Fear, mortals, the Huckabee-Paul axis!

Two Republican candidates who actually see the inside of a church occasionally. No way.

Steve

If he lives, in 4 years Ron Paul will be 77, in 8 years, 81. Good luck with your dreams.

Again, his age is no matter because it's not about HIM. It's about what he believes in and stands for; the "revolution" he promotoes. Whether it's he himself in four years, or his son Dr. Rand Paul, or another "Ron Paul Republican," the principle-seeds he is promoting have been planted, watered and are taking root in thousands and millions of Americans.

I hope this is true, but I think it is going to be difficult. Liberalism and libertarianism/neoconservatism are really just two sides of the same basic philosophy and worldview, one that permeates our thinking and our culture two the point where they are considered the only options. I'd even go so far as to say that many conservatives have a worldview and political philosophy that is liberal, libertarian, neoconservative, or a combination of these with the exception of a few social/cultural issues. Real conservatism is somewhat if not very foreign to our way of thinking, is rather complex and deep and is not easily expressed in slogans, and does not-or at least should not-have a fixed set of policy goals but is more a way of looking at the world and of living. There are philosophical and social barriers to be overcome too; we are largely utilitarian and materialist now; we demand evidence and measurable results; expertise then, is admired; common wisdom and tradition supsect. The ideas of conservatives are not easily measured, their philosophical roots are older and much less influential than utilitarianism and materialism. We are also believers in our own absolute autonomy, our ability to create ourselves in our own image (many of us Christians are no exception); we are thus no longer easily accepting of limitations, vulnerability, or traditional forms of authority. That true freedom comes from accepting and embracing the limitations of things-like family and country and gender-that we were born into and can't change, and from accepting responsibility and self-restraint, and that happiness is not just a fleeting feeling but a state that is reached through virtue and through realizing our telos, our end purpose, are such paradoxes to the modern mind that we tend to think them ridiculous.

Economic issues are a prime example of how foreign conservatism is to our way of thinking and how we really only consider ourselves as having a few options; you are either in favor of a libertarian style free market with low taxes and little redistribution, a well-regulated economy with as much redistrubition as is perceived as necessary, or a combination of the two (though closer to the former) as is the case with neo-conservatism. Distributism has been largely forgotten, Wilhelm Roepke is not well known, you can't talk about how free enterprise and private property are closely linked to freedom without being perceived as a libertarian, or about how the economy should promote the common good instead of utilitarian criteria like maximum efficiency without being perceived as a liberal. I'd like to think that if people really saw conservatism for what it is and realized it's not the same thing as libertarianism, that it would really resonate with them, and I think the Cruncy movement is definitely helping, but it is so different from what we're used to. I do know though that what we're doing now is hurting us, and so I remain hopeful.

Blacks4Barack presents:
Hillary's Religion (cult ?) 'THE FAMILY'
Very Scary !
Prays To Jesus For The Elite To Rule The World

The media has repeatedly aired the short clips of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's rhetoric in attempt to discredit and smear Barack Obama. But what's even more interesting is the fact that the media never discusses Hillary Clinton's religion, which is extremely telling and even frightening. A closer look into her 'religion' gives one a clearer picture of why she is the way she is.In a recent article by Steven Brandt many truths about Hillary's religion, called ' The Family' will make you shutter. The question is....where's the media on this one ?

Brandt writes, "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend." said Hillary Clinton, to reporters and editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on Tuesday the 25th. This is an interesting choice of words, since -- while we mostly hear about her Methodist upbringing -- Hillary Clinton has chosen to associate herself with The Family (also known as the Fellowship), a very conservative, fundamentalist organization started by Abraham Vereide...
"...an immigrant preacher who in 1935 organized a small group of businessmen sympathetic to European fascism, fusing the Far Right with his own polite but authoritarian faith. From that core, Vereide built an international network of fundamentalists who spoke the language of establishment power, a "family" that thrives to this day. In public, they host prayer breakfasts; in private they preach a gospel of "biblical capitalism," military might, and American empire. Citing Hitler, Lenin, and Mao, Doug Coe, the Family's current leader, declares, "We work with power where we can, build new power where we can't."
This quote is taken from the book on The Family by the same name which will be published in May... a book which claims to
"...dramatically challenge conventional wisdom about American fundamentalism, revealing its crucial role in the unraveling of the New Deal, the waging of the Cold War, and the no-holds-barred economics of globalization. The question Sharlet believes we must ask is not "What do fundamentalists want?" but "What have they already done?"
A long article was written about Hillary Clinton's participation in this organization last September in Mother Jones, and The Family, itself, was the subject of an extensive article in Harper's in March of 2003. And on March 21st, The Nation published an article on Hillary and The Family by Barbara Ehrenreich that was published on The Huffington Post and CBS News' web site.
The Family avoids the word Christian but worships Jesus, though not the Jesus who promised the earth to the "meek." They believe that, in mass societies, it's only the elites who matter, the political leaders who can build God's "dominion" on earth. Insofar as The Family has a consistent philosophy, it's all about power - cultivating it, building it and networking it together into ever-stronger units, or "cells."
...wrote Ms.Ehrenreich.
Is it possible that Hillary's participation in this fundamentalist group -- which apparently preaches the "gospel of military might" -- would help explain her vote in favor of authorizing President Bush to attack Iraq? Is it possible her pro-NAFTA stance during her husband's administration comes from its embrace of "the no-holds-barred economics of globalization"? Is it possible that the sense some get that Hillary feels entitled to be president comes in part from this group's belief that "it's only the elites who matter"?
I encourage any reporter covering Hillary's campaign to ask her about all this.

At a time when so many people are wondering what sort of effect the Rev. Wright's sermons may have had on Barack Obama, I think it's only fair to ask what sort of effect The Family's fundamentalist mission has had - and continues to have - on Hillary Clinton. We know that George Bush engages in truly fundamentalist thinking. There is no person or new information capable of challenging his belief that what he already knows is right. Is Hillary Clinton like this in some way? I am not sure.

But the opinion I have formed from this is that - while Hillary Clinton may be considered a Liberal by many - on the inside she is a deeply Conservative person... possibly as close to being a Republican today as she was when she was a young woman supporting Senator Goldwater. This helps explain, to me, why she and John McCain are such good friends. They are both drawn to the use of military power and free market capitalism... and to taking money from lobbyists. The other opinion I have formed is that those who say there are no policy differences between Hillary and Barack haven't taken into account how their religious differences might impact the policies they would actually seek to implement as president.
(end of article)

So now a few things make more sense about Hillary. In review, she's in a kinda power-hungry cult which is actually run by her fellow Republicans which she is secretly one of ! It also makes sense why she could care less about detroying the Democratic Party. Also, beware of her claim to work toward ending the Iraq war. That is another great lie that she is telling. If you listen to her claims she commonly repeats ' I will start getting troops out within my first 60 days '.....How many ? 3....1000...10,000 ? Don't be fooled. Hillary has no desire to end the war. She'll bring 5 troops home then say that she kept her word.

The media should be called out for not exposing this cult. Problem is, they would also be revealing the truths about their fellow Republican's plan and prayers to 'rule the world' by any means. So it's up to us, regular Americans like you and I, to help spread the truth in spite of the media.....For The Re-Birth of America !

Greg Jones
Visit: www.Blacks4Barack.org (A Multi-Racial Organization)

SOMEONE's been hitting the catnip; I won't say who....

I hate to be Semi-Official Skunk At The Garden Party, but from where I sit, there is very little chance that either Mr. Paul's or Mr. Huckabee's ideas will ever become more than a tiny fringe of the Republican Party's makeup, let alone influential in the nation as a whole.

There are two reasons for this; the first being demographic. The American commoner population is changing very rapidly (historically speaking), due largely to the State/Corporate elite's deliberate actions. The Immigration Act of 1965 opened the doors to the importation of large numbers of Mexicans of the peasant class, while at the same time suppressing (in the name of the largely spurious notions of Human "equality" and "non-/anti-discrimination") European entry. This serves two purposes: cheap unskilled labor for the Corporate lords, and new voters likely to support expansion of the State for the Washington types. Also, the aging white population will tend to demand more State services, particularly in health care, and will support an expansion of State power and authority. Mr. Paul's supporters are facing an uphill fight at best, and at worst a long, slow slide into screaming irrelevance.

The second reason is the increasing secularism, if not outright anti-Christianity, among the current elites, particularly in Los Angeles and New York. This is due largely to their vested interests in expanding consumption (particularly of media products) and in removing all kinds of restraints on behavior, particularly sexual behavior. After all, people who are self-disciplined and self-controlled are neither: a) easily conditioned to freely spend money and go into debt for unnecessary things or b) likely to engage in the consumptive behavior that will line the coffers of State or Corporation. Christianity, especially in its Catholic and Orthodox forms, is a religion that recognizes the existence of sin and attempts to instruct its adherents in behaviors that AVOID potential undesirable conduct---directly contrary to the incentives the State/Corporate alliance have towards maximizing their power and profits. Mr. Huckabee's followers will be increasingly stigmatized as old fuddy-duddies, dull and unhip.

We can see this conflict of interests in the present difficulties in the mortgage market. Even as late as the 1970s/1980s, it would have been literally unthinkable for companies to deliberately market mortgages to people who could not make the payments. On the more directly moral side, "Girls Gone Wild" and the antics of Britney Spears/Paris Hilton/Madonna would simply not have been tolerated in the moral climate of the pre-1965 period.

In light of these facts, and the fact that today's children are being raised in a memetic environment where laxity of behavior is considered virtuous (the adult's expectations are formed by what the child sees, after all), I suspect that it will take something in the way of a miracle to restore the older, bourgeois ethos of self-restraint in a sizable enough segment of the population to save this culture in anything like its present form.

But I'll keep praying anyway. For "how can Man die better/than facing fearful odds/for the ashes of his fathers/and the temples of his Gods" ?

After all, in this universe anything is possible. Even survival.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

The goals are gleaned from the principles, not the other way around. Hence, if you know the principles, the goals are not hard to determine:

http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html

No name guy
The goals are gleaned from the principles, not the other way around. Hence, if you know the principles, the goals are not hard to determine:
http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html

And, since they are not hard to determine, they are...? (Seriously. Does anyone fall for that sort of response?)

Look, I've seen that list before, and you can justify literally anything with that list, or forbid literally anything. Half the statements are opposites of each other...look at 7 vs. 9 for example. Or 2 vs. 10, or 6 vs. 3.

It is a very clever way of making it where any law fits within the framework if you want it, and doesn't if you don't.

mcmlxix
Are there really only 2 seats at this table? How impoverished and divisive.

Hey, I didn't build this system. In practicality, we have two political seats at the table.

Goal? Is it necessary to impose such an arbitrary exclusion on who can participate in public life and who can have a voice? No, it's not, and to do so is rather chilling, and while perhaps progressive not at all liberal.

That's not why I said they shouldn't have a seat at the table. I said they shouldn't have one because no one is a conservative, at least not under the incredibly narrow definition of conservative that excludes basically everyone that's ever been elected.

In much the same way, Communists shouldn't have a seat at the table. Not because they don't deserve a voice, American Communists are, indeed, citizens and can participate in our democracy, but because they make up about .00005% of the population, and in a republic like ours, they don't make up enough to have any seat.

All 'conservative' voters, as I've said before, appear to be 'left-wing except'. They're progressives except they're pro-life, they're liberals except they want lower taxes, they're human beings except they're pro-war (That snarky comment just slipped in.), etc. They is why the Republican party turned into gibberish this primary.

No one is 'conservative' in philosophy, because, as is admitted by your side, conservativism is somewhat hard to understand. But people, in practice, vote for adding or removing specific laws, not a philosophy. So both parties get roughly the same number of votes.

It's just that with liberalism and progressivism, there are large goals behind the specific laws. Large sections of the population actually do agree with these goals. Even 90% of people on the right who have been convinced they hate both those philosophies actually agree them them in general, if not in specific implementations. They've just been convinced the best way to do those goals are ways 'conservatives' are suggesting and the other side is wrong-headed. (Which I personally don't object to, but the question then arises: Why are conservatives trying to implement progressive and liberal goals?)

Whereas with conservativism there's just a mindset that no one gets. (Because, frankly, it appears you're interpreting it however you feel like for each specific instance.) So why does a party that is voted for almost entirely because of specific laws, with no one understanding the philosophy behind it, get take seriously when it talks about the philosophy behind it?

No one votes for you because of this 'philosophy', so, frankly, I have a hard time watching these crazy discussion about what 'conservativism' is. It's sorta like watching a shop owner at a mall talk about why people are drawn into his store...is it better lights? Better displays? Nice staff? Higher quality merchandise? ...and I just want to slap them and say 'You guys have the only bathrooms for 500 feet!'.

I'll buy that as a goal for now.

And you can even fit 'fighting abortion' as a goal under that. And 'fighting gay rights'. (And, sadly, fighting civil rights.)

Now explain how these fit into that goal:

1) Lowering taxes. It's one thing to say 'No, we can't do that, and we're not raising taxes to do that', it's another thing to run around randomly promising to constantly slash taxes regardless of what programs do or do not exist. That's having 'lower taxes' as a goal in and of itself.

2) The Iraq war.

3) Privatization of everything the government does.

4) Repeal of rules and regulations that have worked for decades. Yes, they were 'progressive' to start with, but at this point saying they cause 'havoc' is a bit absurd, and the same with...

5) Social security privatization. Don't hear much about that these days, because conservatives don't want people to think about the fact that if it had happened in 2000 or so, the entire system would be flat broke right now. But that used to be the great conservative hope, despite that 'unrealistic, utopian' concept working for decades.

You can state that conservatives are trying to slow or halt change, but they aren't. Lowering taxes regardless of deficit is not fighting 'change'. Repealing progressive inroads and safety nets that have been around long enough that voters have grandparents that grew up with them is not fighting 'change'. Building border fences or fighting wars is not fighting 'change'. Those are changes.

Lowering taxes fits into the goal in the sense that we believe everyone is better served when we're allowed to keep more of what we earn as opposed to turning it over to the government. Big government is a tool for progressivism, and high taxation simply feeds the Leviathan.

You're trying to sneak something past everyone. What, in your previous stated goal, allowed you to come to the conclusion that 'everyone is better served when we're allowed to keep more of what we earn'?

S.S. may have worked for decades, but economics will catch up with it sooner or later, and it will go belly-up.

No, it really won't. Removing the stupid cap on social security taxable income could easily make it solvent over the next 75 years. And that's somehow assuming we need it to be solvent at its current tax rate, and couldn't make up the shortfall by raising it slightly or borrowing from general funds. A 2% shortfall is nothing, it's complete nonsense to pretend the entire system is in trouble.

And, speaking of changes, forcing people to invest in the stock market or other such private things, aka, social security privatization, is the ultimate crazy non-workable utopia idea, and would have failed horribly if it had happened when you guys attempted it. But it's a crazy non-workable utopia 'free-market' idea, and thus you guys loved it.

This indicates a certain amount of ignorance about conservatism -- seems that you get all your info from 'pop' conservatives, like Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly, or from talk radio, and are unaware of the deeper, more thoughtful (and traditional) side of the movement represented by such publications as 'Chronicles' and 'Modern Age.'

That's actually my point. All the 'conservatives' running around are actually people who just like 'conservativism' for specific laws, and do not actually even understand what you are trying to do. (And I get all my information about conservativism from watching how people who have been elected by the right vote. Crazy idea, I know.)

There may, or may not, be an actual deep consistent philosophy behind conservativism. I think there is, at least, something that pretends to be be one, although it seems somewhat dumb to me and even people who think they 'understand' it all disagree with each other. But look at how few people here were able to come up with any some sort of statement of goals. Most of the people here are 'conservative' because they're against abortion or higher taxes.

I may not understand conservativism, but 90% of 'conservatives' don't either.

Huh? I 'get it' to the extent that I need to. See, I don't actually need to understand it, as I'm not running around claiming to be a conservative and asserting it's 'conservative' to randomly invade countries. Go educate those people first and maybe you can save the Republican party. Don't worry about what us Democrats think.

I don't really care about your anti-change philosophy that no party actually follows or has ever followed, anymore than I can care about nihilism or royalism as a political philosophy. Although I do try to be somewhat nice about it on this site and don't generally go attacking things because they aren't 'conservative'.

I was just curious if anyone could state the goals. And I got two people quoting other people...with two entirely different concepts.

You guys talk about moral truths that don't change and whatnot, which is nice and fun for philosophies, but doesn't actually translate into running a government or setting goals. The only goal you can come up with is 'Whatever the other guy doesn't want, or what he wants but not now.'. Or 'We're like liberals, but do things really slowly'. (Of course, you have to call them 'classic liberals' as you demonized 'liberals'.) You claim a firm foundation by having a dozen metaphysical statements, which can be used to justify almost any government action or inaction. It's actually somewhat absurd.

Conservatives work forward from principle; liberals/progressives work backwards from goals.

Oddly enough, I don't entirely disagree that that is how it works in principle, except that liberals/progressives aren't working backwards...their goals are based on principles too (Ask John Locke and John Rawls.), they just calculated their goals a long time ago and they have remained fixed, whereas conservatives are calculating new goals from principles all the time.

The conservative method actually sounds better, but in practice, what that means is that your goal are decided semi-randomly and inconsistently and half the time solely decided because 'the other side' wants the opposite, and you can pick up voters, or, more often, business support by opposing it. (For example, why exactly are you for selling off natural resources? I'm sure there's some logical way that can fit in the conservative philosophy, despite being almost directly opposed to 'keeping things how they were and slowly and carefully changing them when needed'.)