What does the American Conservative stand for anymore?

[Patine]

its the sentiment.... an opinion piece to sway the reader, creating a black and white narrative of "good vs evil"

You mean, like virtually every opinion piece and book that Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter produce, and that was at the heart and soul of Bush's message in his "War on Terror" (which was not REALLY what said war was on, or for).

 

[bernie14]

I apologize, i meant to say that i prematurely discharged all the ammunition from my firearm, in an excited state

 

[bernie14]

You mean, like virtually every opinion piece and book that Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter produce, and that was at the heart and soul of Bush's message in his "War on Terror" (which was not REALLY what said war was on, or for).

Probably, all those people are well known to be opinionated

 

[Patine]

Probably, all those people are well known to be opinionated

Being simply vocally opinionated is NOT the same as being a promoter of a toxic, Neo-Manichaean, siege mentality, fear-mongering, manipulative narrative. I think you knew and understood what I was referring to.

 

[innonimatu]

That is propaganda, not a platform or plan.

Everything is propaganda, and plans are scarce. It's part of the spirit of this time, people seem unable to plan. Or to agree on any plan.

 

[bernie14]

Being simply vocally opinionated is NOT the same as being a promoter of a toxic, Neo-Manichaean, siege mentality, fear-mongering, manipulative narrative. I think you knew and understood what I was referring to.

No, i didnt know. If i would have been making a judgment regarding the degree of influence the opinions have on the masses, i would not have compared the sentiment of the article linked to Mein Kampf.

 

[Patine]

No, i didnt know. If i would have been making a judgment regarding the degree of influence the opinions have on the masses, i would not have compared the sentiment of the article linked to Mein Kampf.

A very poor comparison as, like it or not, Mein Kampf has been incredibly influential book in socio-political circles across much of the world, in one way or another (not always in a direct or intuitive way, though) for the past 90 years. Your choice of simile is highly clumsy and ill-thought out.

 

[bernie14]

Yeah, i was not comparing influence but the rightous sentiment and stereotyping of groups. Or are you also passing moral judgment on all Trump supporters?

 

[Farm Boy]

The conservationist conservativers are imho the truest to what the word actually means. They are also the furthest apart from actual, real life conservatism. Almost all environmentalists are not self-described (or any kind of) conservatives.

Conservative comes from "conservare" (lat) meaning to preserve.

As mentioned , idiot ideologues and party men have poisoned the words. It is what they do, *****ers gonna ****. Conservatives, so called, that do not care about obligation to the free world in an era of riding authority. That do not care for the earth. Liberals, so called, that will not extend positive liberty to viable humans in state of involuntary trespass, that call not employers but working men they will not admit to thier ranks vermin while hand wringing about admitting more semi residents to do thier menial tasks for undermarket wages. Screw the terms.

 

[JPetroski]

The word "conservative" has just been completely perverted. What, after all, is so conservative about using the power of the federal government to go into someone else's state and tell them who they can and can't marry or what they can or can't put in their own body? It ought to be perfectly fine to support gay marriage, drug legalization, or any other "socially liberal" platform (at least in your own state) and still be a card-carrying Republican, but taking such stances makes you a pariah in the party.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

As mentioned , idiot ideologues and party men have poisoned the words. It is what they do, *****ers gonna ****. Conservatives, so called, that do not care about obligation to the free world in an era of riding authority. That do not care for the earth. Liberals, so called, that will not extend positive liberty to viable humans in state of involuntary trespass, that call not employers but working men they will not admit to thier ranks vermin while hand wringing about admitting more semi residents to do thier menial tasks for undermarket wages. Screw the terms.

Criminalising abortion punishes women and is designed to keep them down and to exert control over their bodies. A currently existing persons rights trump a hypothetical beings all the time.

 

[Peuri]

Criminalising abortion punishes women and is designed to keep them down and to exert control over their bodies. A currently existing persons rights trump a hypothetical beings all the time.

Why is it necessary to assume these malicious motives upon people that oppose abortion? Wouldn't the more logical reason for their opposition be what they say it is: that they think a foetus is a living human being. Rather than some theoretical willingness to uphold the patriarchy or whatever. The claim that the reason for opposing abortions is the upholding of patriarchy, which you basically say here, is rather suspect, because almost everywhere men and women oppose/approve of abortion at almost the same rate.(1) Opposing abortion may end up having the effect which you describe, but it does not necessarily mean that it is their objective. Much like the right likes to say that because feminism, according to them, has destroyed the family, it was feminist's objective all along to destroy the family. It's a non sequitur. Actions can have unintended consequences.

Now that I have questioned the dogma, in order to stay in polite company, must affirm that I support abortion rights, and could perhaps even be persuaded that people should have the right to after birth abortions.

(1) https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...out-as-likely-as-men-to-favor-legal-abortion/

 

[JPetroski]

Why is it necessary to assume these malicious motives upon people that oppose abortion? Wouldn't the more logical reason for their opposition be what they say it is: that they think a foetus is a living human being. Rather than some theoretical willingness to uphold the patriarchy or whatever. The claim that the reason for opposing abortions is the upholding of patriarchy, which you basically say here, is rather suspect, because almost everywhere men and women oppose/approve of abortion at almost the same rate.(1) Opposing abortion may end up having the effect which you describe, but it does not necessarily mean that it is their objective. Much like the right likes to say that because feminism, according to them, has destroyed the family, it was feminist's objective all along to destroy the family. It's a non sequitur. Actions can have unintended consequences.

This is a great point and of course both sides do it. We would be in a much better position and reach much more agreement if we assumed the other person had positive intent (even if they're missing the mark by a wide margin).

 

[Farm Boy]

One can be horrified at Alabama at the same time they are horrified by New York and Illinois. At least Alabama is getting struck. Illinois is reminding us of the nature of circus in bread and circuses. Abortion not at any stage not for any reason is a failure of humanity. Late term past viability for any reason or nebulously defined non-emergency reason is a failure of humanity.

If polling americans and adding up support for those two options something like a fifth to a quarter of us are stupid, evil, or both.

Point agreed though, stupid or unconsidered is a safer assumption until proven otherwise.

 

[Patine]

Criminalising abortion punishes women and is designed to keep them down and to exert control over their bodies. A currently existing persons rights trump a hypothetical beings all the time.

Why is it necessary to assume these malicious motives upon people that oppose abortion? Wouldn't the more logical reason for their opposition be what they say it is: that they think a foetus is a living human being. Rather than some theoretical willingness to uphold the patriarchy or whatever. The claim that the reason for opposing abortions is the upholding of patriarchy, which you basically say here, is rather suspect, because almost everywhere men and women oppose/approve of abortion at almost the same rate.(1) Opposing abortion may end up having the effect which you describe, but it does not necessarily mean that it is their objective. Much like the right likes to say that because feminism, according to them, has destroyed the family, it was feminist's objective all along to destroy the family. It's a non sequitur. Actions can have unintended consequences.

Now that I have questioned the dogma, in order to stay in polite company, must affirm that I support abortion rights, and could perhaps even be persuaded that people should have the right to after birth abortions.

(1) https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...out-as-likely-as-men-to-favor-legal-abortion/

This is a great point and of course both sides do it. We would be in a much better position and reach much more agreement if we assumed the other person had positive intent (even if they're missing the mark by a wide margin).

One can be horrified at Alabama at the same time they are horrified by New York and Illinois. At least Alabama is getting struck. Illinois is reminding us of the nature of circus in bread and circuses. Abortion not at any stage not for any reason is a failure of humanity. Late term past viability for any reason or nebulously defined non-emergency reason is a failure of humanity.

If polling americans and adding up support for those two options something like a fifth to a quarter of us are stupid, evil, or both.

Point agreed though, stupid or unconsidered is a safer assumption until proven otherwise.

Of course, there is also hypocritical political self-labeling to judge such political activists from. The "Pro-Life" lobby, who rabbit on how "life is sacred," but are, in truth, with only a minority of exceptions, only Anti-Abortion and Anti-Euthanasia, but are pro-war, pro-capital punishment, pro-police impunity, pro-gun rights (guns are solely designed to kill, you know), anti-corporate and environmental regulation (which leads to a lot of death), anti-welfare and government-funded healthcare (more death), anti-Federal money to disaster relief, leaving it to State resources alone (with things like Katrina and Sandy and such, imagine the death), arming and supporting foreign regimes to kill their own people and neighbouring people, and I could go on. With such vile hypocrisy and two-faced standards in the political lobby's tag label and self-identifier, it's a bit hard NOT to suspect sinister ulterior motives and disingenuous agendas, I'm afraid to say.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Farmboy; if a woman's life is in danger from giving birth and decides to terminate, is that a failing on her part? What if the child would be born profoundly disabled and she makes the decision to abort?

What if she is raped? Must she be forced to give birth, despite the psychological issues that can coercing with giving birth to a child conceived by rape? Who are you to claim that her decision is a failing on her part? And what right do you have to infringe upon her bodily autonomy?

Would you be comfortable with women deciding whether spilling any errent drops of semen is tantamount to the murder of a human being?

Abortion happens naturally in a woman's body, some may not realise it happens at all but to criminalise it, to attack it's availability is to essentially attack, disempower and reduce women's rights, as well as that it also punishes and shames women for their sexuality and reproductive systems.

How many times has abortion been intertwined with the religious right, as a way of castigating female empowerment? It's an old trope by the point.

Despite what certain sections of conservatism still think and hold fast to, women are people and their rights outweigh the rights of a hypothetical person that doesn't exist yet.

 

[onejayhawk]

One can be horrified at Alabama at the same time they are horrified by New York and Illinois. At least Alabama is getting struck. Illinois is reminding us of the nature of circus in bread and circuses. Abortion not at any stage not for any reason is a failure of humanity. Late term past viability for any reason or nebulously defined non-emergency reason is a failure of humanity.

If polling americans and adding up support for those two options something like a fifth to a quarter of us are stupid, evil, or both.

Point agreed though, stupid or unconsidered is a safer assumption until proven otherwise.

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. - Robert Heinlein
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. - Hanlon's Razor (sometimes attributed to Heinlein)

This subject is so upside down politically, it deserves special consideration.

J

 

[Traitorfish]

What did conservatism ever stand for? In the old world conservatism stood for the defense of monarchies and aristocracies and the church and patriarchy. In the US it has always stood for rationalizing the pretensions of whatever would-be aristocrats are currently trying to destroy democracy, and that's still what it stands for.

I think this is pretty close to the truth. Conservatism is in essence the defence of social distinction. The exact set of distinctions vary, and are ultimately negotiable, so long as the principle of social distinction remains intact. The structure of American society is historically more varied and erratic than most of the old world, so conservatives have tended to be more varied and erratic in their politics, and in how they articulate those politics.

That's not an exhaustive description of any given conservative, and some of them certainly entertain loftier ideas, but insofar as they are conservatives, insofar as they share this common identity, this is what animates them.

 

[Senethro]

Pro-lifers don't break into fertility clinics to implant all the surplus/due for discarding embryo human beings into volunteer human lifeboats, so I kind of don't believe them when they say they believe life starts at conception.

 

[Lexicus]

Wouldn't the more logical reason for their opposition be what they say it is: that they think a foetus is a living human being.

Absolutely not since they are demonstrably pro-death in so many other areas including support for war, opposition to social spending and gun control, and an immigration policy that kills people in the desert etc. etc.

Much like the right likes to say that because feminism, according to them, has destroyed the family, it was feminist's objective all along to destroy the family. It's a non sequitur. Actions can have unintended consequences.

The feminist's goal was always to destroy the patriarchal family ruled more or less literally by men. Conservatives cannot imagine families that don't work this way so it's understandable that they would be confused.