Protestantism

» paper_turtle - The Distinguishing Characteristic

In response to The Distinguishing Characteristic posted by pink101:

So, what is the distinguishing characteristic of Conservatism if it isn't a self serving attitude?
.
I'm a liberal, and in my lifetime I have known a lot of liberals, and a lot of conservatives. My perception is that neither liberals nor conservatives have a monopoly on any characteristic, good or bad. You will find self-serving jerks in liberal circles, and you will find altruistic and really nice people in conservative circles.
.
.
I think it's time to put Conservatism in its place as almost akin to the love of money.
.
Same with the love of money--you'll find that everywhere. We live in a consumeristic society. We are constantly bombarded with messages about things we are supposed to need in order to live a happy life. We equate wealth with power and success.
.
Believe me, I've known a lot of liberals who talk a good game when it comes to helping the poor--but they still ignore their poverty-stricken neighbor. And I've also known poverty-stricken conservatives who would not think twice before giving their last morsel to a hungry person.

.
Conservatives favor the safe approach. They like tradition. They don't want to rock the boat. They like things spelled out in black and white, everything in neat little packages.

What you're seeing in politics today is not conservatism but reactionaryism.

peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - In My Heart

In response to The Distinguishing Characteristic posted by paper_turtle:
.

.
I love Yankees--I am one in my heart.
.
I guess my question about the Distinguishing characteristic has to do with the current crop of what passes for Conservatism in the present political scene. People who believe Bush and Company are their champions of Conservative politics.
.
Exportation of jobs through programs like NAFTA and the attitude that the Oil Cartels have every right to the natural resources of countries like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iraq, Iran, as well as the pathway from the Russian Oil Fields that runs through Afghanistan seems to be about the love of money and what it can do for someone. Stock market reports are seriously important and cutting social welfare programs because the underclasses need to learn to get up off their dead asses and to go to work in efforts to pay for their own health care just like the rich and wealthy have to do. These facts seem to symbolize the Distinguishing characteristics of Conservatism in today's world.
.
I consider my self to be a Conservative; but, not in the sense that the Republican Party represents the ideals--at least not since Reagan's annunciation. I never liked Reagan's brand of what it means to be a pig from the gitty up.
.
But, I agree with your post in the traditional sense of the word, Conservative.
.
It IS Progressive Liberalism that is pushing for new technology that will clear the way for less dependency on the resources of other sovereign nations. And, the reaching for answers to questions being raised about global warming comes to us out of Progressive Liberalism. If it were up to Conservatism, those people who cannot fend for themselves against the Conservative Glut could dry up and blow away. If they can't take care of themselves, let them die--are there not poor houses and prisons for them to survive? This pretty much sums up the current crop of Political Conservatives, i.e., Republicanism.
.

-- posted by pink101

» paper_turtle - In My Heart

In response to In My Heart posted by pink101:

:)

I think reactionary is a very useful word for what passes ofr conservatism today.

This is from the wikipedia article on "reactionary"

Reactionary (or reactionist) [was] originally applied in the context of the French Revolution to counter-revolutionaries who wished to restore the real or imagined conditions of the monarchical Ancien Régime. Through the 19th century, reactionism was used to refer to those who wished to preserve feudalism or aristocratic privilege against industrialism, republicanism, liberalism, and in some cases socialism.

Later on in the early 20th century, the term also came to describe those favouring a stronger role of the Catholic Church in society.

here's a link for the entire article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary

Re exportation of jobs--IMO a TRUE conservative would be strongly opposed to this, holding that it is counter to building a self-reliant and economically independent nation.

While conservatives may oppose federal welfare programs on the grounds of governmental interference, even my most conservative friends agree cutting welfare benefits is wrong, morally and politically.

Progressive Liberalism is alive and well in Vermont, I'm proud to say--and doing well politically, too. I can't give you names and figures off the top of my head, but within the past 5-6 years many candidates have won office on the Progressive ticket.

peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - Reactionary

In response to In My Heart posted by paper_turtle:

.
From my treks down east, I thought reactionary meant anyone who lived on the west side of the Hudson River.
.

.

-- posted by pink101

» paper_turtle - Reactionary

In response to Reactionary posted by pink101:

The old Vermonters joke about anybody living south of Rutland as being highly reactionary. LOL

peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» Migisi - Conservative/Liberal/Moderate

.
From my observations, I think these definitions below are pretty accurate, and reflect the vast differences in ideology between the two.
.
What is a conservative?
http://homeworktips.about.com/od/politic...
.
What is a liberal?
http://homeworktips.about.com/od/politic...
.
Lest we forget about the 'moderate':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderate

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - My Rationale

In response to Conservative/Liberal/Moderate posted by Migisi:
.
Take a look at my rationale.
.

.
Lower taxes. This is a big one in the Conservative camp. Why? According to them the fact of lower taxes is good for the economy. Oh? Is that right? Let's take a look.
.
How are lower taxes good for the economy? For the stock market economy? For the economy that serves the interest of the wealthy? Or for the economy that serves the interests of America? Today's big money Conservatives want to conserve one thing--their personal wealth.
.
Well, what about the Conservatives that aren't wealthy, even the ones who cannot find work and are unemployed? Right! What about them?
.
Poorer Conservatives are bamboozled by the Religious Right into believing that--somehow--the wealthy know better than they do. I come from such a family and I know how the Religious Right believes when it comes to being conservative.
.
Follow the money.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - My Rationale

.
Lower taxes. This is a big one in the Conservative camp. Why? According to them the fact of lower taxes is good for the economy. Oh? Is that right? Let's take a look.
.
History says that doesn't work. Our economic mess is a direct result of outrageous government spending. By Baby Bush, in particular.
.
I found this article interesting and telling. It's worth reading in its entirity.
United States National Debt (1938 to Present) - An Analysis of the Presidents Who Are Responsible for the Borrowing
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdeb...
.
"...The first year Mr. Bush II was in office he had to borrow 133 billion. The first tax cut Bush pushed through a willing Republican Congress caused an upswing in government borrowing that was supposed to stimulate the economy, but two years later Bush had to push through yet another tax cut. The second tax cut was needed because it was clear that the first one did not work. Economic history tells us the second did not work either. As a result of all his tax cutting with no cutting in spending, in 2003 President Bush set a record for the biggest single yearly dollar increase in debt in the nation's history. He did it again in 2004, increasing the debt more than half a trillion dollars. Since 2003 total borrowing has exceeded $500,000,000,000 per year. Even Mr. Reagan never increased the debt that much in a single year; Mr. Reagan's biggest increase was only 282 billion, half of GWB's outrageous spending. As a result of the fact that the debt was already pretty high when Bush II entered office, his annual rate of increase is only averaging 7% per year so far. In 2006 he was holding press conferences bragging that the debt was increasing at the rate of only 300 billion dollars a year, yet in reality it was twice that. Again the facts do not match Neo-Con rhetoric."
.
Check out this chart:
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdeb...
Starting with Reagan, the national debt really took off! Note that past wars (WWII, Korea, Vietnam) had very little impact on escalating the national debt. So, they can't excuse their out-of-control debt on a 'wartime economy'. It's their excessive spending that's destroying the economy.
.
Follow the money.
.
Yep!!

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - My Point

In response to My Rationale posted by Migisi:

.
That is my point--exactly.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - My Point

In response to My Point posted by pink101:
.
It's way beyond high time for radical change, Pink. We MUST change our course.
.
Our family has been seriously considering communal living... all of us living together and pooling our resources so we all can 'make it'. We may be returning to an 'extended' (or 'complex') family arrangement out of necessity.

-- posted by Migisi