If you've posted in forums you might remember writing some decent responses. I usually spend a lot of time polishing my discussion forum responses depending on the subject or who I am talking to. Often I want to remember what I said about something, but finding the original post can be difficult. So it makes sense to capture the better responses for later review. Welcome to Clint's Reposts.Wednesday, May 26, 2004
Old School Conservatism == your centrist (Politics Forum)
In response to:
This Post
Well written thought. Just to clarify terms:
Centrist: One who takes a position in the political center; a moderate.
Conservative: One favoring traditional views and values.
Liberal: One who favors greater freedom in political or religious matters; an opponent of the established systems.
Libertarian: One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
Neoconservative: An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s: "The neo-conservatism of the 1980s is a replay of the New Conservatism of the 1950s, which was itself a replay of the New Era philosophy of the 1920s".
You said, referring to one who would take your list as a platform: "It's a different kind of "centrist" isn't it?"
When you think about, the political center has continually moved from its original center, just like the population center in Colorado Springs has moved toward the east. What you are saying is a "different kind of centrist" I would argue is really an old school conservative for the most part.
The meaning of the Constitution represents "original" traditional values. Your laundry list for a candidate echo's much of the traditional way, and so, IMO, can't be considered the center, as in "centrist"--maybe that's why you said a "different" kind of centrist. Conservative traditional values today are far more liberal than our founding traditional values.
I was going to say some of your list does not represent original traditional values, but after looking at them again, I think they all do. In as much as your list represents minimizing the role of the state, one can consider those libertarian ideas too.
IMO, libertarian values are essentially an overreaction to the downside of where liberalism and "new center", i.e., modern conservativism has taken us - the minimizing of individual rights.
Neoconservatism seems to be a dirty word, but taken on it's definition, should be a welcome direction if you are in favor of moving toward traditional views.
My own inclination is toward the better parts of original conservatism sprinkled with Jeffersonian attributes.
I would love to see a candidate that ran on the platform you described, but I fear such a candidate doesn't represent a majority of voters. Until such a person emerges, I trust Bush can hold down the fort as well, and likely much better than his current competition.
C
This Post
Well written thought. Just to clarify terms:
Centrist: One who takes a position in the political center; a moderate.
Conservative: One favoring traditional views and values.
Liberal: One who favors greater freedom in political or religious matters; an opponent of the established systems.
Libertarian: One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
Neoconservative: An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s: "The neo-conservatism of the 1980s is a replay of the New Conservatism of the 1950s, which was itself a replay of the New Era philosophy of the 1920s".
You said, referring to one who would take your list as a platform: "It's a different kind of "centrist" isn't it?"
When you think about, the political center has continually moved from its original center, just like the population center in Colorado Springs has moved toward the east. What you are saying is a "different kind of centrist" I would argue is really an old school conservative for the most part.
The meaning of the Constitution represents "original" traditional values. Your laundry list for a candidate echo's much of the traditional way, and so, IMO, can't be considered the center, as in "centrist"--maybe that's why you said a "different" kind of centrist. Conservative traditional values today are far more liberal than our founding traditional values.
I was going to say some of your list does not represent original traditional values, but after looking at them again, I think they all do. In as much as your list represents minimizing the role of the state, one can consider those libertarian ideas too.
IMO, libertarian values are essentially an overreaction to the downside of where liberalism and "new center", i.e., modern conservativism has taken us - the minimizing of individual rights.
Neoconservatism seems to be a dirty word, but taken on it's definition, should be a welcome direction if you are in favor of moving toward traditional views.
My own inclination is toward the better parts of original conservatism sprinkled with Jeffersonian attributes.
I would love to see a candidate that ran on the platform you described, but I fear such a candidate doesn't represent a majority of voters. Until such a person emerges, I trust Bush can hold down the fort as well, and likely much better than his current competition.
C
Monday, May 24, 2004
Why we're going to be OK. (Politics Forum)
"E.L. Doctorow, one of the most celebrated writers in America, was nearly booed off the stage at Hofstra University Sunday when he gave a commencement address lambasting President George W. Bush and effectively calling him a liar."
Link Here
Interesting read. I especially got a rise out of the final line in this article:
"I thought this was a totally appropriate place to talk about politics because that's the world our students are entering," said sociology professor Cynthia Bogard. "I only wish their parents had provided them a better role model."
What cheek! I can only hope my own kids turn out to be like these Hofstra kids. Thankfully, the parents were a better role model. Or maybe she had Michael Moore in mind.
Anyway, it's nice to see the shoe on the other foot considering that it's usually conservatives getting the boo's on campus.
C
Link Here
Interesting read. I especially got a rise out of the final line in this article:
"I thought this was a totally appropriate place to talk about politics because that's the world our students are entering," said sociology professor Cynthia Bogard. "I only wish their parents had provided them a better role model."
What cheek! I can only hope my own kids turn out to be like these Hofstra kids. Thankfully, the parents were a better role model. Or maybe she had Michael Moore in mind.
Anyway, it's nice to see the shoe on the other foot considering that it's usually conservatives getting the boo's on campus.
C
Sunday, May 09, 2004
Warren was always pessimistic about Iraq democracy
...now it seems that David Warren is starting to show some cracks as well. He still says he supports it, but he's given up on the last of the justifications he originally made for the invasion, as far as I can see. He no longer believes there is any chance for democracy in Iraq (or any other country that wants to keep its Muslim faith). The only reason to keep our soldiers there now, apparently is because we'll look yellow if we turn and run while the Iraqis are shooting at us.
David Warren has never expressed anything but pessimism for the concept of democracy in Iraq and I've always agreed with him on that point. I think you are tuning in to your own left-leaning biases as to who David Warren is, and what he represents. There are no cracks. There is likely frustration.
The war on Iraq in my mind has never had anything to do with installing democracy. It has everything to do with a response to Terrorism. It may not prove to even be the right response to terrorism, but it is a response none-the-less. As Warren said, the war was about "the need to effect profound political change in the Middle Eastern region. This had everything to do with removing the threat of Islamist terrorism, which has been able to use the cover of virulently anti-Western regimes." That's the reason. Everything else is filler.
BTW, there is a good argument for not looking "yellow". It's our lack of staying power in previous conflicts that's provided forward movement for terrorists - look at Spain. As a country we are generally wishy washy when it comes to sticking things out, but less so than Europe I suspect.
I think he's got his finger on the pulse of the American people right now. I agree with Warren that we have stopped caring very much about the liberation of the Iraqis and are mainly concerned about not looking weak.
Looking weak in the eyes of one's enemy or potential enemy is a grave mistake. We have already liberated Iraq as far as I'm concerned -- we did it months ago in large part. Our best course now would be to turn over the governing reigns as best as we are able, and fade into the background asap. Should Iraq begin to become a haven and training ground for terrorists again, we should respond again.
The most interesting sign of how far Warren has come in his thinking over the course of the war is not in his loss of faith that freedom can work in Iraq (which was never all that great), but in his tacit admission that it's failed in America.
Well, he's been saying that since February at least: "How do you build up democracy in Iraq when it's falling apart in the United States?" And he's probably thought that since before the Iraq war.
Personally, I've been aware of liberty decreasing by the day here in the U.S., town by town, across the country. Even really intelligent and thoughtful people I know seem to have lost a grasp of what liberty is and how to preserve it, and why it should be preserved. Liberty seems more a group agreement now--when it's convenient, than a self evident truth.
For instance, in my mind, the "Historic District" designation is simply one of many clever and contemporary methods by which liberty is lost. The fact that you disagree and feel "community review" is a thing to be placed in front of individual property rights--a long standing tradition in the U.S.--speaks volumes to me of just how quickly we are on the downward spiral.
But one of the best, if most depressing quotes that Warren's made was:
"From top to bottom, we now live under a system of governance that is called "democratic", but remains so only in outward form. The ability of the people to make choices effecting their own lives by voting, at any level of government, has almost disappeared, as we have become locked in by massive bureaucracies and vested interests, integrated across both "public" and "private" spheres. The chain of command which was once established -- the idea that real power would be vested in political representatives that the people could remove in free elections -- has been broken."
I agree. Fortunately one can still live a great life in the midst of this, especially when one minimizes as much as possible one's contact with the bureaucracies and vested interests. But it isn't our great-great grandfathers country anymore.
C
David Warren has never expressed anything but pessimism for the concept of democracy in Iraq and I've always agreed with him on that point. I think you are tuning in to your own left-leaning biases as to who David Warren is, and what he represents. There are no cracks. There is likely frustration.
The war on Iraq in my mind has never had anything to do with installing democracy. It has everything to do with a response to Terrorism. It may not prove to even be the right response to terrorism, but it is a response none-the-less. As Warren said, the war was about "the need to effect profound political change in the Middle Eastern region. This had everything to do with removing the threat of Islamist terrorism, which has been able to use the cover of virulently anti-Western regimes." That's the reason. Everything else is filler.
BTW, there is a good argument for not looking "yellow". It's our lack of staying power in previous conflicts that's provided forward movement for terrorists - look at Spain. As a country we are generally wishy washy when it comes to sticking things out, but less so than Europe I suspect.
I think he's got his finger on the pulse of the American people right now. I agree with Warren that we have stopped caring very much about the liberation of the Iraqis and are mainly concerned about not looking weak.
Looking weak in the eyes of one's enemy or potential enemy is a grave mistake. We have already liberated Iraq as far as I'm concerned -- we did it months ago in large part. Our best course now would be to turn over the governing reigns as best as we are able, and fade into the background asap. Should Iraq begin to become a haven and training ground for terrorists again, we should respond again.
The most interesting sign of how far Warren has come in his thinking over the course of the war is not in his loss of faith that freedom can work in Iraq (which was never all that great), but in his tacit admission that it's failed in America.
Well, he's been saying that since February at least: "How do you build up democracy in Iraq when it's falling apart in the United States?" And he's probably thought that since before the Iraq war.
Personally, I've been aware of liberty decreasing by the day here in the U.S., town by town, across the country. Even really intelligent and thoughtful people I know seem to have lost a grasp of what liberty is and how to preserve it, and why it should be preserved. Liberty seems more a group agreement now--when it's convenient, than a self evident truth.
For instance, in my mind, the "Historic District" designation is simply one of many clever and contemporary methods by which liberty is lost. The fact that you disagree and feel "community review" is a thing to be placed in front of individual property rights--a long standing tradition in the U.S.--speaks volumes to me of just how quickly we are on the downward spiral.
But one of the best, if most depressing quotes that Warren's made was:
"From top to bottom, we now live under a system of governance that is called "democratic", but remains so only in outward form. The ability of the people to make choices effecting their own lives by voting, at any level of government, has almost disappeared, as we have become locked in by massive bureaucracies and vested interests, integrated across both "public" and "private" spheres. The chain of command which was once established -- the idea that real power would be vested in political representatives that the people could remove in free elections -- has been broken."
I agree. Fortunately one can still live a great life in the midst of this, especially when one minimizes as much as possible one's contact with the bureaucracies and vested interests. But it isn't our great-great grandfathers country anymore.
C
