The Political & Philosophy Thread

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Oh so now Reagan wasn't a conservative? The man who basically set the standards for modern conservatism, a fucking icon of the movement? this places never ceases to amaze me. Dont know why i even bother frequenting this abundantly retarded thread.

 

[Dak]

You literally said nothing.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Reagen wasnt a conservative bro. Lol, that says it all. No need to continue this any further.

recommended for the misinformed or even the ignorant.

 

[CiG]

It might help if Dak defines conservatism.

Being an icon to conservatives is not the same as being a conservative. Margaret Thatcher is a faux-conservative to many people yet she's simultaneously an icon.

Could we start with a foundation of Edmund Burke and go from there?

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

So now we have three people questioning if Reagan was a conservative? Oh dear gods, you guys should be ashamed of yourselves, seriously. And someone who even floats the idea of Reagan not being conservative has no room to define what conservatism is. Did you miss the part of my post where i said he set the standards for modern conservatism? He was basically the leader and face of the movement for over 20 years and you guys need me to explain why he's a conservative? Is this a joke? Yea, only here in ultimate metal lalaland. Thatcher is a bad example anyway(whole 'nother story) and everyone has people who think they are fake, as dak showcased today by saying Reagan and Cruz arent conservative.

And let me guess ... Bernies not a progressive, the Clintons arent leftists and the Bushs were full on libtards. Am i doing this right?

And i meant the news thread when i said abundantly retarded, but it has clearly poured over into this thread as well. Just wanted to make that clear.

 

[CiG]

I didn't say Reagan wasn't a conservative, I merely broke down why I think someone being a "conservative icon" isn't a defining quality of being a genuine conservative.

Also, if "conservative icons" can't be criticised or have their conservativism questioned then I don't particularly care to join that discussion. Cults of personality are one of the worst parts about left/right politics.

(Edited to be less confrontational.)

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

but i like crying

 

[CiG]

Ozz's many warnings are rattling around in my head.

 

[Dak]

Google gives a pretty good, if sort of vague definition:

"holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion."

I don't know how hardly anyone in the US can lay claim to it. The "founding fathers" were the liberals of their time, and things have only moved left since then. Any political "conservatives" were merely doing a bad job at keeping up with the most holy of liberals at the time. But Reagan was a pretty damn good liberal. It's like all you have to do is wave a flag and promise to protect the 2nd amendment and voila - conservative icon. Pretty low threshold.

But now I'm sure TB will respond with another post that uses the word "conservative" to define "conservative", and repeat it over and over.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

So what you're saying is that Reagan was part neo-con?

Funny coming form someone who supports a hijacked party. The only side that has been "taken over" is the left, so badly that they shouldn't even use the word "democrat" anymore.

Yes, Reagan was a neo-con. He fully embraced hard Wilsonianism, as his ventures in Latin America illustrated. He saw the world through the Christian Imperialist lens of good vs. evil and funded perpetrators of genocide in his move toward this ideal. He called for small government, yet deficit spent and expanded the scope of covert military operations across the world, including within the United States itself.

You really need to expand the scope of news sources you read.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

... as expected, why am i not surprised :rolleseyes:

Google gives a pretty good, if sort of vague definition:
.

See, you didnt need big daddy to hold your hand and take you on a google search did you? Bravo, you did it all by yourself. And anyway, for a second i thought maybe that book i linked you to would probably tell you more of what i thought about conservatism than a fucking internet search of the word, lmao. Simpletons.

edit: Im pretty sure i dont need to tell you this(at least i hope i dont), but modern conservatism is much more in line with the old school/original liberals. That's why sometimes conservatives refer to themselves as the real/old school liberals. And for some reason i thought you knew what you were talking about most of the time here. Boy was i mistaken.

 

[Dak]

Yes, with regards to the American conception of conservatives, they are more accurately "classical liberals". However, the GOP hasn't hosted a classical liberal outside of Ron Paul since I don't know when. Probably sometime pre-Lincoln. And even if it were classically liberal - that is still liberal.

That book you linked listed David Hume as a starting point right on the cover. That's all I need to know about how wrong it is from the getgo.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

edit: Im pretty sure i dont need to tell you this(at least i hope i dont), but modern conservatism is much more in line with the old school/original liberals. That's why sometimes conservatives refer to themselves as the real/old school liberals. And for some reason i thought you knew what you were talking about most of the time here. Boy was i mistaken.

Ah, I see. So the true conservatives are the perpetually reactionary southerners whom the republican party won over in the 60s and 70s? To quote your favorite emoji, ":eyeroll:"

 

[rms]

But didn't classic liberals realize the need for government intervention? It seems that 'conservatives' only want the government to intervene in military action or protecting Christian religious freedom.

 

[EternalMetal]

Yes, with regards to the American conception of conservatives, they are more accurately "classical liberals". However, the GOP hasn't hosted a classical liberal outside of Ron Paul since I don't know when. Probably sometime pre-Lincoln. And even if it were classically liberal - that is still liberal.

That book you linked listed David Hume as a starting point right on the cover. That's all I need to know about how wrong it is from the getgo.

What's the problem with Hume?

 

[Dak]

What's the problem with Hume?

I didn't say anything about Hume being "problematic" or whatever. But he wasn't some sort of strident conservative. He is generally considered a "moderate" of his day.

But didn't classic liberals realize the need for government intervention? It seems that 'conservatives' only want the government to intervene in military action or protecting Christian religious freedom.

Don't forget farm subsidies and the Drug War.

 

[rms]

Don't forget farm subsidies and the Drug War.

Yep, and blocking immigrants. My bad.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

What's the problem with Hume?

Isn't it clear? He's not a conservative! lmao.

 

[CiG]

If we're not willing to allow for conservatism to progress and change in definition, why are we still calling people "liberals" when they're mostly not?

Classical liberalism is still liberalism if classical conservatism is still conservatism and so in that context, pretty much nobody today is liberal or conservative.

 

[Dak]

What you're suggesting is that leftism is progress. So you're a progressive.