Letters to the Editor
-
The Question Is...What Is Being Conserved?
The neocons have shown that the only things they are interested in conserving and extending are the wealth and power of the already wealthy and powerful. They have advanced their cause at the expense of everybody else in the world, including traditional conservatives. They are creating an authoritarian state granting favors and privileges to its corporate masters while exploiting and plundering resources, human labor, and human liberty. This cancerous perversion of conservatism must be excised and destroyed.
Certain things need to be conserved, just as the possibilities of innovation need to be allowed and encouraged. The concepts of personal and political liberty first envisioned in the Enlightenment and advanced in the American Revolution need to be conserved. The rule of law under the Constitution has been useful in promoting these into practice and should be respected.
Natural resources need to be conserved. Our lives depend on a complex, planet-wide system of natural relationships that need to be understood, respected, and maintained. Scientists have only become fully aware of the extent of Deep Time within the last 200 years, but our economic system still is geared to exploitation and extraction without recognition of needs in the far future. The economics of corporate capitalism is brash, arrogant, and very destructive. A new economics of sustainability and stewardship needs to be forged to replace it. This would be a very conservative move.
Money needs to be conserved. Its value should be real, not fiat, or based on debt. Accounts should be balanced. The runaway borrowing and spending of the last few decades needs to be stopped, as it burdens future generations with hopeless debt. Our government's spending should not exceed its revenues.
Human health needs to be conserved. A system of medical and dental insurance needs to be created that will help maintain the health of all citizens so they can realize their full potential for pursuing happiness.
Our political and economic independence need to be conserved. Since we have no direct political control over other nations other than by the unethical and ultimately self-defeating means of intimidation and attack, we need to protect the industries and skills of our domestic workers. This means defending our borders against those who would undercut our labor and promoting fair trade policies with other nations that do not restrict our freedom to make adjustments in our own economies.
I'm proud to call myself a conservative because I support and vote for candidates who value conserving that which is good, reasonable, and useful for the long haul ahead.
-
No Chance PAUL?
Kamiya can fuck off. I am sick of shills like him co opting democracy by telling us who can or cannot win? Doesn't salon's relentless free coverage of a giuliani/clinton ticket exemplify who trans national corporations want in office. But, let us not forget that salon is owned in part by GE. Let us not forget that Bush is not an elected official.
-
Conservatism is a new label for an old psychology
Conservatives like to say it's about being thrifty with a nickel, nostalgia for better days and patriotism. However, those are pretty labels for selfishness, fear, hate, and authoritarianism. From Puritans in 17th century England to modern Nationalists in Japan, those are commonalities. It's all the dark elements of the human psyche turned into an ideology.
-
The liberal vision of conservatism
Interesting article. Unique for its willingness to actually engage in some of the philosophical underpinnings of conservatism. It may surprise some liberals to realize that conservatism has a rich and deep intellectual tradition.
Anyway, I would like to bring up a practical matter: doesn't anyone realize that the "social contract" and the idea that the United States is "one family" is merely just a justification for a gargantuan, ineffective bureaucracy? How effective do you really think federal bureaucrats are? Do you think under universal healthcare some guy in DC with lifetime employment (it's an open secret that government workers can't be fired for being incompetent or lazy) will have your best interests in mind when you are truly sick? Check out the post office or the DMV to see government in action.
-
again Gary I think you have missed the essential point
You point out that Republicans in their current form are the bad guys because they appeal to lowest common denominator of all Americans (well, lets make that Southerners). But the problem is that conservatism never felt it had to change because Democrats behaved like demagogues when it suited their purpose to win election (eg: Bill Clinton abandoning labor unions to sign NAFTA, Bill Clinton bombing Somalia, Hillary voting for more war to get rid of EVIL terrorists, Kerry finding God right before elections and especially looking for Bambi wearing those hunting pants, no Democrat presidential coming out in favor of universal health care etc etc you get the picture) So when Democrats abandon their ideology to appeal to Southern white voters and rural Americans, why do Republicans feel they need to shift their ideology away from its current state? And I disagree that conservatives are moving to the left. Because if that was the case, we wouldn't any war mongering towards Iran or at least conservatives would be speaking out against it in a major way. Not only that, as the world comes closer and closer to America (in the form immigration, technology and other means) most white Americans will feel all the more threatened at this change. Indeed if history has taught us anything it is that the result has been the opposite (remember the term "white flight"?) In fact the situation conservative Americans are facing is not all that different from what conservative Muslims are facing. And its the fear of the dilution of their beliefs and world view, with the ever shrinking globe, that has caused conservative Muslims
to lash out in such a violent manner. Americans conservatives haven't lashed out this way only they have the upper hand right now (well actually I guess they have, with the with us or against us ideology)
-
"no-chance Paul"
I think the language used by wearedoomed is a bit harsh, but his point should be well taken by Salon and its readers. It's obvious from my previous posting in relation to this article that I do not agree with Ron Paul on all the issues, but he unquestionably represents the integrity, the analytic mind, the appeal to hope rather than fear that is so lacking in the brass-plated buffoons he is running against. Right now the greatest threat to our political system is the pervasive corruption and subversion brought on by the undue influence of big business. Ron Paul is probably the best candidate for bringing this to a halt, protecting our liberties, and staunching the outflow of money, industries, and skills from our country.
Salon's writers, like the rest of the corporate-controlled mainstream media, seem bent on directing its readers away from supporting those candidates who best represent their true interests and toward selection of either Tweedledee or Tweedledum, both bound to support and defend the interests of their corporate masters.