The Conservative Divide

[Chris]

Well, either that or he's like some others, Obvious is a good example, who's just out of his element discussing politics and tries to make up with bluster what he's missing intellectually in a not too difficult topic. I mean, there are two conservative factions, likely more, and you might side with one over the other, ok, so argue your position rationally, there are arguments for being nationalistic, and arguments for leaning libertarian.

[Captain Obvious]

Do you have examples?

None that you're capable of fathoming.

[MisterVeritis]

None that you're capable of fathoming.

I am capable of a very great deal. More than you.

It is okay to admit you don't know what you are talking about.

[Captdon]

History repeats.

I see a lot of blind loyalty, hard blind loyalty here.

It's a symptom and a very valid point but the hard loyalists won't ever understand that.

It's how Nazi Germany was able to accomplish what it did.

I understand what happened in Germany, There is no comparison to us today. We aren't recovering from a World War, a Depression and street fighting. We don't have runaway inflation. We have never had to pay thousands of dollars more in 5 minutes for the same product.

There is no comparison,

[Chris]

With reference to Hitler and the German people, see The Problem With Ocasio-Cortez’s Shameful Ignorance Of History.

[Captdon]

We have a little Hitlery, instead

We gave the fascist group calling themselves Aunty-Fa.

We have the fascists in the intelligence agencies colluding with the fascistisic Rodents to overturn ekections, steal elections and run a coup on the presidency.

We have 95% of the news media engaged as active parties in the coup.

And morons want to pretend this nation is not at risk of overthrow, so let's all kiss RINO ass because his troy dies not exist.

Continuing to be an ass doesn't gain you anything except more laughter. I repeat, no American can be compared to Hitler. I didn't say the country wasn't at risk. The coup failed. Americans aren't a dumb as you think they are.

You make valid points and then ruin it with idiotic "Rodents" and other over the top foolishness.

[Captdon]

Hardly.

People are fools if they see what they wish was there in my posts.

The reality is most of you pretend conservatives, you people of the True Conservative (tm) stripe, are too gutless to debate issues. As you can see, rather than having the intelligence to discuss the issue at hand, and the forum's visiting genius has spelled it out so even gutless brainless partisan partial to Rodent hacks such as yourselves can see it laid out, even people with your pitiful lack of talent and creativity, can't miss the real issue.

You peons of the brain want to avoid the real issue even as you post threads by treasonous little picks from Canada who do not want you to see the real issue.

You morons hate Trump because you morons had rathered that the Hillary fascists had won rather than Trump. Now you morons are unhappy that real Americans dare to disagree with your treasonably elite ideological puppeteers who yank your $#@!ing chains.

LA di $#@!ing da. You are offended because real Americans disagree with your distaste for the most successful president in living memory.

You gutless people are morons. VPredictable fools, the useless yakking idiots thst serve to enable the destruction of civil society.

You are so proud of yourselves.

Yet you can list NOTHING you have done to make America stronger on the face of this Rodent onslaught, an attack you people actually applaud.

Citing $#@!ing GOLDBERG! Seriously? Jonah or Whoopie, there is no difference. Can't tell which hates America more.

What we real Americans are telling you pansy - ass fair-weather fake patriots is thst the time for your hand wringing whiny days are done.

Your hands are done wrung out.

Get your ass marching to save America or get out if the $#@!ing way.

Ther's no $#@!ing middle in the road anymore, and running you over will be more fun than anything.

That's the $#@!ing "divide" now.

I'm pretty much a Trump supporter and my posts prove it. Your idiocy is just ranting.You accuse people of something they haven't done. You are not writing anything resembling rational opinions and your facts are fiction.

[Captdon]

No it doesn't, and Real Americans know that it doesn't. Oh and that political opposition and ideology thinks of you and those on the Right in terms of even less than a rodent. Have been doing so for half a century. Laughing each and everytime those on the Right take the high road.

Which Emboldens their kind even more. That which gets repeated, gets rewarded.


That being said.....meh, it beats calling them pieces of $#@!.

It makes rational people laugh and write him off as the rightist we are called by the left. He's embarrassing. That's what you are endorsing.

[Captdon]

None that you're capable of fathoming.

That always means you don't have anything.

[MMC]

Here is a piece on the Repubs in theory and practice.






Turning to the Right, the dominant ideology is libertarian anti-statism. Among mainstream conservatives, there is a marked tendency to reduce politics to a zero-sum battle for liberty between the federal government and the rest of the country (individuals primarily, but also the states, the private sector, and civil society), and to trust in markets to solve nearly all problems. Mainstream conservatism, in others words, frequently confuses conservatism with libertarianism. “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism,” Ronald Reagan once explained. “The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom, and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”

Mainstream conservatism has carved out two important exceptions to this anti-statist ideology, the goal of which is to maximize individual liberty. It has created protected realms for social conservatives—whose goal is to protect the family, defend the vulnerable, and uphold traditional morality—and for foreign policy hawks who want a well-funded military capable of keeping America safe and projecting force the world over.


While conservative intellectuals are fond of invoking the fusionist three-legged stool of fiscal, social, and national security conservatism to describe themselves, this analogy does not capture the underlying philosophy of mainstream conservatism (or the self-understanding of the average Republican voter, for that matter). In terms of its worldview, fusionist conservatism could more accurately be described as a two-branched tree: the trunk is anti-statist libertarianism, to which are added the two branches of social and national security conservatism. This explains why social conservatives are always on the defensive: they must justify their views before the libertarian tribunal of more choice, more liberty, and less government.


The “conservatarian” fixation on liberty and opposition to government made some sense during the Cold War when the threat of communism loomed over the world. It does not, however, speak to the challenges confronting most Americans today. Aside from the most committed libertarians, few Americans would list a lack of freedom in their lives as their most pressing concern. That is not to deny that militant leftism, the administrative state, and the imperial judiciary threaten liberty—they most emphatically do. Nor is it to argue that conservatives should not care for liberty. Rather it is to recognize that the average American, including the average Republican voter, is not a libertarian, has come to expect quite a lot from the federal government, and cares as much, if not more, about security than liberty (or opportunity for that matter, unless he is young and on the make).


In the Republican Party, this fusionist “conservatarianism” is the reigning ideology. Most Members of Congress identify as conservative and generally talk and think in terms of less government, and more freedom. How they govern is another matter altogether. After more than a century of progressive-liberalism, the administrative state and the welfare state are deeply entrenched. The realities of big government, coupled with the expectations of voters and the pressures of lobbyists, force most Republican Members of Congress to be more conciliatory in practice — to the point where many come to define the conservative position as simply spending less than what the Democrats propose. To the perennial dismay of movement conservatives, the GOP tends to govern in a rather establishmentarian way.


Within the Republican Party and the conservative movement, there are some who, having made their peace with some form of big government, are actively working to reform it. What used to be called neo-conservatism (before the Iraq War made the term radioactive) now goes by the name of reform conservatism. It is the dominant way of thinking among conservative policy wonks of all stripes in the Beltway, regardless of whether they identify with the label, and it has a few adherents among Republicans in Congress.



Reform conservatism is admittedly a catch-all term that includes a rather diverse group of people, from the so-called reformicons, to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and Senator Mike Lee. Despite disagreeing on particular policies and on how best to navigate the political landscape, they share a similar approach to governing. In the spirit of Irving Kristol, reform conservatism promises to reform the clunky and outdated machinery of the modern administrative-welfare state rather than to get rid of it, as the libertarians promise, or to simply manage it more efficiently, as the Republican establishment tends to do. Its main aim is not so much to expand individual liberty as it is to strengthen and reinvigorate the core institutions of civil society — families, local communities, and voluntary associations of all kinds. On a range of issues, it aims to devolve decision-making to the states and to create subsidized competitive markets where they currently don’t exit (for example, in education and health care).


At its best, reform conservatism offers sensible policy proposals to improve the quality of life of all Americans. (At its worst, it devolves into technocratic rule, albeit with a greater emphasis on fiscal responsibility and the importance of markets.) Unlike the utopianism of libertarian anti-statism, its agenda also has the great virtue of being achievable.


Reform conservatism does, however, face an uphill battle to win over the hearts and minds of Americans. Even though the policies it advocates would benefit the American people, it has limited appeal outside the Beltway. Its worldview has no clearly defined enemies and, as such, fails to inspire. Politics is always about “us versus them” — whether it be enemies abroad or factions at home that threaten the common good. Reform conservatism is critical of the failures of big government and of the excesses of modern liberalism, but it does not vividly impress upon the people the threat they pose to our way of life. On the whole, it is insufficiently spirited, and thus, insufficiently political. It has neither the rhetorical zeal of libertarian anti-statism, nor the emotional appeal of the newest and most misunderstood kid on the Republican block, Trumpist populism......snip~


https://www.heritage.org/conservatis...y-and-practice

David Azerrad, Ph.D.
Director and AWC Family Foundation Fellow
David Azerrad studies conservatism, progressivism, identity politics, libertarianism and the American Founding.