Conservative Ideology 2024: NOTHING BUT LIES AND FEARMONGERING

[jhu72]

Trump's policies without Trump

https://www.c-span.org/video/?521558-3/ ... nservatism

... there is no such thing progressive-conservatism. All of the examples he gives are progressives - FULL STOP. Progressive republicans are just progressives, same as progressive democrats.

I think that's right.
There's perhaps a difference in degree of progressive, or some nuances, but fundamentally I think it's a mistake to use those words together...he's just describing progressive or 'moderate' Republicans...he's clear that, for instance, Eisenhower had little patience with right wing reactionaries.

He's claiming a former 'conservativism' that defines largely by "west" vs "east", 'nationhood' vs 'cosmopolitanism', 'democracy and equality' vs 'aristocracy', etc...and then trying to weave that into something relevant to today....but today those notions and that language has pretty much been captured by right wing reactionaries, whether 'west' or especially the south. Lost Cause..."purity"...

When asked 'who today'..."It's a lot easier to do that if I go back 60 years"...nobody in Congress today...maybe governors...

He's reaching for Youngkin...but that's a quite imperfect vessel for his wishful thinking. Too bad, really, but Youngkin chose to tap into the old southern BS and culture war garbage.

Interesting though; thanks Salty for posting.

... not all issues impact / define progressivism or conservatism. The difference between progressive democrats and progressive republicans have always been these types of issues as far as I can recall.

[youthathletics]

Trump's policies without Trump

https://www.c-span.org/video/?521558-3/ ... nservatism

... there is no such thing progressive-conservatism. All of the examples he gives are progressives - FULL STOP. Progressive republicans are just progressives, same as progressive democrats.

I think that's right.
There's perhaps a difference in degree of progressive, or some nuances, but fundamentally I think it's a mistake to use those words together...he's just describing progressive or 'moderate' Republicans...he's clear that, for instance, Eisenhower had little patience with right wing reactionaries.

He's claiming a former 'conservativism' that defines largely by "west" vs "east", 'nationhood' vs 'cosmopolitanism', 'democracy and equality' vs 'aristocracy', etc...and then trying to weave that into something relevant to today....but today those notions and that language has pretty much been captured by right wing reactionaries, whether 'west' or especially the south. Lost Cause..."purity"...

When asked 'who today'..."It's a lot easier to do that if I go back 60 years"...nobody in Congress today...maybe governors...

He's reaching for Youngkin...but that's a quite imperfect vessel for his wishful thinking. Too bad, really, but Youngkin chose to tap into the old southern BS and culture war garbage.

Interesting though; thanks Salty for posting.

... not all issues impact / define progressivism or conservatism. The difference between progressive democrats and progressive republicans have always been these types of issues as far as I can recall.

I think the moral, is that we are more alike than we will allow ourselves to admit. The instant political affiliation rears its head, heels dig in and something in us causes us to prepare for battle.

[PizzaSnake]

Trump's policies without Trump

https://www.c-span.org/video/?521558-3/ ... nservatism

... there is no such thing progressive-conservatism. All of the examples he gives are progressives - FULL STOP. Progressive republicans are just progressives, same as progressive democrats.

I think that's right.
There's perhaps a difference in degree of progressive, or some nuances, but fundamentally I think it's a mistake to use those words together...he's just describing progressive or 'moderate' Republicans...he's clear that, for instance, Eisenhower had little patience with right wing reactionaries.

He's claiming a former 'conservativism' that defines largely by "west" vs "east", 'nationhood' vs 'cosmopolitanism', 'democracy and equality' vs 'aristocracy', etc...and then trying to weave that into something relevant to today....but today those notions and that language has pretty much been captured by right wing reactionaries, whether 'west' or especially the south. Lost Cause..."purity"...

When asked 'who today'..."It's a lot easier to do that if I go back 60 years"...nobody in Congress today...maybe governors...

He's reaching for Youngkin...but that's a quite imperfect vessel for his wishful thinking. Too bad, really, but Youngkin chose to tap into the old southern BS and culture war garbage.

Interesting though; thanks Salty for posting.

... not all issues impact / define progressivism or conservatism. The difference between progressive democrats and progressive republicans have always been these types of issues as far as I can recall.

I think the moral, is that we are more alike than we will allow ourselves to admit. The instant political affiliation rears its head, heels dig in and something in us causes us to prepare for battle.

“More alike than we will allow ourselves to admit.”

There are many superficial consistencies but I would argue that there is a fundamental divide: are all individuals equal and to be afforded the same respect and accommodation?

To be a conservative or a reactionary would preclude adherence to that position.

[old salt]

Trump's policies without Trump

https://www.c-span.org/video/?521558-3/ ... nservatism

... there is no such thing progressive-conservatism. All of the examples he gives are progressives - FULL STOP. Progressive republicans are just progressives, same as progressive democrats.

I think that's right.
There's perhaps a difference in degree of progressive, or some nuances, but fundamentally I think it's a mistake to use those words together...he's just describing progressive or 'moderate' Republicans...he's clear that, for instance, Eisenhower had little patience with right wing reactionaries.

He's claiming a former 'conservativism' that defines largely by "west" vs "east", 'nationhood' vs 'cosmopolitanism', 'democracy and equality' vs 'aristocracy', etc...and then trying to weave that into something relevant to today....but today those notions and that language has pretty much been captured by right wing reactionaries, whether 'west' or especially the south. Lost Cause..."purity"...

When asked 'who today'..."It's a lot easier to do that if I go back 60 years"...nobody in Congress today...maybe governors...

He's reaching for Youngkin...but that's a quite imperfect vessel for his wishful thinking. Too bad, really, but Youngkin chose to tap into the old southern BS and culture war garbage.

Interesting though; thanks Salty for posting.

So you guys are saying that "conservative" & "progressive" are mutually exclusive. That it is not possible to be both or for a party or individual to espouse both conservative & progressive policies. The examples he gave were TR & IKE. ...how 'bout Kasich ?

[a fan]

So you guys are saying that "conservative" & "progressive" are mutually exclusive. That it is not possible to be both or for a party or individual to espouse both conservative & progressive policies. The examples he gave were TR & IKE. ...how 'bout Kasich ?

We've certainly seen it on the State and local level, without question.

But he had to go all the way back to IKE to come up with a National example.

My example is an obvious one: Nixon. Nixon was a progressive conservative. Founded the EPA. And as you and I discussed, it was Nixon and Nixon alone who rejected a Cold War with China, and chose Trade. For the time? That was an intensely progressive choice.

[MDlaxfan76]

Trump's policies without Trump

https://www.c-span.org/video/?521558-3/ ... nservatism

... there is no such thing progressive-conservatism. All of the examples he gives are progressives - FULL STOP. Progressive republicans are just progressives, same as progressive democrats.

I think that's right.
There's perhaps a difference in degree of progressive, or some nuances, but fundamentally I think it's a mistake to use those words together...he's just describing progressive or 'moderate' Republicans...he's clear that, for instance, Eisenhower had little patience with right wing reactionaries.

He's claiming a former 'conservativism' that defines largely by "west" vs "east", 'nationhood' vs 'cosmopolitanism', 'democracy and equality' vs 'aristocracy', etc...and then trying to weave that into something relevant to today....but today those notions and that language has pretty much been captured by right wing reactionaries, whether 'west' or especially the south. Lost Cause..."purity"...

When asked 'who today'..."It's a lot easier to do that if I go back 60 years"...nobody in Congress today...maybe governors...

He's reaching for Youngkin...but that's a quite imperfect vessel for his wishful thinking. Too bad, really, but Youngkin chose to tap into the old southern BS and culture war garbage.

Interesting though; thanks Salty for posting.

So you guys are saying that "conservative" & "progressive" are mutually exclusive. That it is not possible to be both or for a party or individual to espouse both conservative & progressive policies. The examples he gave were TR & IKE. ...how 'bout Kasich ?

I dunno about what's "possible" (a party can have all sorts of jumbled views) for an individual, but I don't think there's any actual thing as "progressive conservatism", much as I might like the concept and as much of what he described was pretty darn close to my own views.

I certainly might describe myself as progressive socially, conservative fiscally, strong federal government, and an internationalist globally (along the lines of Hamilton vs Jefferson much less Jefferson Davis)...but thats not really what he was describing in his quest to find something for the GOP to rally to.

But he was actually talking about progressive social views, by and large, as well as a strong federal government role (and anti-corruption, which he's dismayed as been abandoned by the GOP...yet he balks at the question about "dark money")...But he simply puts these 'progressive' values under the umbrella of the GOP, Lincoln, TR, Eisenhower for starters...being under the GOP doesn't make that "conservatism', just "Republican".

Look, the guy wants a strong GOP and he also wants a governing philosophy that most of us would recognize as "progressive". I agree. I just think he's stretching the philosophical argument, wishing the GOP hadn't abandoned these values over the past decades, culminating in MAGA/Trump and fealty to such. Me too.

The Q&A session was interesting. I've already mentioned the balk at dark money being disappointing as otherwise he was on the right track...but he admitted that his balk is that cracking down on dark money, with greater transparency, would not favor the GOP...yikes, the whole point is to get clean hands...

I was also disappointed that when he talked about "nationalism", as simply 'favoring Americans", he didn't recognize how awful the ideology nationalism has been in the hands of populists and despots all over the world and throughout history. Want to simply say 'patriotic'? fine. But nationalism carries way, way too much baggage...he was definitely clear that he recognized that the GOP needs to reject the racism of "white nationalism" but come on man, the ship has sailed with that rhetoric. His actual view on it, I'm comfortable with.

The "west" versus "east" concept, the "values" he claimed for Republicans (west), ignore the realities that the Republican Party has been overtaken by the states rights south, not the west.

Again, I think this was a very interesting video, and I appreciate this guy swinging at the ball to find a way for the GOP to move forward, washing itself clean of the stench of the current iteration of the GOP.

But I think we're an awful long way from that happening, unfortunately...as I've said, I think the GOP has to lose and lose and lose at the ballot box before there's been a full reckoning of how far wrong we went. And it may be too late for this party to recover given where the demographics are going to go...we're so incredibly out of step on the "culture" stuff with the younger generation that it's likely to take a bunch of cycles.

[MDlaxfan76]

So you guys are saying that "conservative" & "progressive" are mutually exclusive. That it is not possible to be both or for a party or individual to espouse both conservative & progressive policies. The examples he gave were TR & IKE. ...how 'bout Kasich ?

We've certainly seen it on the State and local level, without question.

But he had to go all the way back to IKE to come up with a National example.

My example is an obvious one: Nixon. Nixon was a progressive conservative. Founded the EPA. And as you and I discussed, it was Nixon and Nixon alone who rejected a Cold War with China, and chose Trade. For the time? That was an intensely progressive choice.

But was he a "conservative" on anything but Russia? and arguably, Vietnam.
But was that "conservative"?

Certainly a progressive on social policy.

Of course, behind the scenes he was also quite a bigot...just didn't display that much for the public.

And he really, really didn't believe in a truly free press...I think mostly because of control issues...power was what was most important to him.

Might call him a pragmatist...

[Seacoaster(1)]

Weekly update (includes a couple of clips from the Criminal Mike Flynn!):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJkpDIQ5nH0

[Farfromgeneva]

So you guys are saying that "conservative" & "progressive" are mutually exclusive. That it is not possible to be both or for a party or individual to espouse both conservative & progressive policies. The examples he gave were TR & IKE. ...how 'bout Kasich ?

We've certainly seen it on the State and local level, without question.

But he had to go all the way back to IKE to come up with a National example.

My example is an obvious one: Nixon. Nixon was a progressive conservative. Founded the EPA. And as you and I discussed, it was Nixon and Nixon alone who rejected a Cold War with China, and chose Trade. For the time? That was an intensely progressive choice.

Started SNAP under Nixon as well.

[Farfromgeneva]

Trump's policies without Trump

https://www.c-span.org/video/?521558-3/ ... nservatism

... there is no such thing progressive-conservatism. All of the examples he gives are progressives - FULL STOP. Progressive republicans are just progressives, same as progressive democrats.

I think that's right.
There's perhaps a difference in degree of progressive, or some nuances, but fundamentally I think it's a mistake to use those words together...he's just describing progressive or 'moderate' Republicans...he's clear that, for instance, Eisenhower had little patience with right wing reactionaries.

He's claiming a former 'conservativism' that defines largely by "west" vs "east", 'nationhood' vs 'cosmopolitanism', 'democracy and equality' vs 'aristocracy', etc...and then trying to weave that into something relevant to today....but today those notions and that language has pretty much been captured by right wing reactionaries, whether 'west' or especially the south. Lost Cause..."purity"...

When asked 'who today'..."It's a lot easier to do that if I go back 60 years"...nobody in Congress today...maybe governors...

He's reaching for Youngkin...but that's a quite imperfect vessel for his wishful thinking. Too bad, really, but Youngkin chose to tap into the old southern BS and culture war garbage.

Interesting though; thanks Salty for posting.

So you guys are saying that "conservative" & "progressive" are mutually exclusive. That it is not possible to be both or for a party or individual to espouse both conservative & progressive policies. The examples he gave were TR & IKE. ...how 'bout Kasich ?

I dunno about what's "possible" (a party can have all sorts of jumbled views) for an individual, but I don't think there's any actual thing as "progressive conservatism", much as I might like the concept and as much of what he described was pretty darn close to my own views.

I certainly might describe myself as progressive socially, conservative fiscally, strong federal government, and an internationalist globally (along the lines of Hamilton vs Jefferson much less Jefferson Davis)...but thats not really what he was describing in his quest to find something for the GOP to rally to.

But he was actually talking about progressive social views, by and large, as well as a strong federal government role (and anti-corruption, which he's dismayed as been abandoned by the GOP...yet he balks at the question about "dark money")...But he simply puts these 'progressive' values under the umbrella of the GOP, Lincoln, TR, Eisenhower for starters...being under the GOP doesn't make that "conservatism', just "Republican".

Look, the guy wants a strong GOP and he also wants a governing philosophy that most of us would recognize as "progressive". I agree. I just think he's stretching the philosophical argument, wishing the GOP hadn't abandoned these values over the past decades, culminating in MAGA/Trump and fealty to such. Me too.

The Q&A session was interesting. I've already mentioned the balk at dark money being disappointing as otherwise he was on the right track...but he admitted that his balk is that cracking down on dark money, with greater transparency, would not favor the GOP...yikes, the whole point is to get clean hands...

I was also disappointed that when he talked about "nationalism", as simply 'favoring Americans", he didn't recognize how awful the ideology nationalism has been in the hands of populists and despots all over the world and throughout history. Want to simply say 'patriotic'? fine. But nationalism carries way, way too much baggage...he was definitely clear that he recognized that the GOP needs to reject the racism of "white nationalism" but come on man, the ship has sailed with that rhetoric. His actual view on it, I'm comfortable with.

The "west" versus "east" concept, the "values" he claimed for Republicans (west), ignore the realities that the Republican Party has been overtaken by the states rights south, not the west.

Again, I think this was a very interesting video, and I appreciate this guy swinging at the ball to find a way for the GOP to move forward, washing itself clean of the stench of the current iteration of the GOP.

But I think we're an awful long way from that happening, unfortunately...as I've said, I think the GOP has to lose and lose and lose at the ballot box before there's been a full reckoning of how far wrong we went. And it may be too late for this party to recover given where the demographics are going to go...we're so incredibly out of step on the "culture" stuff with the younger generation that it's likely to take a bunch of cycles.

The concept or archetype is the same is GWBs compassionate conservatism from 20 odd years ago.

I always hated how democrats annexed the term progressive to define their specific agenda vs what the word actually means. Tell me how Ted Kennedy killing wind power generation off his crib in Cape acid progressive for example? Now we juxtapose their definition for the word progressive from what it actually means definitionally.

But in a textbook sense progressive and conservative are incongruous. That should be obvious to everyone here regardless of education level.

Neither side is monolithic. We all get this. So defining conservative or progressive is reductive and Ill equipped to deceive anything in modern politics.

[a fan]

So you guys are saying that "conservative" & "progressive" are mutually exclusive. That it is not possible to be both or for a party or individual to espouse both conservative & progressive policies. The examples he gave were TR & IKE. ...how 'bout Kasich ?

We've certainly seen it on the State and local level, without question.

But he had to go all the way back to IKE to come up with a National example.

My example is an obvious one: Nixon. Nixon was a progressive conservative. Founded the EPA. And as you and I discussed, it was Nixon and Nixon alone who rejected a Cold War with China, and chose Trade. For the time? That was an intensely progressive choice.

Started SNAP under Nixon as well.

Oooh......good call. I thought that was Johnson.

[kramerica.inc]

Wanna see some change in politicking?

It appears that 47(?) republicans voted to pass the respect of marriage bill….To overturn the defense of marriage bill Clinton signed into law.

There is talk that there will be 60+ votes to get it done in the senate too.

[jhu72]

Wanna see some change in politicking?

It appears that 47(?) republicans voted to pass the respect of marriage bill….To overturn the defense of marriage bill Clinton signed into law.

There is talk that there will be 60+ votes to get it done in the senate too.

... I think some republicans are coming to the conclusion than the SC decision on abortion and guns and the fear of the SC doing the same with other social issues is waking them up to the realization that the SC positions are real bad politics.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Wanna see some change in politicking?

It appears that 47(?) republicans voted to pass the respect of marriage bill….To overturn the defense of marriage bill Clinton signed into law.

There is talk that there will be 60+ votes to get it done in the senate too.

I'd like to see that, but I cannot get to 60 -- that is, I can't find ten Republicans.

Romney
Murkowski
Collins
Portman (maybe, on the way out)
Toomey (maybe, on the way out)

Who else?

[jhu72]

... without naming names, Chris Murphy thinks there are 10 or more republican Senators.

[kramerica.inc]

Wanna see some change in politicking?

It appears that 47(?) republicans voted to pass the respect of marriage bill….To overturn the defense of marriage bill Clinton signed into law.

There is talk that there will be 60+ votes to get it done in the senate too.

I'd like to see that, but I cannot get to 60 -- that is, I can't find ten Republicans.

Romney
Murkowski
Collins
Portman (maybe, on the way out)
Toomey (maybe, on the way out)

Who else?

Me too. I don't know exactly who. Some of it was speculation. Perhaps real. Perhaps trying to garner some support from the right.

[RedFromMI]

I saw in my Twitter feed this morning that Tillis (NC) might be a yes.

[Seacoaster(1)]

I saw in my Twitter feed this morning that Tillis (NC) might be a yes.

Portman will apparently be a co-sponsor in the Senate.

Meanwhile, only 8 House Republicans voted in favor of the access to contraceptives act. There were 194 against. Serious question: what is the basis for that "no" vote? Is it 1268 and can we get Thomas Aquinas on the phone please?

[PizzaSnake]

I saw in my Twitter feed this morning that Tillis (NC) might be a yes.

Portman will apparently be a co-sponsor in the Senate.

Meanwhile, only 8 House Republicans voted in favor of the access to contraceptives act. There were 194 against. Serious question: what is the basis for that "no" vote? Is it 1268 and can we get Thomas Aquinas on the phone please?

" Serious question: what is the basis for that "no" vote?"

Just establishing their "boner-fides".

[Seacoaster(1)]

I saw in my Twitter feed this morning that Tillis (NC) might be a yes.

Portman will apparently be a co-sponsor in the Senate.

Meanwhile, only 8 House Republicans voted in favor of the access to contraceptives act. There were 194 against. Serious question: what is the basis for that "no" vote? Is it 1268 and can we get Thomas Aquinas on the phone please?

" Serious question: what is the basis for that "no" vote?"

Just establishing their "boner-fides".

Unlimited access to AR-15s, but no condoms. OK.