaughs and Coulters that led the fight against the 1993 Clinton health plan or who would lead the fight against Obama's health plan. It's the insurance industry that will spend vast amounts of money launching a PR campaign and lobbying Congress. They're not going to back down any easier now than they did 15 years prior.

And while some polls show huge support for forms of universal health care, those poll numbers dwindle when people are exposed to the fear mongering of "socialized medicine" that they will be bombarded with. Obama didn't help himself in this regard with his Harry and Louise style mailers and attacks on Clinton's health plan.

I would love to see Obama's health plan implemented, but I fear that if it ever passes it will be clogged up with AHP and HSA nonsense.

Both as a Democrat and American - I think it's the right time for someone like Barack Obama (and frankly, were I a Republican, I'd say the same thing about John McCain). The politics of destruction, of scorched earth wins against the 'other side' is coming to an end.

You should check out the people McCain has hired to run his campaign. This is not going to be a cordial campaign from either side.

Though I consider myself a lefty, that goes for the left side of the fringe, too. It's notable that while Barack Obama enjoys large margins of support from the left's answer to talk radio (the 'blogosphere') - he most certainly didn't kowtow to them. There are, in fact, a fair number of liberal bloggers, nominal Obama supporters, that have grumbled that Obama doesn't seem interested in playing on their turf, either.

This is true, though John Edwards was the darling of the blogosphere until he dropped out. Liberal blogs are generally more anti-party establishment than anything else, so it's no surprise they sided with Obama over Clinton.

I didn't like Jackson or the Coalition's response on the issues.

Jackson's a self-centered, egotistical, self-promoting phony.

I'll catch up with all this later. Is nine ball a liberal or a conservative sport?

Conservative. Straight pool and snooker are liberal. 8-ball is libertarian. One-pocket is fascist.

William F. Buckley...

Speaking of, I sang in a concert last night in a manhattan church, and one of the guys in the audience was Buckley's evil twin. Almost cost me an entrance when I saw him.

there was an article in WaPo a few weeks back about Alberto Gonzalez's trouble finding a job... imagine that... a former AG actually struggling to find a position at a top firm).

Huh. I missed that. Thanks for the tip, zonk.

Sorry - [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/washington/13gonzales.html?_r=2&hp;&oref;=slogin&oref=slogin" ]NYT -
In Searching for New Job, Gonzales Sees No Takers[/url].

I always get my liberal media propaganda organs mixed up:-)

It's not the Limbaughs and Coulters that led the fight against the 1993 Clinton health plan or who would lead the fight against Obama's health plan. It's the insurance industry that will spend vast amounts of money launching a PR campaign and lobbying Congress. They're not going to back down any easier now than they did 15 years prior.

And while some polls show huge support for forms of universal health care, those poll numbers dwindle when people are exposed to the fear mongering of "socialized medicine" that they will be bombarded with. Obama didn't help himself in this regard with his Harry and Louise style mailers and attacks on Clinton's health plan. I would love to see Obama's health plan implemented, but I fear that if it ever passes it will be clogged up with AHP and HSA nonsense.

I think we've had this discussion before. Your first paragraph is absolutely right - socializing medicine will be fought tooth and nail by insurance and drug companies for obvious reasons. It will hurt their profits.

Second, I'm pretty skeptical about your claim that health care reform of the type the Democrats are offering is going to be unpopular. A recent poll found that Americans were split down the middle as to whether "socialized medicine" would be an improvement on the current system. Given that this term is, in popular discourse, much more a Republican talking point than a neutral descriptor, I don't think that it's going to be easy to get popular support for opposing health care reform.

Third, though, the problem really isn't popular support. Or, at least, it's not about getting a majority of the country to sign off. The question is how to get it through the Senate, how to get 60 votes for universalizing health care reform. It seems to me that the way there is threefold - (1) run with health care reform as a major plank in your party platform, (2) win, (3) get lucky that one or two centrist Republicans get scared (maybe Snowe or Voinovich or somebody.)

This is true, though John Edwards was the darling of the blogosphere until he dropped out. Liberal blogs are generally more anti-party establishment than anything else, so it's no surprise they sided with Obama over Clinton.

While I don't mean to claim that left blogistan isn't highly tribal and dubiously ideological, I think their siding with Edwards points to the ideological location of the blogs. He was pretty clearly the most leftist of the viable candidates, especially on economics and trade. Obama and Clinton ran as centrists, while Edwards tilted to the left, and he won disproportionate support from this sub-group of the activist base.

I always get my liberal media propaganda organs mixed up:-)

Governor Spitzer? Is that you?

Don't you just love the faux European accents of rich conservatives?

Or rock stars. Billie Joe from Green Day isn't British. Nor is Colin Meloy from the Decembrists.
Madonna is married to a Brit, but she's from Detroit.

Both as a Democrat and American - I think it's the right time for someone like Barack Obama (and frankly, were I a Republican, I'd say the same thing about John McCain). The politics of destruction, of scorched earth wins against the 'other side' is coming to an end.

I think that's just insane. The "politics of destruction" aren't a function of not having nice people running for office, it's a structural issue.

We have a two-party system. For a while, it was kept from its natural state by the existence of conservative Southern Democrats and liberal Northern Republicans, but now those have been purged from both parties. Both parties win when the other loses, both parties are relatively unified and in easily distinguishable from the other. We can see this in the huge number of parliamentary- style party line votes in Congress both under the Democrats and the Republicans.

As I understand Obama's message, when he says that he will unite the country under a new politics, listen to the specifics. What he'll do is articulate a set of center-left policies and win support from people who are sympathetic to these policies. He's not saying he's suddenly going to endorse Republican policies or surrender his party or his beliefs.

I see no reason to think that an Obama presidency wouldn't be dogged by right-wingers constantly, on every major issue where they disagree. Obama's plan is to marginalize those opponents and create a governing majority that can consense on center-left policies. He's not trying to bring Democrats and Republicans together, except to accomplish things that are supported primarily by Democrats. Republicans aren't stupid - they'll fight that hard.

While I don't mean to claim that left blogistan isn't highly tribal and dubiously ideological, I think their siding with Edwards points to the ideological location of the blogs. He was pretty clearly the most leftist of the viable candidates, especially on economics and trade. Obama and Clinton ran as centrists, while Edwards tilted to the left, and he won disproportionate support from this sub-group of the activist base.

It's true that Edwards had the most liberal policies, which is interesting since he arguably had the least liberal policies in the 2004 primary. But his campaign was also centered on an anti-establishment populism that resonates with bloggers.

This reminds me of a post by Atrios that I thought was clever and apt:

Shorter Candidates

Obama: The system sucks, but I'm so awesome that it'll melt away before me.

Edwards: The system sucks, and we're gonna have to fight like hell to destroy it.

Clinton: The system sucks, and I know how to work within it more than anyone.

Danny,

You are clearly for HC, so what is your take on the "hard-working Americans, white Americans," comment? Over the line? "Just politics?" Slip of the tongue? Good/bad/neither for the Demos?

Edwards had the most liberal policies, which is interesting since he arguably had the least liberal policies in the 2004 primary

I was very wary of Edwards for that reason. Like Al Gore and Bill Bradley, he seemed to execute a left turn after he was no longer running for anything; unlike them, he came back to run again as this newer lefter person.

I see no reason to think that an Obama presidency wouldn't be dogged by right-wingers constantly, on every major issue where they disagree. Obama's plan is to marginalize those opponents and create a governing majority that can consense on center-left policies. He's not trying to bring Democrats and Republicans together, except to accomplish things that are supported primarily by Democrats. Republicans aren't stupid - they'll fight that hard.

The crucial thing here is what is meant by "Republicans." If you mean "The party and its leadership and its Congressional delegation, at least as it currently exists, and its base of passionate supporters" you are absolutely correct. If you mean "the totality of people who have sometimes or often voted Republican," I suspect you may not be.

The generic "Republican/conservative" brand has for years been more popular and more electorally successful than the level of support that exists for most of their concrete policy proposals (or non-proposals, as the case may be) would dictate. (And candidates who bear that label have been even more successful relative to those factors than the popularity of the generic brand would dictate.) Some of that is the skill of their operatives, some of that is the ineptitude of the Democrats, some of that is a system designed to favor the status quo and an electoral system in particular weighted towards conservative elements, some of that is the money advantage that those supporting the interests of capital are always going to have, and some of that is just the inherent difficulty in organizing and focussing progressive support.

As such, the potential for a messenger and a message that attempts to change the terms of the debate is seen by us as a positive, and a message that asks us to keep fighting in the same ring is seen as playing defense.

As such, the potential for a messenger and a message that attempts to change the terms of the debate is seen by us as a positive, and a message that asks us to keep fighting in the same ring is seen as playing defense.

I didn't say that Obama didn't want to change the terms of the debate. I just said that I don't see Obama having any effect on the ferocity of the debate.

EDIT: Insofar as all Obama means by the "politics of destruction" is the political system in which Democratic Party ideals are disproportionately difficult to enact, that's not at all what zonk meant by the term.

I think the liberal/conservative divide is largely over swimming pools. Liberals either can't imagine having tens of thousands of dollars for a private pool, or kind of like swimming at a public pool (often both). Either way, they are happy to be taxed a couple of bucks a month to maintain the municipal pool. Conservatives either have their own pools or can't abide the thought of getting into other people's water, so they bitterly resent the coupla bucks.

Which, of course, is the view of the "swimming pool" from an incredibly skewed, liberal perspective.

I see the liberal side of the pool as asking me for a few dollars to maintain the municipal pool. Then a few dollars to maintain the municipal beach chairs. Then a few dollars to maintain the municipal soda machine, the municipal ice cream maker, the municipal towel rack, the municipal jacuzzi. And then more and more things are bought for the pool, with almost no input from me and the dollars demanded grow larger and larger. Then the city passes an ordinance stating that I can't even talk about pool rules within 60 days of a city council meeting because that would be electioneering.

You must live in a very liberal municipality, Dan. I was actually thinking quite a bit more literally. Here in Texas my local public pool only has enough funding to open for two months a year, is crumbling for want of maintenance, and costs $60 for a two-month pass or $3.50 per swim. Conservatism at work :)

Funny stuff, Dan. Well done, as was Bob's.

But suppose the people who can't afford a pool really want a place to swim, but can't afford to pay much to do so? Should they just take the bus to the beach? In this case, it seems unlikely that Swimborski Pools Inc will head to poorer areas to build pools for them. Instead, Swimborski Inc will build private pools at the homes of rich conservatives such as arkitekton ;- because that is how they can make money--which is a-OK.

But then, is it unfair to make the CEO of Swimborski Inc pay a little more in taxes so the pool gets built in the poor area? That might help quality of life in the neighborhood, and might make some enterprising poor kids more likely to check into the pool-building industry as a way to get ahead.

Now, as far as the jacuzzi, and the ice cream maker, and the towel rack, that is in part a systemic issue. It may be that the guy who manufactures the towel racks has pictures of a councilman with a hooker, so he says that he will keep the pix to himself and donate to the councilman's campaign if the coucilman can get a towel rack line added to the pool appropriation budget. Sure, Liberal Councilman R. Red, hooker pix or not, may be more likely to vote "yes" on the towel rack, but pork is consumed on both sides of the governmental table, and I just don't trust Libertarian-run businesses like Swimborski Inc to build that pool.

I was actually thinking quite a bit more literally.

Me too, although the pool in my neighborhood is OK. No extras, through.

There's a pretty sad public pool in my neighborhood. I saw it and my jaw dropped when I discovered I'd have to pay money (not a huge dent in my finances or anything, but enough to make me chuckle a little) to use it.

Even when you put in public pools, black people lack the buoyancy to become good swimmers.

Even when you put in public pools, black people lack the buoyancy to become good swimmers.

True story. I was in an office of six people as the only white person. For reason the topic of swimming came up, and apparently I was also the only person in the group who knew how to swim. Which threw me for something of a loop. I didn't even know about the stereotype of swimming being a "white thing" until that moment.

I mean, in my part of New England, you can't drive more than 15 minutes in any direction without hitting some sort of body of water you could swim in when the weather/climate permits.

That wasn't directed at you, JC, but at the sort of people who keep saying that Sharpton is some sort of "black spokesman" who has to be "repudiated" about every fifteen minutes

He doesn't have to be "repudiated." He has to be ignored.

As an outsider, I haven't stepped into you all's feud with arky about who's a true "conservative" and who isn't, but it seems as if the main split here is that arky has a sort of Platonic conservative ideal in mind, and sees it violated by pretty much everyone who calls himself a "conservative" these days, whereas his opponents here pretty much define "conservatism" as whatever the dominant ideology of those who call themselves "conservative" happens to be at the moment.

Just about everyone who thinks about this sort of thing has a platonic ideal of conservatism and judges almost any actual person to fall short of the ideal. (That's why they call it "ideal.") Arkitekton's trolling comes from the fact that his supposed platonic ideal of conservatism doesn't contain any actual elements of conservatism.

Here's an exercise, JC. Think of two dozen or so of the more prominent "conservatives" in American life these days (including a few honorary dead ones from not that long ago), and then tell us what, exactly, beyond the "maximizing business profits," they have in common.

Well, there's the problem, Andy. Supporting smaller, less intrusive government is completely different than "maximizing business profits."

The other problem is your mental model is wrong. There's nothing they all have in common. Think of a Venn diagram; you want to pick the black spot in the middle where they all overlap and say that this is core conservatism. But that model is wrong; it's not a simple diagram in which there's one area in the middle where they all overlap. Rather, there are varying areas of partial overlap. The problem with your model is illustrated very simply with two words: Mike Huckabee. He doesn't fit your notion that conservatives have one commonality of "maximizing business profits."

You are clearly for HC, so what is your take on the "hard-working Americans, white Americans," comment? Over the line? "Just politics?" Slip of the tongue? Good/bad/neither for the Demos?

Well, I was for her when she had a chance to win...

I think she meant to say that Obama has had some trouble gaining the support of working class whites, which is both true and often discussed. It doesn't help Obama, and I wish she'd stop, but it's not as if its a new or original claim.

Danny,

You are clearly for HC, so what is your take on the "hard-working Americans, white Americans," comment? Over the line? "Just politics?" Slip of the tongue? Good/bad/neither for the Demos?

I thought she was simply saying that she does much better with blue collar whites than Obama does, and so she has a broader base with which to build a "winning coalition," as she put it.

It was perhaps awkwardly phrased, but I don't have the slightest idea why it's become a mini controversy. Are people seriously suggesting that she was implying that only white Americans are hard working?

I was very wary of Edwards for that reason. Like Al Gore and Bill Bradley, he seemed to execute a left turn after he was no longer running for anything; unlike them, he came back to run again as this newer lefter person.

I think the difference is that Edwards moved left because he saw that as his only chance to beat Clinton, whereas I see Gore as moving left because he felt liberated from the moderation required in national electoral politics.

To backtrack a little...

arkitekton:

I want to take seriously your claim to be "conservative," in part b/c I'm interested in what conservatism entails, but your last post (3888) confuses me. Obviously Brooks is posing "individual freedom" v. "state expansion" and it seems pretty clearly the case that the right (the conservatives) stood for the former and the left (the liberals) stood for the lattter. Sure, there are areas where this is blurry (as in, for instance, social conservatism), but while the effect of standing on the right and for individual freedom does obviously correlate with "maximizing business profits" (or more accurately, for maximizing the freedom of exchange among individuals and their businesses), is it really fair to reduce "the right" to maximizing business profits? And, more generally, when you say you're conservative, what do you mean - you're for individual freedom and a smaller state bureaucracy, or something else?

My issue with Brooks's assertion is that it's demonstrably, immediately false, and I honestly don't see how you or Brooks can say the right stood for individual freedom, particularly as you both find the opposite of "individual freedom" to be "state expansion". The number of initiatives by the right to curtail individual freedoms and expand the power of the state, particularly in the last 8 years, is enormous and apparent. It certainly was not much less so in the 20th century. Take expanding the military, as one obvious example. It is surely "state expansion", as you phrase it, and another consistently right wing endeavor. The right and its prominent spokesmen, as Andy enumerated, routinely stand for legislation, eliminating legislation, regulation, deregulation, anything, really, that enhances the ability of certain kinds of businesses to accumulate profit, with minimal regard for any other effects. I haven't reduced the right to maximizing business profits, but it would be hard to argue (and no one has, here, yet, in anything like comprehensive fashion) that that's not a cornerstone of a huge majority of philosophies in this country defining themselves as right wing.

If you feel that way, ark, then why on earth do you call yourself a conservative?

If you feel that way, ark, then why on earth do you call yourself a conservative?

AG, my feeling is that just because the right wing has gone completely off the rails, and has tarred conservatism with a vile brush, doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with conservatism itself. One recent example is Bush selling the gullible on the idea of "compassionate conservatism" (and did anyone gulled by that gem actually look at his record as governor?). It doesn't make compassionate conservatism a bad idea just because the candidate and his party used it solely as a sales pitch, in the same way that conservatism is not a bad idea just because a vile opportunist like Limbaugh asserts he himself is a conservative.

The thing is Andy that there is no clear definition of conservative. For myself, I'd define it something along these lines... A conservative believes:

(1) That we live by and large in a good and free country with a tradition and culture that ought to be preserved.

Me, too.

(2) That taxes should be "low" and that there shouldn't be "a lot" of government regulation.

Get specific. How low? Should they be progressive? Are you OK with the regressively capped Social Security payroll deduction? Or would you just privatize Social Security? What would you or wouldn't you have (say) the FDA or the SEC regulate?

(3) That the government should respect the laws and the rights of its citizens - including their economic rights.

Me, too. I argued right here against that dreadful Connecticut public domain case.

(4) That appeals to abstract ideologies not grounded in reality (and in particular not grounded in our own country's tradition and culture) are highly suspect.

I couldn't agree more. Although I’d say that in recent times “conservatives” have been far more prone to voicing platitudes about abstract ideologies than liberals, especially when it comes to "spreading democracy"---a fact many other conservatives will acknowledge. Too bad that it took the Iraq war for so many of them to figure it out.

All of which is to say that both "liberal" and "conservative" are rather meaningless terms unless you get down to specific laws and/or specific people, and what those specific people believe. And as far as I can see, with the exception of a stray renegade or two who slips under the conservative tent because of his strong stand on social issues (see Huckabee, below), the only common thread that unites conservatives is the desire for a carte blanche for corporate business.

---------------------

I see the liberal side of the pool as asking me for a few dollars to maintain the municipal pool. Then a few dollars to maintain the municipal beach chairs. Then a few dollars to maintain the municipal soda machine, the municipal ice cream maker, the municipal towel rack, the municipal jacuzzi. And then more and more things are bought for the pool, with almost no input from me and the dollars demanded grow larger and larger. Then the city passes an ordinance stating that I can't even talk about pool rules within 60 days of a city council meeting because that would be electioneering.

Move the decimal point about six places to the right and you're describing your generic no-bid defense contract.

-------------------------

Here's an exercise, JC. Think of two dozen or so of the more prominent "conservatives" in American life these days (including a few honorary dead ones from not that long ago), and then tell us what, exactly, beyond the "maximizing business profits," they have in common.

Well, there's the problem, Andy. Supporting smaller, less intrusive government is completely different than "maximizing business profits."

In theory, yes. In practice---in terms of what the real world effects of that particular model of "less intrusive government" has come to mean---don't make me laugh.

And to the extent that you're consistent in your own beliefs, to that extent you break with the sort of cronyism that's marked real world "conservatism" for more than a few decades. And you and your more principled libertarian friends become merely one more set of voices in the wilderness.

(At least I hope that when you're waxing orgiastic about free markets, you're not swaying to the beat of some no-bid defense contract that's spreading its legs in the centerfold of your magazine.)

The other problem is your mental model is wrong. There's nothing they all have in common. Think of a Venn diagram; you want to pick the black spot in the middle where they all overlap and say that this is core conservatism. But that model is wrong; it's not a simple diagram in which there's one area in the middle where they all overlap. Rather, there are varying areas of partial overlap. The problem with your model is illustrated very simply with two words: Mike Huckabee. He doesn't fit your notion that conservatives have one commonality of "maximizing business profits."

Huckabee is the one exception on my list to the general rule, but you might note that the further he rose in the polls during the primaries, the more that he, like John McCain, began to backtrack from many of his former unconventional conservative positions. And the broader point is that to the extent that he strays from the COG orthodoxy, his economic views will have no chance whatsoever of having any real influence within any remotely prospective future Republican administration---about as much influence as Rev. Wright would have in an Obama presidency.

------------------------

If you feel that way, ark, then why on earth do you call yourself a conservative?

AG, my feeling is that just because the right wing has gone completely off the rails, and has tarred conservatism with a vile brush, doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with conservatism itself. One recent example is Bush selling the gullible on the idea of "compassionate conservatism" (and did anyone gulled by that gem actually look at his record as governor?). It doesn't make compassionate conservatism a bad idea just because the candidate and his party used it solely as a sales pitch, in the same way that conservatism is not a bad idea just because a vile opportunist like Limbaugh asserts he himself is a conservative.

That's a perfectly legitimate answer. And here's another honest question directed to arkitektron's detractors:

The most prominent public faces of "conservatism" these days, whether you like it or not, are George Bush and Rush Limbaugh. These people call themselves conservatives, their followers think of them (and themselves) as conservatives, and they have a much bigger collective following than any of conservatism's competing brand names---even with Bush's ratings at an all-time low and Limbaugh's influence within the GOP clearly waning.

Do these people speak f