archie bunker Loc: Texas

There are certain things listed in the Constitution that the Federal Government is charged with doing. Anything else is to be handled by the states, and the people.

Manning345 Loc: Richmond, Virginia

You were given a list of some twenty-five or more items that represent Conservative values, each of which is held dear by Conservatives, and each has either direct application to government or to a Conservative attitude or approach, or both, and all of them, and probably more, must be considered collectively as bedrock thinking of Conservatives. That is what the list is made up of in my opinion, and it definitely opposes leftist ideas.

You seem to want merely governmental aspects or impacts of Conservatism, but it is not only that, but it is also a state of mind, a philosophy and a worldview to be applied across all subjects of interest, governmental or not. So the simple answer--to apply the Constitution as written and intended by the founders--misses the rest of the mindset of Conservatives.

One aspect not identified in the list is preservation of the customs, traditions and institutions of both the government, mediating groups, factions and associations, and the people themselves. Another is to be extremely prudent with the application of new ideas, especially those that have little history of validation or a lot of negative validation, like virtually all collective, atheistic, Utopian ideas, such as Progressivism, Secular Humanism, Socialism and Communism.

moldyoldy

A more balanced comparison.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Conservative_vs_Liberal

Manning345 Loc: Richmond, Virginia

Indeed, it is more complete. Good find. I believe it is written to favor Liberalism, however, but much of the comments section makes a more conservative argument. Of course, my comparison was with the Left, not just liberalism.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

So if I get what you're saying is this:
Anything new is to be viewed with suspicion.
Any commonly held bias or prejudice should be kept.
No change to any customs, traditions, or institutions even if they're outdated or unworkable.
Insulate and isolate your social group from any influence that will change that status quo.
Freeze time.

In short, one of your ideal groups would be the Amish or the Orthodox Jew, which have successfully rejected modernity and change for many decades. The old-time name for this would be a 'stick-in-the-mud'.

It has been said, 'The only thing constant is change.' To try to hang onto the status quo without any modification whatsoever is to be bypassed by the rest of the world in short order.
If you wish to avoid any risk of that change, then you probably have to become a hermit in a cave waaaaaaay out in the woods somewhere. Change is coming, and to think otherwise is to play ostrich.

Otisimo Loc: Lansing Michigan

All I can say is WOW! If you truly believe that list is accurate then there is no conversation that can be engaged in !
You are already brain washed and unwilling to hear anything you don’t like. You are painting with an incredibly wide brush and stereotyping millions of people as someone they most definitely are not. I feel sorry for you if you are truly that afraid of that many of your fellow citizens. Democratic voters are still Americans whether you think they should be or not. And for your information, if voters on the left like you describe even exist, they are a tiny minority as to be insignificant. Sheesh!

Manning345 Loc: Richmond, Virginia

Of course you didn't read carefully what I wrote, which is to be expected. The main idea on change is to be prudent and mindful of the consequences of changes, and to use small scale programs to test out changes before fostering it on the full public if possible. There are such things as unintended consequences of changes that need to be thought through or discovered before implementing them fully.

One must be extremely prudent when deciding that some custom, tradition or institution is unworkable or outdated: one question on that is: unworkable for whom, or outdated by whom? Is it to further conservative philosophy and modernize it in some manner, or is it to introduce radical ideas from the left? Most customs, traditions and institutions represent the historical wisdom of many bright people, which obligates the changer to be mindful of not erasing that wisdom arbitrarily and without understanding the rationales involved, or the unintended consequences that may arise.

Change is indeed necessary when failure occurs, but again, one should be prudent with the fixes and stay within the philosophy of conservatism in the process. Change is available for the Constitution, but it was made difficult to do so deliberately, since the founders were quite concerned about willy-nilly liberal or other flawed ideas creeping into play, such as abortion.

It seems to be a liberal idea to legislate out all biases and prejudices at the federal level, instead of using the corrective mechanisms available, for instance, via the church, local law and plain old common sense. For many of the prejudices, the Constitution provided for equality of opportunity and equality before the law for all citizens, and it was left to the states or the people to put in place additional complementary laws or customs, etc. that carry out the fundamental Constitutional laws. That these added laws were either imperfect, not made or not fulfilled is not necessarily or not only the fault of conservatives.

There are cases where federal law is the right way to go, even the only way to go, and it should be legislated (not decreed) with great care.

There was no provision for equality of outcomes in the Constitution, therefore that is an unconstitutional idea.

For the Supremes to create new law was not intended; that is the role of the legislature. Thus, judicial activism is unconstitutional. That it has been used actively to effect social changes thought beneficial and expedient by five or more black robes is a fact, but it is not constitutional in my opinion.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

Au contraire ... I read it quite carefully. And there are indeed unintended consequences to any legislation. Pilot programs are a good thing most of the time.


When you ask those questions, unfortunately, in most instances, the money wins. The corporate ethos of profit over all leads, for example, to allowing wage discrimination, destroying minimum wage and allowing unsafe working conditions. If you invoke historical wisdom, that invariably leads back to patriarchal systems that have been responsible for more wars and bloodshed throughout history than I can enumerate. Keeping most of that 'historical wisdom' perpetuates oppression of minorities and women, while enriching those at the top of the heap. Is that what you want?


Since you brought up the abortion issue, I would pose the following questions:
1.) Is forcing a woman to carry to term a violation of not only her body, but her civil rights?
2.) The criteria for determining when life begins is a religious concept, not a legal one. Can you give a scientific point at which a human life begins?
3.) Supposing that you succeed in forcing the woman to carry to term, and she can't afford to support the child. Is this morally right, considering that the child will probably wind up either in adoption or foster care? Would you support the government in taking the responsibility for that child, since the woman can't? It would seem that conservatives will go to the wall to force the birth, but totally absolve themselves from any responsibility regarding the child after it is born?
4.) If the child is identified as having a serious birth defect and will require intensive round-the-clock care, is there a legitimate reason for forcing the woman to carry to term? The cost of that child will ultimately bankrupt the family and affect them for their entire lives if they have to shoulder that responsibility.


Using the "church, local law, and plain old common sense" would have kept segregation in the south even to this day, had the federal government not stepped in. Those same mechanisms would have kept the LGBTQ community suppressed forever if they had their way. The states have proven unable in most instances to prevent discrimination at the state level, and only federal law has prevented massive discriminatory practices. The Constitution never provided for equality of opportunity or equality before the law ... that was the Declaration of Independence, which carries no legal weight. It is the fault of both parties that that the laws passed didn't entirely fill the purpose for which they were intended.



Equality of outcomes? Nobody has ever said that life is fair, nor is any political system. Congress has in many instances passed legislation to improve the lot of one special interest group over another, and done the same over time to suppress minority groups or movements, none of which is 'fair'. "Might is right, and justice is the interest of the stronger."


Here we get into 'original intent' versus the 'living document' treatment of the Constitution. I think that you would have to agree that our society and country has radically changed from 1789. The Constitution never envisioned such things as social media, instant news updates, and political propaganda on a major scale. Neither did the Constitution envision such a thing as a right to privacy, a woman's right to choose, or same-sex marriage. These are social changes that much of the country has supported, and the "5 black robes" have interpreted the Constitution as covering. I think that you would also agree that the Congress would never be able to pass legislation that would cover these topics. Were it not for the 'judicial activism' that you refer to, the country would still be mired in neo-Victorian structures that would have kept much of the progress that this country has made from happening. As to judicial activism, I would have to classify the 'Citizen's United' decision as such a thing, since it overturned all pretense of money buying elections.

OK, I've had my say ..... continue the discussion. Prove me wrong with fact, not beliefs.

markinny

TO GET RID OF LIBERALS!

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

whitnebrat: What is currently going on is the fracturing of the true libs! You have tripped off the cliff on your assessment of Conservatives....work a little harder on you're theory; its currently hilariously off kilter!

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

moldy: You're warts must be so big...how can you even wear the rose colored progressive glasses?

debeda

No, whineybrat, conservatives DON'T hate or fear change or want to "freeze time". There's also an old saying "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater ". Change just for the sake of change engenders chaos. Certain things are the way they are because of decades or even centuries of trial and error. I think one of the more oxymoronic of the new "laws" is gay marriage. Marriage is actually a religious institution where couples pledge to each other and any children of the union. But even farther back it was an institution whereby a man and a woman (and in polygamous societies women, if the man was deemed able to afford same) were married for the sole purpose of legitimizing any offspring of the union and providing for same. Gays don't have offspring. So a civil ceremony would be adequate whereby they gained the ability to be claimed as dependents for insurance and tax reasons and have an inheritance claim. Another oxymoronic law is the whole illegal alien question. Which I think is summed up perfectly in the meme "if someone moves into your house without permission does that make them part of the family?". Conservatives also believe in personal responsibility. If you make decisions and/or take actions YOU are responsible for the consequences. You don't get a special pass cuz you have a great excuse or are the minority du jour.

moldyoldy

So, are you saying that you just don't want to call it marriage?

gaconservative74

You saying that you are looking at this objectively is completely laughable...... I am curious where you get your ideas from. Do you ever spend any time actually studying conservatives or just watch cnn and read the huff post?

debeda

Interesting answer...but there are still a large portion of Democratic voters still having a temper tantrum over the outcome of the 2016 elections and very publicly and loudly and often on television calling conservatives stupid, saying we should die, saying we should be ashamed, and telling us our opinions don't count....