Are Republicans still a National Party?

[Silence]

Originally Posted by Leto Eu`Acumen

Although I'd have to seriously consider having them go skinny-dipping in the cooling tanks of nuclear reactors as an alternative.

Oh, I love how you think.

[Lleauaric~EW]

Being a Conservative isn't easy. I do not envy you if you are one.

You have to understand that Conservatism will always lose in the long run. On every single issue, conservatism will fail.

Understand that the core of Conservatism is to keep things as they are. Think about every single conservative issue in the history of mankind. Issue, not platitude.

The nature of Liberalism is change. This is one the reasons for the effectiveness of Obamas campaign, he tapped into what is core about liberalism. In politics, it is the force of change as Conservatism is the force of preservation. The unstoppable force will eventually destroy the immovable object if both function in perpetuity.

The role of Conservatism and Liberalism in political life is that of the Breaks and Accelerator respectively. Change is inevitable and unavoidable. The speed of which it occurs is manageable though.

Liberalism out of control hurtles recklessly, leading to eventual disaster. Conservatism out of control stops society and stifles a people.

The Iranian Mullahs and the Taliban are a form of out of control conservatism. The leaders of the French Revolution, the Russian Revolutionaries (though Stalin became a conservative once he gained power) and the Khmer Rouge are examples of out of control liberalism.

Change must be managed, and the conservative has to understand that he will eventually, and inevitably lose.

Of course, as our friend Keynes noted... In the long run we will all be dead.

[Tuco]

One of the key principles laid out in the book, "Guns, Germs and Steel" was that the reason the world is the way it is, with Europe basically being the birthplace of modern society blah blah, is because their geography enables a liberal society. As compared to nations like China without a lot of separation in its area, western Europe has geography that prevented one group of people controlling the landmass. This enabled competition and effectively allowed the group most able to change to prosper.

Obviously our technology renders these kinds of boundaries mostly obsolete, but it was a very key example showing exactly what Lleauaric~EW said to be true.

IT should also be stated that the conservative party should always be there.

[AngryGerbil]

Originally Posted by Lleauaric~EW

Being a Conservative isn't easy. I do not envy you if you are one.

You have to understand that Conservatism will always lose in the long run. On every single issue, conservatism will fail.

Understand that the core of Conservatism is to keep things as they are. Think about every single conservative issue in the history of mankind. Issue, not platitude.

The nature of Liberalism is change. This is one the reasons for the effectiveness of Obamas campaign, he tapped into what is core about liberalism. In politics, it is the force of change as Conservatism is the force of preservation. The unstoppable force will eventually destroy the immovable object if both function in perpetuity.

The role of Conservatism and Liberalism in political life is that of the Breaks and Accelerator respectively. Change is inevitable and unavoidable. The speed of which it occurs is manageable though.

Liberalism out of control hurtles recklessly, leading to eventual disaster. Conservatism out of control stops society and stifles a people.

The Iranian Mullahs and the Taliban are a form of out of control conservatism. The leaders of the French Revolution, the Russian Revolutionaries (though Stalin became a conservative once he gained power) and the Khmer Rouge are examples of out of control liberalism.

Change must be managed, and the conservative has to understand that he will eventually, and inevitably lose.

Of course, as our friend Keynes noted... In the long run we will all be dead.

I'd +1 you if I could but I already did.

[Mist]

Yeah except 'Republicanism' isn't all conservative and 'Democratism' isn't all liberal, so that really doesn't apply to American politics much.

[Heavens_Myst]

The nature of liberalism is not change.

Liberalism is today being defended by conservatives and Republicans. The greatest triumph of the collectivists has been disguising the change from liberalism to collectivism as inexorable. That change from individualism to left-collectivism that is trying to happen now is no more inevitable than the change to right-collectivism that occurred in Germany in the 19th and 20th centuries.

The nature of liberalism is outlined quite exquisitely in the Declaration and Constitution. It is the idea that the individual has the power to best provide for himself when left free from coercion. This idea is the apex of human society; yet this mountaintop of political philosophy is flanked on both sides by the canyons of collectivism. To the right, the servitude to a master and the restriction of liberty. To the left, the servitude to the state and the enforcement of equality. Be wary of going down one side because in the end they both arrive at the same point.

[Frax]

Originally Posted by Heavens_Myst

The nature of liberalism is not change.

Liberalism is today being defended by conservatives and Republicans. The greatest triumph of the collectivists has been disguising the change from liberalism to collectivism as inexorable. That change from individualism to left-collectivism that is trying to happen now is no more inevitable than the change to right-collectivism that occurred in Germany in the 19th and 20th centuries.

The nature of liberalism is outlined quite exquisitely in the Declaration and Constitution. It is the idea that the individual has the power to best provide for himself when left free from coercion. This idea is the apex of human society; yet this mountaintop of political philosophy is flanked on both sides by the canyons of collectivism. To the right, the servitude to a master and the restriction of liberty. To the left, the servitude to the state and the enforcement of equality. Be wary of going down one side because in the end they both arrive at the same point.

Stop your crazy talk right now. Don't even think about bringing rational or well thought out intent into one of these threads.

[Lleauaric~EW]

If Liberalism = Collectivism then please explain the "Religious Right".

[Mist]

Originally Posted by Heavens_Myst

The nature of liberalism is not change.

Liberalism is today being defended by conservatives and Republicans. The greatest triumph of the collectivists has been disguising the change from liberalism to collectivism as inexorable. That change from individualism to left-collectivism that is trying to happen now is no more inevitable than the change to right-collectivism that occurred in Germany in the 19th and 20th centuries.

The nature of liberalism is outlined quite exquisitely in the Declaration and Constitution. It is the idea that the individual has the power to best provide for himself when left free from coercion. This idea is the apex of human society; yet this mountaintop of political philosophy is flanked on both sides by the canyons of collectivism. To the right, the servitude to a master and the restriction of liberty. To the left, the servitude to the state and the enforcement of equality. Be wary of going down one side because in the end they both arrive at the same point.

How does a whole class of people making money by fucking with imaginary money on a spreadsheet (and doing it BADLY, we now know) while the middle class and the working poor do all the labor that makes the world work not count as servitude to a master and the restriction of liberty? That's what the "Republicans/American Conservatives/Neoconservatives/Whatever you want to call them" have been all about since shortly after the Reagan Revolution. The fact that we all now have to pay to fix this mess is not the fault of liberals or democrats or whomever you want to blame it on. The republicans in recent years have been way further on the right side of that "mountain" than the democrats have been on the left of it.

When "the state" takes a big healthy chunk of your imaginary money who's value it pays to defend that is NOT the enforcement of equality, its the price of keeping the shit to shoe level so we can have a stable society. That's the problem with people who think they're entitled to reap the sole reward of their 'personal' success, your success is never personal, it always comes in no small part from the work of others and from the power of the state that allows society and the markets to function.

[Frax]

Are they that different from a class that leeches off of everyone to provide for their entire existence?

[Mist]

Originally Posted by Frax

Are they that different from a class that leeches off of everyone to provide for their entire existence?

They're basically the same.

[I'm Rich Bitch]

Republicans.

[Knucklehead]

Originally Posted by Mist

They're basically the same.

Aside from the mountain of money between.

[earthfell]

Originally Posted by Tuco

One of the key principles laid out in the book, "Guns, Germs and Steel" was that the reason the world is the way it is, with Europe basically being the birthplace of modern society blah blah, is because their geography enables a liberal society. As compared to nations like China without a lot of separation in its area, western Europe has geography that prevented one group of people controlling the landmass. This enabled competition and effectively allowed the group most able to change to prosper.

Obviously our technology renders these kinds of boundaries mostly obsolete, but it was a very key example showing exactly what Lleauaric~EW said to be true.

IT should also be stated that the conservative party should always be there.

This is called environmental determinism. It is a horse shit theory first fleshed out by people like Herbert Spencer in the 19th century as a way to explain and justify colonialism and everything that is associated with it (racism, evolutionism, imperialism).

In no way did Lleauaric~EW apply environmental determinism in his argument, if he did it would be invalid, just like Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel."

[earthfell]

Originally Posted by Frax

Are they that different from a class that leeches off of everyone to provide for their entire existence?

Are you talking about the wealthiest 1% of Americans? This describes them perfectly.