Comments on: Is conservativism going extinct? Wed, 26 Nov 2014 19:47:54 +0000 hourly 1 By: 1saltygal Tue, 24 Dec 2013 11:50:40 +0000 It’s my understanding that “American conservatism” is respect for tradition, support of republicanism, the rule of law and the Christian religion,” and a defense of “Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments”; and Mr. Graham is no longer considered an American conservative by my observation. He’s become nothing more than a two bit, vote seeking, go along to get along, typical politician who even the aging, angry or not, white man or woman can see conservative values in his words and actions, this will include the other politicians like him who, “when it comes to social issues ‑ women’s rights, such as equal pay; women’s health, including contraception and abortion; the rights of racial minorities, including basic elements of democracy such as access to the ballot; immigration, both legal and illegal, and equal rights for children of illegals; gay rights and homosexual marriage”, they lean liberal in their stance just to get that two percent popular vote. Just look at the real popular vote for Romney on the electoral red and blue map. We want statesmen who don’t pander to the two percent flavor of the month.

As for the age, race, sex, and “popular issues” factors, as an aging female I can see it play out in the same manner as it did when I raised my child. There were many things she desperately wanted at various time during her development; but as the parent, the adult, I had to guide her into what was best for her, not cave in to please her. As it turned out, she developed into a lovely young lady with an excellent, top of her class education in the study of law which cost her in student loans, but she wouldn’t have it any other way now. It’s from delayed gratification that what’s most important in life will come to fruition. Of course it’s not easy to say no to those frequent, yet unhealthy demands and requests of those who grew up in these “modern” times. The times call for instant gratification in just about everything from fast food to the plethora abundance of material items offered.

I think Margaret Thatcher approach was more one of common sense in regard to the assessment of just what it was going to take for the government to run successfully under the circumstances of that time.

In the grand scheme of things, wouldn’t swallowing some ill tasting common sense be the better action for any party to take rather than taking the pleasurable reactionary route to obtain a few votes? I think the vast majority would be able to see the need and be willing to take their medicine in order to get well rather than see a continued decline in our country while the minority will scream and kick rather than swallow the ill tasting medication but at least the sickness within our country would be curtailed.

By: MikeHarrington Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:21:35 +0000 What an odd notion. Or perhaps the question is misstated. Conservatism can’t go extinct, nor I believe can conservatives. It’s very possible ideas associated with 20th century political and economic configurations as espoused by the Republican Party will go the way of the dodo, as they should. But this applies to 20th century American-style “liberalism” that we associate with the Democratic Party as well.

To address Nicholas’s main argument: the population is aging and demographics are changing. Well, the politically powerful, but aging, babyboomer cohort will be taking control of national politics for the next 20-30 years. I expect the two major parties will reflect their political preferences, not those of the younger generations, which will be split between receiving state benefits and paying the taxes to pay for such.

As far as the main point, let me put it this way. Republican policy ideas based on corporate and financial sector dominance are anachronistic, as are Democratic ideas based on union and political machine dominance. (Granted, many fail to recognize they’re living in the past – very conservative attitude, right?) The real question is what kind of political philosophy will best guide future party platforms? Neither party will go extinct, but hopefully both will be transformed as they adapt to change. In a two-party electoral structure, there is no ying without the yang.

By: HaterOfLies Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:47:58 +0000 @jtfane Your argument would make perfect sense if anti-amnesty advocates were against LEGAL IMMIGRATION. It is the amount of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS that has them pouring in by countless millions. So try telling the entire story next time. And if Canada shared a border with Mexico and a HUGE mass exodus of illegals came pouring into their communities. After higher medical costs due to a quadrupling of non-paying indigent care and emergency services and over-crowded classrooms, higher crime rates, etc… I would wager that many Canadians would be singing a different tune. It is easy to cast stones until your are wearing the shoes of the receiving victim.

By: HaterOfLies Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:31:33 +0000 @jtfane “Reality is that a dozen other nations have higher immigration rates than the United States and all of them”
What a bunch of bull! This is NOT, and never has been, about immigration. It was all about illegal immigration, there is a BIG difference! But liberal spin artists love to speak in half-truths while expounding their leftist philosophies. They have no more validity than a Bible-thumper who cherry picks certain passages while ignoring damaging counterpoints in validating an argument relevant to personal ideologies.
Latinos, especially Mexicans, take-up the lions share of legal immigration by a considerable amount as it is. And this says nothing about the illegal immigration numbers that have been cited as approximately 11 million illegals in the US right now. That number has gone down by 1 million since 2002 yet by 2030-2040, Latinos will be the new majority.
The inconvenient truth about not being able to track a truly unknown quantity just never sank in to the liberal mindset. But hey, the deck is, and always has been, stacked against the social conservatives and moderates. You guys control all the media, except FoxNews which is a joke, so the moderates have absolutely no voice in today’s politics. We are being fed the news through a liberally biased bottle-neck. More or less, a Sorosian filter. And I have discovered through twitter feeds that many of the (fair and balanced) journalists of controversial news stories (not just opinion pieces)such as Yahoo and CNN have been very active in crushing any differences of opinion.
So why don’t you Libs just admit that many of you are liars and bigots.

By: explorer08 Thu, 13 Dec 2012 23:38:02 +0000 @bluwater23000: sir, your knowledge of Europe is abysmal. Have you ever actually been there??

By: jtfane Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:42:50 +0000 @bluewater23000 said:

“Much of the liberal agenda has been adopted throughout Europe, and you may note that it is not a place where people want to flock to. Perhaps adopting these lifestyle changes will make us the same way, making immigration a non-issue as well.”

As already noted by @ofilha, this is typical American myopia and a classic case of fabricating evidence to support a flawed ideology. Reality is that a dozen other nations have higher immigration rates than the United States and all of them, save Australia, Canada and New Zealand, are European nations. Fourth ranked Switzerland’s immigration rate is more than double that of the United States. According to Wikipedia (a simple search to avoid making yourself look like a fool): “As of 2006, the International Organization for Migration has estimated the number of foreign migrants worldwide to be more than 200 million. Europe hosted the largest number of immigrants, with 70 million people in 2005. North America, with over 45 million immigrants, is second.” Given that Canada has an immigration rate more than double that of the U.S. it’s easy to estimate that twice as many people “flock to” Europe as to the United States. I’m sure you won’t let these facts get in the way of your ideology though.

By: pavoter1946 Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:44:31 +0000 The real problem is that Republicans have nurtured and cultivated the intolerant religious right as their base, and they have an outsized influence in the primaries.

And, in bed with the 1% who see any attempt to bring a degree of equality as akin to Communism. I am not referring to a redistribution of wealth; but a redistribution of the rules which have skewed every advantage to the 1% as an entitlement, while they decry anything to others as ‘socialism’.

There is no longer an equal chance to succeed for most.

If Republicans were calling for more of those who crashed the economy to go to prison, that might show to many that there is a new cop on the beat. Instead,they fight every rule that is designed to level the playing field.

After a point, the clever use of phrases and slogans that get seniors to hold signs demanding government take their hands off their Medicare is going to ring hollow.

Anger and invective on the radio from the right wing fringe can only bring so many voters to the Republican Party. They are preaching to the choir, not enlarging the choir.

By: Gordon2352 Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:23:34 +0000 Apparently, you have a very serious “color and age” problem yourself.

The problem with the GOP is that it has an obsession with “green” — as in the color of money — rather than the horseshit described in your article.

The proof is quite obvious if you care to look around you. Not all whites are wealthy, and not all people of color are poor. That much should be obvious to everyone, but apparently it is not.

Thus, not everyone who is “old and white” — a double racial and age bias slam — is wealthy (unfortunately), since I am both, but I am certainly not wealthy.

I am, by most standards, reasonably successful, but entirely by my own efforts in terms of overcoming my “poorness” with education (through hard work and student loans).

Nevertheless, even though I am white, most of my efforts have been in vain.

I have been subjected to discriminatory practices in my life (but certainly not to the extent of most), primarily because I don’t have the proper “credentials” — as in being born wealthy, which is quite easy to tell from a quick glance at a person’s resume — so I have been forced to watch as others with significantly less qualifications and abilities being advanced and protected by their “class”.

The truth is that simply being white is certainly not a guarantee of success, and it is a racial slur to state or imply it.

My problem — along with a lot of other white people out there of all ages — is that we were born relatively poor.

Thus, we don’t fit in with the wealthy crowd, and people like you try to make it sound like “white” is the problem when it is not.

It’s the wealthy, stupid!

By: borisjimbo Thu, 13 Dec 2012 07:46:52 +0000 What happens when El Rushbo croaks? Who’ll take his place? Somebody has to keep the middle aged disgruntled white male electorate riled up.

By: Foxdrake_360 Thu, 13 Dec 2012 01:06:17 +0000 I work in an Assisted Living, Independent Living, Dementia, and Skilled Nursing Facility; Over 500 elderly residents.

Romney supporters almost to the letter. They don’t like Black, Communist Obama.

They are racist. One 94 year old calling the lady who lives next door who is 82, “the colored girl.”

This is the “twilight” of the WWII/Korea generation … and not a moment too soon.

They have way, way, way, out-lived their usefulness.

And something happens as one gets older. It’s a change in the “gray matter.”

They are all fearful.
They are all less intelligent then they once were.
They are all more child like.
They are all angry(er).
They are all sick.

This has/continues to be played upon by Fox News / the Republicans by stoking that fear and lying to them – usually to their own detriment.

This is NOT the greatest generation. This is the MOST selfish one, willing to sacrifice their kids (the baby boomers) and their grandchildren (the X, Y & millennials) for a few more years of pointless, ill life. While simultaneously selling them out by running up record deficits to fuel their pointless wars of aggression, exuberant Medicare and Medicaid entitlements … and yet, they don’t want to pay taxes.

They got to live to 90+ on “the welfare-state” but they’ll be dammed if anyone else does.

If we’re going to cut medicare or medicaid or elder entitlements we should cut them for all, now.

Let them experience some “free market capitalism” before they die, immediately, in the cold, in the street from the shock of what life is like without “government.”

Let the transfer of assets BEGIN!