From a friend this morning and her operative definition of a conservative:
An American conservative is someone who believes that:
It's pretty clear why they're conservative, but it does make
you wonder why they bother to call themselves American.
Well said.
An American conservative is someone who believes that:
- The Vatican ought to decide our domestic policy;
- Israel ought to decide our foreign policy;
- Communist China ought to decide our economic policy; and
- Osama Bin Laden ought to decide who gets tried in our courts.
It's pretty clear why they're conservative, but it does make
you wonder why they bother to call themselves American.
Well said.
In reading over the majority of the comments here, I have to admit that I am a bit confused about what most of you believe. The very things that you are attempting to label conservatives with are the very things the current administration is advocating, and in spades.
Allow me to comment:
"The Vatican ought to decide our domestic policy". If you mean that we, as Americans (a subset of being human), should strive to eliminate abortions and their use as a birth control method, then the Vatican policy is a good thing (because that is what they advocate). If taxing away our money and eliminating tax breaks for religious organizations - and thus reducing charitable contributions to the very folks that need help - is a bad thing, then the Vatican policy is a good thing (because they want us to give of our own free will, not have the money confiscated and donated by the state). On those two issues alone we should allow the Vatican to dictate policy; not because it is their policy, but because it is good policy, and good policy is good policy, regardless of whom is saying it.
Didn't someone here mention not throwing out the baby with the bathwater?
"Israel ought to decide our foreign policy". Don't know to what the author was referring to here. Israel is our biggest ally in the region, a base for defense of our country and sole buffer against the Arab countries that want to do us in. If that is what was meant, then we all should be conservative. If you mean that we should keep Israel from defending herself in face of repeated violations of prior 'peace agreements' by her neighbors, then we should agree with Israel policies, as negotiated, and stop interfering with them. Would you prefer the elimination of Israel?
"Communist China ought to decide our economic policy". The current administration is allowing China to dictate policy more than any previous administration ever did, financing the current bailouts and most future programs on deficits that are financed by the Chicoms. Obama has been forced to approach China with his hat in his hand; asking them to take on more of our debt in order to keep the dollar strong. They told him they were nervous about his spending and have become advocates of dumping the dollar. So right now, like it or not, the Chinese are dictating economic policy, and it looks like they will become more and more influential as this president's policies are implemented.
"Osama Bin Laden ought to decide who gets tried in our courts". Right now, Eric Holder is allowing the Islamic extremists to dictate not only who is to be tried in American courts, but where they are to be tried, including granting them the same rights as American citizens. This is not conservative policy at any level. I think the author is extremely misinformed.
I think some further explanation would be helpful in trying to determine what the author meant, because they way it is written, and in light of what the current administration is doing, very little of it makes any sense.
A.H.
*********************************************************************************************
Editor's note: Where to start, where to start? You've repeated every RushHannityMalkinO'Reilly talking point, so the plethora of issues is legion.
First, the church has NO business dictating rights a woman has over her own body. Period, full stop.
Second, Israel is a "base for defense"? Surely the reader jests. THE PROBLEM we have in the Middle East is Israel. Saudi Arabia was offended, over 60 years ago, by our support of a new state artificially established in the middle of Palestine. Our unconditional support of their aggression has CAUSED most of the unrest in that region today. They are NO center of our "defense". They are a liability, plain and simple.
"The current administration is allowing China to dictate policy more than any previous administration ever did." Sorry, but only one who is unfamiliar with recent history would make this argument. China is the largest creditor nation, due in large part to GWB's economic policies and unprecedented tax cutting during time of war. Responsibility lies squarely in his lap along with Darth Vader (Dick Cheney).
No further explanation is necessary, except to habitual Fox Noise watchers and morons.
Jefe
All I'm saying us that there are as many democrats among Catholics as republicans. If we couch our answers in Christian language (think more of candidates than flame wars) then we will attract more of that crowd. The problem is that so many people are distrustful of religion (for good reason) that they are all too willing to throw the baby out with the bath water.
And speaking as one who partaken in many a flame wars, turning the other cheek only leads to getting both cheeks smacked. Best to smack back good and hard. How else do you deal with bullies that think they are picking on someone "weaker" , i.e. a "bleeding heart Lib'rul"?
SSTM - Interesting analogy. I think the Dems have learned from the last several elections that reasoning and rational thinking don't work with those on the attack. John Kerry learned that lesson the hard way. People think in frames that they are comfortable in and hear what they want to hear. It's hard to get through that mindset. Many times, the only thing that works is direct frontal attack in response to irrational assertions to make as much noise as the ones trying to distract. Unfortunately, it works, too.
There's a time and a place for rational discussion. One cannot, by definition, have a rational discussion with people who refuse to recognize the basic groundrules of rational discussion (e.g., logical argumentation, reliance on good and reputable data, proper use of source materials, etc.).
Tactics need to be used _appropriately_. When the mob is storming the gates, the peace talks have failed and you're hardly remiss in pouring the boiling oil and sending volleys of arrows in return. Castle holders who think they're "above" such vulgar actions tend to be found with their heads on sticks outside the walls.
I thought one of the criticisms of the last President was that he mistook bravado for rational action.
Let me jump in here and get my arse whipped. First of all I resent the Catholic church or ANY church trying to influence national policy. Until you can clean your own house, don't try to tell me how to live. Please don't try to influence, or make any laws suited to your beliefs. I am not pro abortion, but you need to stay out of it and let individuals decide for themselves. As far as charitable works are concerned, doesn't the government give the Catholic church money to help the needy? I'll need to research that.
Perhaps Liberals and Democrats are tired of being beaten over the head by the shrill GOP, Conservatives etc. etc. and are fighting back. I say, GOOD! This is the first time in my life that they have started giving as good as they get. Looks like the young people that have come into the Dem party didn't check their cajones at the door.
I agree with Bob. They don't flame out. When an improbably large number of people with, ahem, certain political beliefs also believe in rank falsehoods, such as the existence of WMDs in Iraq leading up to Bush's war, or that Obama is a secret Muslim noncitizen, what is a rational person to do? I've tried talking with these people (real, identifiable people from real life; the Internet poses its own additional set of problems), and it can get brutally ugly. Willful ignorance is a difficult thing to combat, particularly when they trust little that hasn't come out of the mouth of the usual right wing suspects.
But if you show them, as clearly as day, their own contradictions, then you've got a chance.
As a former catholic who left the church over celibate priests (many with serious personal problems) peddling church dogma about marriage and other very personal decisions, I find the church's persecution of individuals over public policy deeply offensive. Our society is secular. The church can teach whatever it wants, of course, but the singling out of public officials who support public policy that disagrees with the church is simply wrong. Any church that does that should deemed a lobbyist group and have its tax free status revoked.
My humble opinion, of course.
When has a wingnut ever flamed out? I fight with facts first. That doesn't seem to phase some like many on the chron. That's when fighting fire with fire works, like my email group. I actually got them to stop emailing crap after I hit back.
I find that those emails are fine among like-minded people on both sides. However, I must admit the catholic bit offends me some as a cradle catholic, but I've learned to accept those things. I think overall we would be better off if we followed the church on our domestic policy but I also don't always agree with the church. Just one man's opinion.
And I just let the wingnuts of any stripe flame themselves out. Fight fire with reason.
It was the conservatives (and Glenn) who came to my defense on my Chronicle blog against Chronicritic most recently.
Good exchange. What is really being done here is defining terms which is too often lacking. So, how many definitions for conservative are there? Who and how determines what definition is viable and what is not quite-so-good?
Hope this tread brings more discussion out.
I hear you, but I've found that fighting fire with fire often works. I actually got one email group I belong to to essentially call a truce on political emails after I started replying to the ridiculous mass emails with my own ridiculous assertions using photos of prominent conservatives not saluting the flag, not putting their hand over their heart, etc, etc. The emails are much more civil now.
Stooping to that level makes the people who write those things no better than that which they decry.
The problem is, Justin, that I get 1 or 2 emails A DAY about everything wrong with "liberals", Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy (still), how we "hate the troops", "hate America", etc, etc. Many assert long debunked myths that are easilyI seldom get anything of the kind from left wing friends. I thought it was interesting that an email actually attacking right wingers was circulating, hence worthy of the posting. I also actually agree with it, since it matches up with recent conservative rhetoric.
This is no different than the crap some on the right post to insult and degrade those they perceive to be liberal.
I have friends and family who lean left. I have friends and family who lean right. This no more describes my conservative friends than Chronicritic's diatribes accurately describe my liberal friends.
Your friend needs to grow up.
Yes, but at least if the Vatican decided our domestic policy, then while we'd not have any (legal) abortions or (legal) artificial contraception, we'd also have serious programs in place to address poverty, inequality and health. The incongruity between the latter programs and the policies on abortion and contraception would eventually become untenable, of course, but it hasn't stopped anyone yet.