Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

the conservative cult


Recommended Posts

i have been asking myself this question for some time. why do 'conservatives' who are not part of the aristocracy (ie. rich and/or powerful) follow without reasoning on their own behalf?

this is a great article that explains 'conservatism' in detail.

http://www.bcpolitics.ca/left_conservatism.htm

what i am beginning to grasp is that these people are of the type that like to follow ideologies and 'conservatism' is attractive to them because they feel that they are also 'better than most people' or imagine themselves as members of the ruling class.

this article answers so many questions, if one thinks about it. like why so many 'conservatives' revert to extreme name calling to reasonable thinking human beings who dare question their ideological position.

again, a great read for everybody!

Link to post
Share on other sites
i have been asking myself this question for some time. why do 'conservatives' who are not part of the aristocracy (ie. rich and/or powerful) follow without reasoning on their own behalf?

this is a great article that explains 'conservatism' in detail.

http://www.bcpolitics.ca/left_conservatism.htm

what i am beginning to grasp is that these people are of the type that like to follow ideologies and 'conservatism' is attractive to them because they feel that they are also 'better than most people' or imagine themselves as members of the ruling class.

this article answers so many questions, if one thinks about it. like why so many 'conservatives' revert to extreme name calling to reasonable thinking human beings who dare question their ideological position.

again, a great read for everybody!

Same old BC Communist bullshit. None of that shit describes anything that remotely sounds conservative.

This website sound like a Jehovah Witness website or a Mormon website. I could put up a definition for moron, but I may offend some. This is Complete & total GARBAGE! You're wasting you time clicking the link!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

From link above:

Conservatism promotes (and so does liberalism, misguidedly) the idea that liberalism is about activist government where conservatism is not. This is absurd. It is unrelated to the history of conservative government. Conservatism promotes activist government that acts in the interests of the aristocracy. This has been true for thousands of years. What is distinctive about liberalism is not that it promotes activist government but that it promotes government that acts in the interests of the majority. Democratic government, however, is not simply majoritarian. It is, rather, one institutional expression of a democratic type of culture that is still very much in the process of being invented.
*Sigh*

The text presents a very American point of view and I suspect in Canada, only NDP-types would agree with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Same old BC Communist bullshit. None of that shit describes anything that remotely sounds conservative.

This website sound like a Jehovah Witness website or a Mormon website. I could put up a definition for moron, but I may offend some. This is Complete & total GARBAGE! You're wasting you time clicking the link!!!

this article answers so many questions, if one thinks about it. like why so many 'conservatives' revert to extreme name calling to reasonable thinking human beings who dare question their ideological position.

Heh.

The text presents a very American point of view and I suspect only NDP-types would agree with it.

Well, it's an American article.

My beef? "Conservatism" isn't a word with a uniform meaning. Pat Robertson is a conservative, but so is Pat Buchanan. Though I think the fundamental point (that institutions are instruments by which the dominant hierarchy perpetuates its power) is sound. I just don't think focussing on the ill-defined bugaboo of "conservatism" makes for a convincing argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, well i challenge 'conservatives' to pick examples from this article and make reasonable arguments regarding their assertions that parts of the article are incorrect.

shouldn't be difficult if its all 'garbage'.

of course, one of the assertions is that neo-con ideology does not hold up to detailed inspection and so conservative finger puppets have been indoctrinated in the use of anything but meaningful dialogue that provides more than one view of any particular discourse. and no, 'shut up' by certain fox news personalities can not be described as 'meaningful dialogue'.

in fact, august 1991 is about the only self described conservative in this forum whom ever participates in some amount of reasonable discourse and even admits when the odd right wing viewpoint or some idiotic post from another conservative doesn't make sense. august 1991 is obviously an educated person. while most posts by conservatives on this web site or any i've seen for that matter reek of pre-programmed stooges.

my point is that this article explains the 'conservative' indoctrination so well that it anticipated leader circles reply perfectly!

the sad thing i believe is that democracy will not survive conservatism. oppression will always exist between men for some extremely sad reason. and conservatism is openly against government and thus anti-democratic in nature. 'democracy' is just a word to conservatives. a carrot held out in front of peoples noses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ok, well i challenge 'conservatives' to pick examples from this article and make reasonable arguments regarding their assertions that parts of the article are incorrect.

shouldn't be difficult if its all 'garbage'.

of course, one of the assertions is that neo-con ideology does not hold up to detailed inspection and so conservative finger puppets have been indoctrinated in the use of anything but meaningful dialogue that provides more than one view of any particular discourse. and no, 'shut up' by certain fox news personalities can not be described as 'meaningful dialogue'.

in fact, august 1991 is about the only self described conservative in this forum whom ever participates in some amount of reasonable discourse and even admits when the odd right wing viewpoint or some idiotic post from another conservative doesn't make sense. august 1991 is obviously an educated person. while most posts by conservatives on this web site or any i've seen for that matter reek of pre-programmed stooges.

my point is that this article explains the 'conservative' indoctrination so well that it anticipated leader circles reply perfectly!

the sad thing i believe is that democracy will not survive conservatism. oppression will always exist between men for some extremely sad reason. and conservatism is openly against government and thus anti-democratic in nature. 'democracy' is just a word to conservatives. a carrot held out in front of peoples noses.

My point was, I could write the same thing about any party and stupid people would take it as fact, when really it is trash, written by some lacky, with nothing better to do. It is worse than Canada's mainstream media.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ok, well i challenge 'conservatives' to pick examples from this article and make reasonable arguments regarding their assertions that parts of the article are incorrect.

shouldn't be difficult if its all 'garbage'.

of course, one of the assertions is that neo-con ideology does not hold up to detailed inspection and so conservative finger puppets have been indoctrinated in the use of anything but meaningful dialogue that provides more than one view of any particular discourse. and no, 'shut up' by certain fox news personalities can not be described as 'meaningful dialogue'.

in fact, august 1991 is about the only self described conservative in this forum whom ever participates in some amount of reasonable discourse and even admits when the odd right wing viewpoint or some idiotic post from another conservative doesn't make sense. august 1991 is obviously an educated person. while most posts by conservatives on this web site or any i've seen for that matter reek of pre-programmed stooges.

my point is that this article explains the 'conservative' indoctrination so well that it anticipated leader circles reply perfectly!

the sad thing i believe is that democracy will not survive conservatism. oppression will always exist between men for some extremely sad reason. and conservatism is openly against government and thus anti-democratic in nature. 'democracy' is just a word to conservatives. a carrot held out in front of peoples noses.

My point was, I could write the same thing about any party and stupid people would take it as fact, when really it is trash, written by some lacky, with nothing better to do. It is worse than Canada's mainstream media.

You really make this article's argument with your comments. And I'd like to read your treatise on a left wing political party that is as comprehensive and intelligent as the article cgarrett presented.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ok, well i challenge 'conservatives' to pick examples from this article and make reasonable arguments regarding their assertions that parts of the article are incorrect.

I respect neither you, nor the author of the article enough to be bothered. It is the type of extremist, devisive intellectual flatulence we see far too much of in the US, from both sides of the political fence, and, more often now, in Canada.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Every tory is a coward, for a servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave.

Thomas Paine.

Paine failed at every job and every task he ever undertook, and died penniless and alone.

And this is who you look to for enlightened thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I respect neither you, nor the author of the article enough to be bothered. It is the type of extremist, devisive intellectual flatulence we see far too much of in the US, from both sides of the political fence, and, more often now, in Canada.
Argus, I too was tempted to recommend to others not to bother.

The text presents "conservatism" in a bizarre light and as BD states:

My beef? "Conservatism" isn't a word with a uniform meaning. Pat Robertson is a conservative, but so is Pat Buchanan. Though I think the fundamental point (that institutions are instruments by which the dominant hierarchy perpetuates its power) is sound. I just don't think focussing on the ill-defined bugaboo of "conservatism" makes for a convincing argument.
Like BD, the text cannot understand modern conservatives at all.

However, the text is fascinating for what it says to American "Liberals":

* Ditch Marx

Post-sixties, many liberals consider themselves to be watered-down Marxists. They subscribe to a left-to-right spectrum model of politics in which they, as democrats, are located in some hard-to-identify place sort-of-somewhat-to-the-left-of-center, whereas the Marxists have the high ground of a clear and definite location at the end of the spectrum. These liberals would be further out on the left if they could find a politically viable way to do it. Conservative rhetors concur with this model, and indiscriminately calling liberals communists is back in style. This is all nonsense. Marxism is not located anywhere on a spectrum. It is just mistaken. It fails to describe the real world. Attempts to implement it simply created an ugly and shallow imitation of conservatism at its worst. Democracy is the right way to live, and conservatism is the wrong way.

Why ditch Marx?

In economic terms, Marx's theory is mistaken because he did not analyze the role the capitalist plays as entrepreneur. The entrepreneur does an important and distinctive type of work in inventing new ways to bring together diverse factors of production.

In fact, this text is a fascinating (or silly) example of how the world's Left (in this case, the American Left) is grappling with the collapse of communism, Marxism, socialism and all that. The text is attempting to imagine what the American Left of the future will look like. I'd say, "Not bad!"

For example, the text's use of the word "democracy" is naive since at issue, really, is how individuals together make collective decisions. I'll let all that pass because we are no longer in the "People's Democratic Republic" use of the word "democracy".

IMHO, the Canadian Left is behind other countries in this change. To its credit, the NDP has adopted social libertarianism (I suspect this is what attracts some to this text) but the NDP is still mired in Big Bureaucracy solutions and union activism. Even the mainstream American Left is beyond "tax and spend", but not our NDP.

----

in fact, august 1991 is about the only self described conservative in this forum whom ever participates in some amount of reasonable discourse and even admits when the odd right wing viewpoint or some idiotic post from another conservative doesn't make sense.
I'll accept the kind compliment but admit that it is sometimes odd to learn how others view us. Since this text presents an American Liberal's view of American Conservatives, let me describe my view of the North American Left.

IME, some are Leftists because they believe in Robin Hood or "steal from the rich and give to the poor". Others are missionaries who want to "teach the poor and educate them". Still others are simply rabble-rousers because they want "to shake things up".

The North American Left is often a curious mix of Irish/French Canadian Catholic minority frustration and Protestant zealotry. I have argued elsewhere that American Catholics vote like Canadians, and Canada is a Catholic country.

Every tory is a coward, for a servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave.

Thomas Paine.

There is something ironic in eureka's appeal to Tom Paine. I always thought of eureka as a modern version of the UEL, precisely the kind of people Paine despised.
Link to post
Share on other sites

You trouble me at times, August. Sometimes you seem like one of the more intelligent contributors: sometimes you are idiotic. My appeal to Tom Paine! I merely gave you one man's ( a well known one whose views marshalled the American "proletariat" behind their "Conservative" leaders" I should have thought it might prove a stimulus for the :conservatives" here to refute the view.

As for your depiction of French/Irish Catholics and Proestant zealots as the Left, surely you are not serious?

If you do wish to learn something about the American Left, I would recommend Harrington's, "Towards a New Left. It identifies the Left and where the author thinks it has to go.

You are not even close to one of the most respected political writers in America of a generation ago. Though he was too far to the left to ever gain respectability in politics.

A bit like the Waffle group, perhaps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the original post:

i have been asking myself this question for some time. why do 'conservatives' who are not part of the aristocracy (ie. rich and/or powerful) follow without reasoning on their own behalf?

Why has it not occurred to you to also question why wealthy individuals from privileged backgrounds should want support socialist causes? Is this not also inherently illogical?

Speaking for myself (and having little or no money, in terms of accumulated wealth) I support "conservative" causes because I believe in every man's right (wealthy or otherwise) to make a life for himself without worry that some cadre of mindless do-gooders will take it all away in the name of "progress" or "justice". It's interesting that those on the left would slander me as "selfish" for this belief, especially when the typical leftist view (like yours) is that someone in my position should support leftist causes because they tend to promote my own individual increase. Thus the philosophy of the left, while purporting to promote communal values, in fact promotes the basest example of selfishness, the self-centered man claiming to act on behalf the greater good.

PS - Once again, eureka, you've managed to inject a thread with utter bollocks. Congratulations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear cgarrett,

I echo Black Dog's and August1991's take on the article.

My beef? "Conservatism" isn't a word with a uniform meaning.
Simplest definition of conservatism..."Laissez faire economy". Then some (or many) like to add "with 'old style religious values' guiding each transaction". Then, it is possible to spin off into the wacky world outlined in the article, but not all conservatives can be painted (or is that 'tarred and feathered'?) with such an immense brush.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it outside of your brain hemispheres, BHS. Keep firmly to your straight line and your conscience will never be troubled.

Your problem is inherent in your conviction that those who have a deeper appreciation of humanity are "mindless do-gooders." That says it all as far as your ability to engage your mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Was it outside of your brain hemispheres, BHS. Keep firmly to your straight line and your conscience will never be troubled.

Your problem is inherent in your conviction that those who have a deeper appreciation of humanity are "mindless do-gooders." That says it all as far as your ability to engage your mind.

Bollocks. All of your posts are bluster and bollocks and personal attacks, with no substance regarding the issues at hand. I've gained almost nothing worthwhile from anything you've ever written.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Left wing..right wing

If one hides behind their political ideology as an excuse to be an idiot, than their arguments have no valid merit.

Your question can just as easily be interchanged to ask why any political person who suscribes to an ideology behaves that way, liberal, communist, socialist or otherwise.

Irrational blanket statements do not contribute to any meaningful dialogue.

Critiquing and ideology is one thing. Blanket statements are another.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Back to the original post:
i have been asking myself this question for some time. why do 'conservatives' who are not part of the aristocracy (ie. rich and/or powerful) follow without reasoning on their own behalf?

Why has it not occurred to you to also question why wealthy individuals from privileged backgrounds should want support socialist causes? Is this not also inherently illogical?

Speaking for myself (and having little or no money, in terms of accumulated wealth) I support "conservative" causes because I believe in every man's right (wealthy or otherwise) to make a life for himself without worry that some cadre of mindless do-gooders will take it all away in the name of "progress" or "justice".

I know a lot of people with just this sentiment... They live in semi-affluent neighbourhoods, wear nice-looking suits, and always have big blue signs on their lawns come election time. I think their, (and your) sentiments extend a little further than what is audibly uttered. The big underlying theme appears to be "When I make it big, Conservative policies are going to be the ones that will really benefit me..."

The big catch in all of this, is that the existing right-wing policies of the Conservatives will help to prevent you from ever getting to the space where Conservative policies will help you.

In all of the major Conservative governments that we (Ontarians) have had to suffer over the past decade or two, they all promised "lower taxes" so we'd have a "few extra bucks in our pockets", etc... However, when they implemented their policies, things turned out that way for the affluent... and the majority of the population..... ended up with less services and less money in their pockets.... (because they were actually paying more taxes to offset the tax savings of the affluent). With Brian Mulroney, that was certainly the case. With Mike Harris, that was unquestionably the case...

It's interesting that those on the left would slander me as "selfish" for this belief, especially when the typical leftist view (like yours) is that someone in my position should support leftist causes because they tend to promote my own individual increase.
It's not surprising at all. If you weren't dumb enough to fall for the "I'm going to make it..." dream, you'd see that Conservative policies hurt the masses (including you), and help a very limited few... They're easy to spot... they're the ones who don't need any help....

You might as well say "I support the Conservatives, because when I win the lottery, their policies will really help me".....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Back to the original post:

Speaking for myself (and having little or no money, in terms of accumulated wealth) I support "conservative" causes because I believe in every man's right (wealthy or otherwise) to make a life for himself without worry that some cadre of mindless do-gooders will take it all away in the name of "progress" or "justice".

I know a lot of people with just this sentiment... They live in semi-affluent neighbourhoods, wear nice-looking suits, and always have big blue signs on their lawns come election time. I think their, (and your) sentiments extend a little further than what is audibly uttered. The big underlying theme appears to be "When I make it big, Conservative policies are going to be the ones that will really benefit me..."

The big catch in all of this, is that the existing right-wing policies of the Conservatives will help to prevent you from ever getting to the space where Conservative policies will help you.

This, of course, is nonsense. What have the Liberals brought us? Cutbacks in health care at the federal level, massive tax increases at the provincial level. No improvement in services of any kind. Bigger government, bigger bureacracy, corruption, dishonesty and lies - less services. It wasn't the tories who made it almost impossible to collect UIC even while increasing UIC payments to the point it became a major tax grab. Now I have to pay a special "health premium" at the provincial level for the same lousy health care services, even as the provincial Liberals drastically increase spending in every conceivable area.

And what would the NDP do? Double my taxes, give it all to the public sector unions, then start regulating everything I do but breath. "Oh, you can't do that, you can't say that, you can't watch that, you can't read that, you can't think that. It's not politically correct!"

It's not surprising at all.  If you weren't dumb enough to fall for the "I'm going to make it..." dream, you'd see that Conservative policies hurt the masses (including you), and help a very limited few... They're easy to spot... they're the ones who don't need any help.... 

I'm one of those who doesn't need help. That doesn't mean I'm rich. It means I'm okay. I manage to support myself. That, no doubt, is your idea of "the affluent few". I'm white, straight and middle class. The NDP despises me and all the others like me. Given the chance they'd take the money I work so hard for and distribute it to the lazy bums on welfare who dropped out of school to do drugs, and to every ethnic, racial, sexual, feminist and left wing wacko lobby group that holds out its hands.

The only thing I want from the government is to leave me the hell alone. And I sure won't get that from the shrill, self-righteous big brother busybodies of the left, none of whom have succeded at anything, but all of whom are certain they know best how I should live my life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Back to the original post:

Speaking for myself (and having little or no money, in terms of accumulated wealth) I support "conservative" causes because I believe in every man's right (wealthy or otherwise) to make a life for himself without worry that some cadre of mindless do-gooders will take it all away in the name of "progress" or "justice".

I know a lot of people with just this sentiment... They live in semi-affluent neighbourhoods, wear nice-looking suits, and always have big blue signs on their lawns come election time. I think their, (and your) sentiments extend a little further than what is audibly uttered. The big underlying theme appears to be "When I make it big, Conservative policies are going to be the ones that will really benefit me..."

The big catch in all of this, is that the existing right-wing policies of the Conservatives will help to prevent you from ever getting to the space where Conservative policies will help you.

This, of course, is nonsense. What have the Liberals brought us? Cutbacks in health care at the federal level, massive tax increases at the provincial level. No improvement in services of any kind. Bigger government, bigger bureacracy, corruption, dishonesty and lies - less services. It wasn't the tories who made it almost impossible to collect UIC even while increasing UIC payments to the point it became a major tax grab. Now I have to pay a special "health premium" at the provincial level for the same lousy health care services, even as the provincial Liberals drastically increase spending in every conceivable area.

And what would the NDP do? Double my taxes, give it all to the public sector unions, then start regulating everything I do but breath. "Oh, you can't do that, you can't say that, you can't watch that, you can't read that, you can't think that. It's not politically correct!"

It's not surprising at all.  If you weren't dumb enough to fall for the "I'm going to make it..." dream, you'd see that Conservative policies hurt the masses (including you), and help a very limited few... They're easy to spot... they're the ones who don't need any help.... 

I'm one of those who doesn't need help. That doesn't mean I'm rich. It means I'm okay. I manage to support myself. That, no doubt, is your idea of "the affluent few". I'm white, straight and middle class. The NDP despises me and all the others like me. Given the chance they'd take the money I work so hard for and distribute it to the lazy bums on welfare who dropped out of school to do drugs, and to every ethnic, racial, sexual, feminist and left wing wacko lobby group that holds out its hands.

The only thing I want from the government is to leave me the hell alone. And I sure won't get that from the shrill, self-righteous big brother busybodies of the left, none of whom have succeded at anything, but all of whom are certain they know best how I should live my life.

Very well put Argus!!!!

It covers exactly how I feel!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements



  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...