On Nov 28, 2:25 pm, "DemsDespiseUSAMilitary"
Post by DemsDespiseUSAMilitary
Why do American liberals support islamic savages (and never ever ever
condemn their barbaric savage behavior) before they support their own
It is sad that supposed "conservatives" have become what this
Modern conservatism can trace its roots back to the '50s and '60s. It
grew out of an intellectual pursuit of "think tanks" and very literate
making very literate arguments. Prior to Reagan, a conservative
probably read, and understood, the writings of people like William
and his magazine. No more today. Today it is the likes of Limbaugh
Coulter. People who couldn't assemble a coherent arguement to save
What you have written is a classic example of the logical fallacy
"begging the question". It is a close relative of the "strawman".
you watch fictional portrayals of courtroom arguments you'll hear
people object to "facts not in evidence". These are all related to
you have written. It is the weakest of all arguments.
Basically the problem you have here is that you can't establish
assertions at all. A common confrontation to such a statement in
USENET is to respond with the demand for a "cite". Basically,
it is a challenge to establish your assertion is even true, before
attempts to either explain or counter your assertion. In any academic
environment you would be expected to demonstrate your two assertions,
and that they relate to the population you describe. My personal
suspicion is that you can't even identify your two assertions, much
less give a coherent description of the population. After that, you'd
be hard pressed to establish examples of these assertions.
And I'm fairly sure you will not. Because that is what modern
American Conservatism has come to these days. It is no longer
made of people who can form positions and actually defend them.
They merely express "beliefs" and "demand" support. We have
a president that is so afraid of "making a case" that he runs and
hides regularly from anything approaching a court or other form
of oversight. He wouldn't even try to "make his case" for going to
war with the UN because he was so sure he could not. Even
his friends decided that he was "fixing the facts" to his actions
because he could not make his case. He merely rejected
all criticism as oppose to actually confronting it. And in the
end it was exposed that he sought out the support of false
information because he could not find credible information.
He accepted the "stove piped" information of "curveball"
and others like him despite its lack of credibility because
he could not, or would not, make a case.
It sad really. Modern American Conservatism, whether one
agrees with it or not, deserves better. It comes from a better place.
And it is funny really because there was a time, and we still see
evidence of it today, that supposed "liberals" were as attentive in
their disagreement as conservatives were in their support. They
were as likely to be the readers, the listeners, even the employers
of conservatives as anyone else. Even today we find out that
the "audience" for many of the current crop of "commercial
conservatives" is liberals as much as conservatives.
But we are now seeing the collapse of post Reagan conservatism.
It has been hijacked by hucksters and pretenders and there is no
longer any coherent position which can be labeled as such. There
is no "Goldwater" standard of conservatism. Even the supposed
"Reagan conservatives" can't agree what that is, and any of
what they claim bears little resemblence to what Reagan actually
did as either govenor or president. Yes, I'm sure it will rise again,
in some form anyway. But it will probably take another 2 decades,
and it won't be from any of the current crop of intellectually
hucksters we currently see. I'm fairly certain none of them will
particularly triumph the "glory days" of the Bush family and instead
will "unremember" them much as the GOP today rarely mentions
that Hoover was a republican.
It would be instructive to conservatives to pay attention to
own history, and contrast and compare to their opponents. One
would think, considering the history of the democratic party, that
they would spend alot of time running from that history. But instead,
it is the very strength of their own confrontation of their own
that is the basis for their beliefs and positions. The chose to
confront their own history of racism, and to address it. They still
choose to embrace their "anti war" legacy. They still speak
admirably about their roll in unionization, about FDR, Truman,
and even the rise of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid,
and other social programs.
What does modern Conservatism have to hold up? They
generally run from the Red Scare days, despite Coulter's
attempts to defend it. They hardly mention Eisenhower,
or his warnings about the "military industrial defense complex".
Even Goldwater these days is a problem for them. They
can only go back to a period of "Reaganism" that didn't
even ever really exist. It is problematic for them that
Nixon went to China, created the EPA, and instituted
wage and price controls. It is even a problem for them that
Teddy started the national parks system.
Conservatism should take a clue from this. For all the intellect
that can be behind "true" conservatism, it never endures. And there
is a reason for that. There is precious little difference between
academic conservatism and "dig-in-your-heals-ism" . Liberalism
is forward looking, even if occasionally (maybe even frequently)
recklessly. But just as any military commander will tell you,
as any CEO will tell you, as any athelete will tell you, sitting
and waiting rarely moves you forward. Most batters "fail"
more than 3/4 of the time. One must get out there and try
to succeed at all. Conservatism claims right up front that "it
can't be done". It claims that government, virtually by definition,
can't succeed, can't help, can't be useful. The problem is that
we, and really the whole world, has only moved forward by
using government, by CREATING government.
And ultimately that is the failing of conservatism. They
cannot separate themselves from rightful assessment of
government and the basic hatred of it. If it could, it might
actually help move this country forward. As it is, it mostly
just serves as a useful "loyal minority". A status it is soon
to return to if not already there, or really, ever was a majority
to begin with.