On Charlie Rose last night

[tankdriver]

he had Sam Tannenhaus, who wrote The Death of Conservatism. Pretty interesting stuff about what conservatism means, history of the intellectual leaders, etc..
It's on charlierose.com under the Archive tab if anyone's interested.

One interesting thing he said: The greatest conservative presidents since FDR: Eisenhower and Clinton. Also, Obama has a conservative temperament. Also, the lack of conservative intellectuals hurts liberals. The evolution of conservatism was interesting.

[t walgamuth]

Sounds interesting. Clinton and Obama conservatives? Yes, in many ways, but mainly simply centrist. That is the beauty of them.

Most folks are in the center.

IMO, these terms have become meaningless (at least in common useage).

[tankdriver]

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Sounds interesting. Clinton and Obama conservatives? Yes, in many ways, but mainly simply centrist. That is the beauty of them.

Most folks are in the center.

He starts with the rise of conservative thinkers and shows how their ideas are executed by Clinton and Obama. Centrism was a tenet of earlier conservatives. Centrism and reform. I thought some of it was a stretch, or not quite what the original conservatives meant, but the difference between conservatives now and then is surprising. It's kind of like seeing someone again after a long time. Then you see differences you don't see when you're with a person over time.
The old school conservatism is the kind I consider intelligent conservatism. New conservatism is lacking the intellectual substance of the old. That's why I like David Brooks and George Will (the latter a little less). They are the only voices of the old (and I think true) conservatives.

[Squabble]

watching it really piqued my interested in politics again. i've told people for years that this country would fall over itself to vote for a centrist, old school, intellectual conservative/republican, one that courts and protects the middle class. for some reason conservatives today court the upper class while using the lowest class to shout their idiotic slogans. democrats do not court the votes of the bong rippin' hippies on the super far left because it would be political suicide and would turn off the centrists. why then do the republicans insist on courting the inbred race baiting tea baggers to prove how american they are? i can't vote for a republican for a few reasons, one of which is that i can't align myself with the glen becks of the world. more george will, less glen beck, seems very simple.

edit: Tannenhaus is also right in stating that liberals/democrats have been suffering without intellectual conservatives to sharpen their arguments against. you don't have to actually do any political foot work when your only opponents are so weird and out there that no one is going to be curious as to what they offer politically.

[t walgamuth]

Originally Posted by Squabble

watching it really piqued my interested in politics again. i've told people for years that this country would fall over itself to vote for a centrist, old school, intellectual conservative/republican, one that courts and protects the middle class. for some reason conservatives today court the upper class while using the lowest class to shout their idiotic slogans. democrats do not court the votes of the bong rippin' hippies on the super far left because it would be political suicide and would turn off the centrists. why then do the republicans insist on courting the inbred race baiting tea baggers to prove how american they are? i can't vote for a republican for a few reasons, one of which is that i can't align myself with the glen becks of the world. more george will, less glen beck, seems very simple.

edit: Tannenhaus is also right in stating that liberals/democrats have been suffering without intellectual conservatives to sharpen their arguments against. you don't have to actually do any political foot work when your only opponents are so weird and out there that no one is going to be curious as to what they offer politically.

I just read your Kurt Vonnegut quote on the bottom. Hah! It is truly scary!

[tankdriver]

Originally Posted by Squabble

tea baggers

Speaking of, I thought it was funny and true how he called them the same as hippies in the 60s. Counter culture anti-establishmentism. Hit the nail right on the head. I bet some of those tea baggers would have their head explode hearing that.

[Emmerich]

Clinton was very left wing but had to centralize to get anything done, especially after the Contract with America. Obama was the highest scoring liberal senator in the Congress, he is pure socialist. He is worse than Carter, who was just stupid.

[Jorn]

Originally Posted by Emmerich

Clinton was very left wing but had to centralize to get anything done, especially after the Contract with America. Obama was the highest scoring liberal senator in the Congress, he is pure socialist. He is worse than Carter, who was just stupid.

Emmerich, would you be so kind to explain to me why Clinton was very left and why you think President Obama is a socialist.

[Jim B.]

Originally Posted by Emmerich

Clinton was very left wing but had to centralize to get anything done, especially after the Contract with America. Obama was the highest scoring liberal senator in the Congress, he is pure socialist. He is worse than Carter, who was just stupid.

So .....you are saying that you think Obama is REAL stupid?


Good lord.

[tankdriver]

Originally Posted by Emmerich

Carter, who was just stupid.

Yeah. He was the only president of the modern era to try and cut spending during a recession. Idiot.

[Fitz]

Originally Posted by Squabble

...for some reason conservatives today court the upper class while using the lowest class to shout their idiotic slogans. democrats do not court the votes of the bong rippin' hippies on the super far left because it would be political suicide and would turn off the centrists. why then do the republicans insist on courting the inbred race baiting tea baggers to prove how american they are? i can't vote for a republican for a few reasons, one of which is that i can't align myself with the glen becks of the world. more george will, less glen beck, seems very simple.

What a joke...for every Joseph Stiglitz you democrats count among your ranks you've got two or three ACORN beneficiaries.

[link]

I've wondered recently if the traditional conservative view is at a dead end.

Conservative values hold wide appeal when exploitation can move in an unhindered manner. With the growth of population and the ever increasing needs of larger social infra-structure, conservative values are finding shrinking appeal among the general public.

Then there is the disastrous results of modern conservatives: Look at what the 8 years of the Bush administration have brought upon this country. That administration served little but to reverse the previous, highly prosperous era.

The series of catastrophes of the last few years, including the worst recession in 5 generations are due expressly to the influence of conservatives. This pattern has shown itself conservatism as being a rough analogy of political spousal abuse.

While the Republican party was born in the anti-slavery movement, it has served in recent decades to achieve little besides enslaving the population to serve corporate greed, even at the direct betrayal of the interests of the population.

Add to this the recent racist tendencies that are part of the GOP, and it is hard to see a resurgence of appeal for the GOP.

What new party will rise from these ruins is hard to say. There is something positive about minimal government, but for practical purposes, the idea of smaller government is dead, not only in the USA, but the world over.

It will be interesting to see if the right wingers will form a political ideology that actually has appeal. It will take far more than a black half-wit of party spokesman, which is the only change the GOP has done. Well that, and lie, but that SOP.

The problem that both parties have is that you actually have to stand for something, you actually have to present a vision of what you think the country needs to look like in 25 or 50 years. When was the last time you saw any leadership from either party. You can't just run on the "the other guy is an idiot" platform.

At the moment conservative means anti-change, anti-intilectual to the unwashed masses and pro-industry, low tax, low regulation to their real base. The religious crazies just don't have any place else to go.

Liberal/ progressive means redistribution of wealth to the recipients of federal money and a social "safety net" to people who thing government can actually accomplish anything. They also manage to appeal to what's left of unions while also being anti-manufacturing.

I guess you can fool most of the people most of the time.

[Hatterasguy]

The republican party is no longer conservative.


Both of the major party's are morraly bankrupt and politcally corrupt. I'd be very happy to see them both fail.