American Conservatism in Decline!

joseph brand

Long may this trend continue. American conservatism, synonymous with Republicanism is in steady decline, according to a Gallup poll.

A study, published recently, found that conservatism is linked to those with a low IQ. Conservatism is a reluctance to change, based on irrational fear, coupled with closed-mindedness.

Wiki:

Historian Gregory Schneider identifies several constants in American conservatism: respect for tradition, support of republicanism, "the rule of law and the Christian religion", and a defense of "Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments".

Traditionalist Antimodernism:

Edmund Burke is the best noted of the anti-enlightenment writers who challenged the notions of equality, secularism and reason. Burke defended the institutions of nationalism and localism, disputing universalist rights; in addition the monarchy, nobility and church were all defended as worthwhile institutions that safeguarded against historical regression.
The main issue conservatism faces is that it historically has been on the wrong side of every political and social issue; at best it is a go slow philosophy, at worst it is a political philosophy dedicated to historical regression.
The enlightenment has been a massive driving force for human achievement; empirically the principles of the enlightenment have advanced and propelled humanity to heights un-thought of during the renaissance.

Relevant image/ poster.

As we've seen here in Ireland, access to information (internet), a sort of 'enlightenment' if you will, has broadened minds. Church attendance is down, along with the number of Irish people who claim to be religious.

In Ireland, only 47 percent of those polled said they considered themselves religious -- a 22-point drop from the 69 percent recorded in a similar poll conducted in 2005. In addition, 10 percent self-identified as atheist.
The U.S., France and Canada joined Ireland on the top-10 list of countries to have experienced a "notable decline in religiosity" since 2005.

The number of people in the U.S. who self-identify as religious dropped 13 points to 60 percent. In addition, 5 percent of Americans declared themselves atheists, an increase of 4 points since 2005.

So, while conservatism and religion experience irreversible decline, we should see less bigotry, racism, homophobia, gender discrimination etc etc A better educated society, free of dogma, is a better society all round.

Like Christopher Columbus said when he discovered The Americas, "This is a New World*".

*Not actual quote.

Amerika

LOL… Kind of reminds me of all those articles written about how the Republican Party was dead after the 2008 election. :rolleyes:

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

LOL… Kind of reminds me of all those articles written about how the Republican Party was dead after the 2008 election. :rolleyes:

It did. The party basically split and half of them claimed for "The Tea Party". What was left by the end of that whole debacle is a new GOP that has shifted incrementally further to the right.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

It did. The party basically split and half of them claimed for "The Tea Party". What was left by the end of that whole debacle is a new GOP that has shifted incrementally further to the right.

Hmmm… makes me a little perturbed that I never got the memo.

nagilum2

Far from seeing any kind of new happy world, what we're actually seeing is more polarization.

The OP, for example, is seething with disdain for anyone who retains religious or conservative beliefs, and clearly believes his own beliefs are superior. Yet the original poster is, in the same soliloquy, claiming that we're going to see some happier world with reduced discrimination. The irony is palpable.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm… makes me a little perturbed that I never got the memo.

Bullsh*t. You're perfectly aware the GOP underwent a major rebranding effort between 2008 and 2010.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Bullsh*t. You're perfectly aware the GOP underwent a major rebranding effort between 2008 and 2010.

I did notice a shift BACK to compassionate conservatism from the move towards moderate ideologies that helped us to lose some elections… but a "major rebranding effort"… I don’t think so.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

I did notice a shift BACK to compassionate conservatism from the move towards moderate ideologies that helped us to lose some elections… but a "major rebranding effort"… I don’t think so.

"Moderate Ideologies"? Surely you're not talking about the Bush years

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

"Moderate Ideologies"? Surely you're not talking about the Bush years

Bush was no conservative.

jank

nagilum2 wrote: »

Far from seeing any kind of new happy world, what we're actually seeing is more polarization.

The OP, for example, is seething with disdain for anyone who retains religious or conservative beliefs, and clearly believes his own beliefs are superior. Yet the original poster is, in the same soliloquy, claiming that we're going to see some happier world with reduced discrimination. The irony is palpable.

Agree, intolerance of someone else beliefs is not only a conservative trait.

jank

jank wrote: »

Agree, intolerance of someone else beliefs is not only a conservative trait.

That reminds me of the paradox of tolerance, which Popper discussed. A liberally minded, self-proclaimed tolerant individual might be antagonistic towards conservatives who they view as intolerant, hence they're being intolerant of intolerance, and in doing so are intolerant themselves. Get your head around that one!

TwoShedsJackson

Amerika wrote: »

Bush was no conservative.

Dick Cheney was President for those 8 years.

So who would you regard as a 'real' conservative?

Amerika

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

So who would you regard as a 'real' conservative?

Recently: ‘Real’… none. Mostly… Ronald Reagan & Margaret Thatcher. Although GW Bush was no conservative, his policies on taxes and Supreme Court picks were.

TwoShedsJackson

Amerika wrote: »

Recently: ‘Real’… none. Mostly… Ronald Reagan & Margaret Thatcher. Although GW Bush was no conservative, his policies on taxes and Supreme Court picks were.

So by saying W was not a conservative, do you simply mean he wasn't right-wing enough for your personal taste? Because by most people's definition he would be considered a conservative.

Benny_Cake

nagilum2 wrote: »

Far from seeing any kind of new happy world, what we're actually seeing is more polarization.

The OP, for example, is seething with disdain for anyone who retains religious or conservative beliefs, and clearly believes his own beliefs are superior. Yet the original poster is, in the same soliloquy, claiming that we're going to see some happier world with reduced discrimination. The irony is palpable.

It's lazy pigeon-holing really. Plenty of people whose politics could be described as liberal or left-wing attend churches. I'd be happy to see a world where different ideas and beliefs could be discussed without demonising those who feel differently - a problem which can be particularly seen on the right-wing of the Republican party but which isn't restricted to it.

Amerika

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

So by saying W was not a conservative, do you simply mean he wasn't right-wing enough for your personal taste? Because by most people's definition he would be considered a conservative.

okay

TwoShedsJackson

Amerika wrote: »

okay

Okay what? He wasn't right-wing enough? I'm sure you have actually thought about this, haven't you?

Amerika

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Okay what? He wasn't right-wing enough? I'm sure you have actually thought about this, haven't you?

Okay in that he wasn't conservative enough for me - he expanded the welfare state with his unpaid Welfare bill, his protectionist trade policies, his farm subsidies, and especially in deficit spending; and okay that a lot of other people think he was pretty conservative. Okay?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mjollnir

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Wrong. There is nothing about either major party that is 'hospitable' to libertarianism.

Libertarianism, the philosophy, is based on very specific, very limited principles that are absent in either the Dems or the Repubs.

Conservative Christians, of the US variety, are the absolute antithesis of libertarianism.

Quite frankly....... duh.

Manach

IHMO from a non-US Conservativism Catholic PoV there are elements of intersection between such Conservativism and libertarianism - such as championed by Paul Ryan.
Just as there would elements of intersection between liberal Catholic social justice teaching and the democratic party - such as championed by Nanci Polosi.

nagilum2

Amerika wrote: »

Okay in that he wasn't conservative enough for me - he expanded the welfare state with his unpaid Welfare bill, his protectionist trade policies, his farm subsidies, and especially in deficit spending; and okay that a lot of other people think he was pretty conservative. Okay?

Agree with Amerika. Many people have labeled Bush a conservative solely on the basis of his neo-conservative foreign policy. But the "conservative" label has lots of dimensions in the US, particularly because there are only two parties. If you look at Bush's domestic policy, he was far from conservative, for many of the reasons Amerika cited. Another case in point, one of his first actions in response to 9/11 on the domestic front was to stand up a brand new government agency - the DHS. Some other functions rolled underneath it but by and large is was another massive government program, and it now sucks up nearly $100B/yr.

Bush was a big government guy on the domestic front, and economically, definitely not conservative at all.

joseph brand

nagilum2 wrote: »

Far from seeing any kind of new happy world, what we're actually seeing is more polarization.

The OP, for example, is seething with disdain for anyone who retains religious or conservative beliefs, and clearly believes his own beliefs are superior. Yet the original poster is, in the same soliloquy, claiming that we're going to see some happier world with reduced discrimination. The irony is palpable.

Need I mention Todd Akin, Jon Hubbard, Charlie Fuqua, Hank Williams Jr, Rush Limbaugh, S. Palin, Ted Nugent, Rick Santorum etc etc etc

Do you remember Michelle Bachmann crouched behind a bush, (not George), at a gay-rights rally?

Rick Santorum on Being Conservative: ‘We Will Never Have the Elite, Smart People on Our Side’

At the bigotry-laden Values Voters Summit, former Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum inadvertently characterized conservative values as something smart people do not have.
Yes, damn the media and the elites and anyone who has bothered reading a book that isn't the Bible. Those smarts with their logic will never understand Santorum's staunchly anti-gay perspective.

Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan also made an appearance at the Values Voters Summit, reminding attendees that a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote against marriage equality.

You're right nagilum, I do have plenty of disdain for bigoted, racist, dogmatic, religious conservatives. Didn't they call their 'trip' to the Middle east a 'Holy War'? But I should tolerate religious intolerance (Chick-fil-A) and keep my mouth shut, otherwise I'm intolerant?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuanrYGnIOI

Obama is called a 'half-breed' and a 'muslim', amongst other slurs.

Conservatives.

nagilum2

joseph brand wrote: »

Need I mention Todd Akin, Jon Hubbard, Charlie Fuqua, Hank Williams Jr, Rush Limbaugh, S. Palin, Ted Nugent, Rick Santorum etc etc etc

Do you remember Michelle Bachmann crouched behind a bush, (not George), at a gay-rights rally?

Rick Santorum on Being Conservative: ‘We Will Never Have the Elite, Smart People on Our Side’



You're right nagilum, I do have plenty of disdain for bigoted, racist, dogmatic, religious conservatives. Didn't they call their 'trip' to the Middle east a 'Holy War'? But I should tolerate religious intolerance (Chick-fil-A) and keep my mouth shut, otherwise I'm intolerant?

Obama is called a 'half-breed' and a 'muslim', amongst other slurs.

Conservatives.

Except you didn't point out the specific individuals, you attributed the behaviour to a much larger group - anyone with conservative or religious beliefs. When it was pointed out to you directly that you'd done this, you doubled down on it rather than retract it. On another thread you slurred mormons.

You have demonstrated a pattern of identifying behaviours you dislike, then generalizing and attributing those behaviours to much larger groups.

The intellectual laziness you exhibit when you do this is exactly the thing that allows racism, which you claim to despite, to flourish.

jank

joseph brand wrote: »

Need I mention Todd Akin, Jon Hubbard, Charlie Fuqua, Hank Williams Jr, Rush Limbaugh, S. Palin, Ted Nugent, Rick Santorum etc etc etc

Do you remember Michelle Bachmann crouched behind a bush, (not George), at a gay-rights rally?

Rick Santorum on Being Conservative: ‘We Will Never Have the Elite, Smart People on Our Side’



You're right nagilum, I do have plenty of disdain for bigoted, racist, dogmatic, religious conservatives. Didn't they call their 'trip' to the Middle east a 'Holy War'? But I should tolerate religious intolerance (Chick-fil-A) and keep my mouth shut, otherwise I'm intolerant?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuanrYGnIOI

Obama is called a 'half-breed' and a 'muslim', amongst other slurs.

Conservatives.

Should I go to youtube and find a video of some radical Muslims, then Google some articles to support my claim that all Muslims are dangerous and predisposed to terrorism? There by creating massive broad strokes painting everyone the same? AND to top it all off, you don't see the irony in that?

Brian?

I thin genuine conservatism is nearly dead and I'm actually sorry it is. It's been replaced with religious social conservatism, which I fear is worse for the country in the long run.

Overheal

Romney hasn't displayed himself as a fiscal conservative as of yet. Lets cut taxes, raise military spending, and continue allowing people to count their mortgages and charitable donations as deductions.

Sadly the only man for the job was Ron Paul but you can't get elected on sense alone: if you aren't pandering to the voters you've lost the cause. And sadly voters are terribly polarized over the silliest of issues, few of which have anything to do with fixing the mess the country is in.

nagilum2

Overheal wrote: »

Romney hasn't displayed himself as a fiscal conservative as of yet. Lets cut taxes, raise military spending, and continue allowing people to count their mortgages and charitable donations as deductions.

Sadly the only man for the job was Ron Paul but you can't get elected on sense alone: if you aren't pandering to the voters you've lost the cause. And sadly voters are terribly polarized over the silliest of issues, few of which have anything to do with fixing the mess the country is in.

I agree. Both major political parties are terrified to face basic mathematical realities, and even more terrified to share thise realities with the voters.

Brian?

Overheal wrote: »

Romney hasn't displayed himself as a fiscal conservative as of yet. Lets cut taxes, raise military spending, and continue allowing people to count their mortgages and charitable donations as deductions.

Sadly the only man for the job was Ron Paul but you can't get elected on sense alone: if you aren't pandering to the voters you've lost the cause. And sadly voters are terribly polarized over the silliest of issues, few of which have anything to do with fixing the mess the country is in.

Ron Paul was not and will never be the answer. I appreciate people love his forthrightness and candor but his basic economic philosophy is terminally flawed IMO.

jank

Terminally flawed, you mean special interests and government always have the answer :rolleyes:

Brian?

jank wrote: »

Terminally flawed, you mean special interests and government always have the answer :rolleyes:

Make up an argument based on nothing and throw it at me, well done. When did I say special interests were the answer? The answer is a broader, fairer society and yes a better government is part of that.

Mjollnir

Based on people and comments like this, I'd say rational thought in America is dead. Pity that I share a country with these idiots.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/chris-matthews-confronts-wingnut-who-calls

Gbear

nagilum2 wrote: »

Far from seeing any kind of new happy world, what we're actually seeing is more polarization.

The OP, for example, is seething with disdain for anyone who retains religious or conservative beliefs, and clearly believes his own beliefs are superior. Yet the original poster is, in the same soliloquy, claiming that we're going to see some happier world with reduced discrimination. The irony is palpable.

Opinions aren't equal. There's no reason why we should tolerate the anti-intellectualism of the Republican party.
There's no reason we should tolerate racism or homophobic bigotry either.

You appear to be missing the point.

As society gets better educated and more well off it becomes less religious.
That is born out by comparisons of EU states and also, comparisons of States within the US.

It says nothing for an individual democrat being intelligent or religious or a republican being a stupid atheist. It makes a probabilistic judgement based on a much larger sample size. It isn't there to say that a person who is religious = stupid = a republican.

It does say that there is a tendency for people who are less educated to be more relgious, bigoted, republican, etc..


Now, you might have specific problems with the links provided by Joseph Brand and if you want to debate the validity of the evidence, that's fine, but what you seem to be doing is childishly attacking the implications of the evidence, as if being depressing makes the evidence invalid.

gvn wrote: »

That reminds me of the paradox of tolerance, which Popper discussed. A liberally minded, self-proclaimed tolerant individual might be antagonistic towards conservatives who they view as intolerant, hence they're being intolerant of intolerance, and in doing so are intolerant themselves. Get your head around that one!

Tolerance doesn't just mean you accept whatever anyone says.
Saying you don't like gays isn't intolerant - beating gays up or in some other way taking away their rights is.
There is no reason to be "tolerant" of the anti-science stance of, for example, the likes of Todd Akin. When they come out with bull****, we need to jump down their throats - especially if they're on the Science and Technology committee!

nagilum2

Gbear wrote: »

Opinions aren't equal. There's no reason why we should tolerate the anti-intellectualism of the Republican party.
There's no reason we should tolerate racism or homophobic bigotry either.

You appear to be missing the point.

As society gets better educated and more well off it becomes less religious.
That is born out by comparisons of EU states and also, comparisons of States within the US.

It says nothing for an individual democrat being intelligent or religious or a republican being a stupid atheist. It makes a probabilistic judgement based on a much larger sample size. It isn't there to say that a person who is religious = stupid = a republican.

It does say that there is a tendency for people who are less educated to be more relgious, bigoted, republican, etc..


Now, you might have specific problems with the links provided by Joseph Brand and if you want to debate the validity of the evidence, that's fine, but what you seem to be doing is childishly attacking the implications of the evidence, as if being depressing makes the evidence invalid.



Tolerance doesn't just mean you accept whatever anyone says.
Saying you don't like gays isn't intolerant - beating gays up or in some other way taking away their rights is.
There is no reason to be "tolerant" of the anti-science stance of, for example, the likes of Todd Akin. When they come out with bull****, we need to jump down their throats - especially if they're on the Science and Technology committee!

If you really want to say that probabilistic arguments are an acceptable excuse for making broad generalizations, you need to recognize that you are employing the same attitudes that have been used to justify a wide range of discriminatory and murderous behaviour throughout the centuries. If you're OK with that, fine.

who_me

Honestly, I think the OP is extremely fanciful. I've seen no indications we (as a species) are becoming more tolerant.

The only thing that ever changes is of whom we are intolerant. Years ago, society would ridicule or stigmatise those who were gay, or a different race; nowadays we ridicule those who are religious, or of low intelligence. As society changes, whoever differs from the new 'norm' has to be stigmatised.

The more things change...

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

who_me wrote: »

The more things change...

Gbear

nagilum2 wrote: »

If you really want to say that probabilistic arguments are an acceptable excuse for making broad generalizations, you need to recognize that you are employing the same attitudes that have been used to justify a wide range of discriminatory and murderous behaviour throughout the centuries. If you're OK with that, fine.

That's a nice straw man you've got going on there.

The OP was presenting the case that conservatism is on the decline and then cited reasons why. There is a corollary and it would appear a causal link between levels of conservatism and levels of education (and I would argue, wealth).
Again, you can brand the conclusions depressing (which is tantamount to burying your head in the sand), or you can argue about the basis of drawing those conclusions.

There's nothing wrong with making generalisations. I can generalise and state that most men have penises. There's nothing incorrect or immoral about that statement. It's not discriminating against men who have no penises.

Trying to take the moral high ground against a statement of fact is childish in the extreme. Either debate it on it's merits or don't bother.

And I must've missed the part where either the OP or I was trying to use the piece of evidence cited as a justification for ethnic cleansing.

nagilum2

Gbear wrote: »

That's a nice straw man you've got going on there.

The OP was presenting the case that conservatism is on the decline and then cited reasons why. There is a corollary and it would appear a causal link between levels of conservatism and levels of education (and I would argue, wealth).
Again, you can brand the conclusions depressing (which is tantamount to burying your head in the sand), or you can argue about the basis of drawing those conclusions.

There's nothing wrong with making generalisations. I can generalise and state that most men have penises. There's nothing incorrect or immoral about that statement. It's not discriminating against men who have no penises.

Trying to take the moral high ground against a statement of fact is childish in the extreme. Either debate it on it's merits or don't bother.

And I must've missed the part where either the OP or I was trying to use the piece of evidence cited as a justification for ethnic cleansing.

Well, it's not a strawman, it's a fact, and it's highlighting hypocrisy. If you want to dismiss it, I can't help you. The original points have already been debated on this thread, and you're late to the party.

So, while conservatism and religion experience irreversible decline, we should see less bigotry, racism, homophobia, gender discrimination etc etc A better educated society, free of dogma, is a better society all round.

I mean, do you really believe this? If yes, suggest you reread the last 3 pages.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

I need to step in at this point, because several posts in this thread suggest that people are losing sight of where there are posting. Per the charter

This is a Politics forum, not Liveline.

Certain standards of debate are expected, and will be enforced. Your posts must contribute to debate, not derail it or drag it into mob chanting. There's been a serious decrease in the signal to noise ratio in the forum recently, and that trend requires reversal.

If your posts consists of little more than a statement that some group of people or other are bad people and/or deserve prison/execution as traitors, think long and hard before pressing "submit", because we'll be treating that as trolling from here on in.

I understand that everyone gets hot under the collar around the elections, but smart-ass one-liners, photo-only posts, and snide remarks followed by :roll eyes: or do not constitute rational discussion. That said, based on the tone of the OP, it is difficult to see how this thread could have progressed otherwise.

This forum is not Liveline, nor is it an extension of an American cable news shriek fest. Moving forward (since many regulars have posted in this thread), please try to be mindful before posting - if your 'contribution' is little more than ^^ then for everyone's sake, don't post.