The Cowardice of the Conservative.

[untermensche]

It is obvious.

Take any group. The direction it takes can be decided by a few dictators or decided by democratic decisions, the opinions of the majority.

Give me another way.

An authoritarian will vote for an authoritarian.

A majority of authoritarians voting will elect an authoritarian.

Source: First grade math class.

It is still democratic rule. Nobody is saying democratic rule is perfect, just not the same as authoritarian rule.

And if it is democracy the authoritarian can be replaced. If the authoritarian can't be replaced it isn't democracy.

Yes, first grade math.

 

[Achwienichtig]

Let's consider the two extremes. On the right, we can look at the Tea Partiers. On the left, we can look at the Occupiers. Both of these are, in some sense, fringe, extreme, populist movements. (This is not to say that they are equally bad. I do not believe that. I am just saying they are analogues on the opposite sides of the spectrum.)

Now, on the right, the modern Republican/Conservative establishment has taken the bait from the Tea Partiers, and the Republican party is now forced to pander to this extreme faction.

The same, however, is not true on the left. Apart from the rise of Bernie Sanders (who is not the establishment's choice) and Senator Warren, the left has not moved any farther left. The establishment has a hold on its position.

The irony here is, the left is adhering more to Federalist Paper #10 than the right is, even though the right likes to pretend they are the party of the founding fathers. There is, I am afraid, no saving the right at this point. They have given into factionalism too far.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Nice of your to acknowledge that not all 'rightists' are the same. But you ruin it with this

This may well be true, but if it is it is a difference in degree and not kind. Which is why those same rightists will never do jack-shit about their more extreme cousins and will pontificate and kibitz from the sidelines about why the Left won't do something about the Right's mess.

You have already decided that no matter what 'rightists' may or may not do you will reject it because it is from a 'rightist'. They are to be condemned immediately for anything they do or do not say or for anything they do or do not do.

Bit hard to have a discussion when you have prejudged and already condemned those who might differ from your good self.

Show me what stops some conservatives from becoming raving reactionaries.

 

[JonA]

An authoritarian will vote for an authoritarian.

A majority of authoritarians voting will elect an authoritarian.

Source: First grade math class.

It is still democratic rule. Nobody is saying democratic rule is perfect, just not the same as authoritarian rule.

And if it is democracy the authoritarian can be replaced. If the authoritarian can't be replaced it isn't democracy.

Yes, first grade math.

Look at you go, Muscles. Moving them goal posts all on your own.

Damn proud.

 

[untermensche]

It is still democratic rule. Nobody is saying democratic rule is perfect, just not the same as authoritarian rule.

And if it is democracy the authoritarian can be replaced. If the authoritarian can't be replaced it isn't democracy.

Yes, first grade math.

Look at you go, Muscles. Moving them goal posts all on your own.

Damn proud.

Where is this movement? What are you talking about?

Democratic control can choose an authoritarian AND get rid of one.

This is either true or not true.

There is no movement of anything.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

In a thread (This one to be precise) you will find this:



For the sake of argument let us just say that what passes for the "left" in western democracies has all these things wrong with it. Its member are weak, wrongly focused, if focused at all, and without righteousness or even the right to exist. All leftists should stoned and the corpses left for carrion to feed the vultures.

Now what?

The right and righteous "Right" is now all that is left to take on the right-wing authoritarian scourge. So what will our lovers of liberty do to stem the tide and make this a world safe for right thinking people to live in?

I say, not a damn thing.

If they were going to do something, they would be doing it now instead of demanding the group supposedly in opposition clean up a mess that conservatives made and continue to make even unto this day. You see, lovers of liberty, fascism is the RIGHT'S right flank. These people are conservative's crazy cousins and their problem to solve, but they won't do it. they can't do it. Because to do it would mean facing what is the logical and probably lethal end result of individualism, nationalism, and exceptionalism taken to its logical and extreme conclusion. Gone would be the euphemisms and genteelisms that shield pseudo-patriots and pontificating practitioners of pretension from what they really believe. Conservative thought offers not the profound but the perfunctory, the parochial, the pedestrian and the profane. Dogma dressed as discernment, bigotry bedecked as brilliance, cowardice couched in caution, all contrivances to circumvent the cognitive dissidence bound to occur when people who profess they fight for freedom in a mighty nation have to realize they flinch and freeze in fear on a plantation.

Take the blue pill Neo, and go back to sleep in the Quarter.

The red pill of the runaway and the rebellious ain't for the faint of heart.

Are you looking for a discussion; or just making a post to state a particular opinion?

I'm look for Mr. Goldwater.

- - - Updated - - -

Conservatism is not just on the 'right'. The 'left' is also subject to it.
Do like this post from Dystopian

Uh, no, conservatives are *not* right wing by definition. A conservative (in terms of politics) is defined as someone who believes in the preservation of existing conditions, institutions, laws; or to restore traditional ones; and to limit change. This means that a conservative could be either right-wing, left-wing, or somewhere in between. However, because the term/ideology emerged during a time when being a conservative meant opposing changes that were sought by the left, we have come to associate the right wing with conservatism; and that understanding has become so pervasive that; at least in certain cultures; the term is irrevocably linked to right wing ideology. However, speaking as a matter of base definition, there's no reason why a conservative has to be right wing.

Edmund Burke would be proud and it rather nicely encapsulates my thinking. Just wish I'd written it.

Conservatism is not an end point. It is a way to tackle the journey.

As somebody who identifies with Burkean conservatism, I would agree with this. That said, the current "conservatism" running amuck in the U.S. congress is not Burkean.

On this we most certainly agree.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Nice of your to acknowledge that not all 'rightists' are the same. But you ruin it with this

You have already decided that no matter what 'rightists' may or may not do you will reject it because it is from a 'rightist'. They are to be condemned immediately for anything they do or do not say or for anything they do or do not do.

Bit hard to have a discussion when you have prejudged and already condemned those who might differ from your good self.

Show me what stops some conservatives from becoming raving reactionaries.

The same thing that stops some leftists from becoming raging reactionaries (and completely polarized). Given your own reactionary nature, it is not surprising that you can't see what it is from within your micro-aggressed safe space.

 

[Tigers!]

Nice of your to acknowledge that not all 'rightists' are the same. But you ruin it with this

You have already decided that no matter what 'rightists' may or may not do you will reject it because it is from a 'rightist'. They are to be condemned immediately for anything they do or do not say or for anything they do or do not do.

Bit hard to have a discussion when you have prejudged and already condemned those who might differ from your good self.

Show me what stops some conservatives from becoming raving reactionaries.

And that is best you have?

 

[iolo]

Does 'democracy' mean the absolute rule of any 51% of voters? If so, it has, let's face it, very serious limits indeed, particularly when the rich can so easily manipulate the uneducated and the ambitious.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Show me what stops some conservatives from becoming raving reactionaries.

And that is best you have?

You can't show me, can you?

I actually know an answer to that question and it is a good one. I won't tell you that answer, but I will tell you where to find it.  The Theory of Moral Sentiments

Read it sometime. I did and I survived, so I am sure you can do the same.

 

[untermensche]

Does 'democracy' mean the absolute rule of any 51% of voters? If so, it has, let's face it, very serious limits indeed, particularly when the rich can so easily manipulate the uneducated and the ambitious.

The only problem with pure democracy (everything decided by 51% of the vote or better) is logistics.

If everything was decided by the majority it would not be utopia, just better than a small group of "elites" deciding everything which is the current system.

 

[Tigers!]

And that is best you have?

You can't show me, can you?

I actually know an answer to that question and it is a good one. I won't tell you that answer, but I will tell you where to find it.  The Theory of Moral Sentiments

Read it sometime. I did and I survived, so I am sure you can do the same.

I have read The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Thank you for trying to broaden my horizons.

The same thing that stops some leftists from becoming raging reactionaries (and completely polarized).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Does 'democracy' mean the absolute rule of any 51% of voters? If so, it has, let's face it, very serious limits indeed, particularly when the rich can so easily manipulate the uneducated and the ambitious.

The only problem with pure democracy (everything decided by 51% of the vote or better) is logistics.

If everything was decided by the majority it would not be utopia, just better than a small group of "elites" deciding everything which is the current system.

Pure direct democracy suffers from tyranny of the majority situations.

One of the big jobs of government is to protect the unpopular.

 

[J842P]

Does 'democracy' mean the absolute rule of any 51% of voters? If so, it has, let's face it, very serious limits indeed, particularly when the rich can so easily manipulate the uneducated and the ambitious.

The only problem with pure democracy (everything decided by 51% of the vote or better) is logistics.

If everything was decided by the majority it would not be utopia, just better than a small group of "elites" deciding everything which is the current system.

That totally depends on the particular elites and the particular electorate.

 

[untermensche]

The only problem with pure democracy (everything decided by 51% of the vote or better) is logistics.

If everything was decided by the majority it would not be utopia, just better than a small group of "elites" deciding everything which is the current system.

That totally depends on the particular elites and the particular electorate.

Legitimacy does not depend on that.

And no small group of unelected "elites" can legitimately rule over others, even if many systems give them the power to.

 

[untermensche]

The only problem with pure democracy (everything decided by 51% of the vote or better) is logistics.

If everything was decided by the majority it would not be utopia, just better than a small group of "elites" deciding everything which is the current system.

Pure direct democracy suffers from tyranny of the majority situations.

One of the big jobs of government is to protect the unpopular.

Thus you have a Bill of Rights beyond democratic whim.

But it is no excuse to not try to extend democracy as far as possible.

Especially into the workplace where it is desperately needed.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

You can't show me, can you?

I actually know an answer to that question and it is a good one. I won't tell you that answer, but I will tell you where to find it.  The Theory of Moral Sentiments

Read it sometime. I did and I survived, so I am sure you can do the same.

I have read The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Thank you for trying to broaden my horizons.

And yet you couldn't answer, and still haven't answered the question. Funny that.

The same thing that stops some leftists from becoming raging reactionaries (and completely polarized).

And that thing would be ... ?

 

[Tigers!]

Show me what stops some conservatives from becoming raving reactionaries.

It is our innate conservatism that stops us. If we went from being conservatives to raving reactionaries then we wouldn't be conservatives now would we?

But I am sure you knew that already.

Your serve.

 

[laughing dog]

Show me what stops some conservatives from becoming raving reactionaries.

It is our innate conservatism that stops us. If we went from being conservatives to raving reactionaries then we wouldn't be conservatives now would we?

No, there are plenty of reactionary conservatives.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

It is our innate conservatism that stops us. If we went from being conservatives to raving reactionaries then we wouldn't be conservatives now would we?

No, there are plenty of reactionary conservatives.

Conservatism, which can also be manifest in the desire to avoid change or perceived change, was the a part of the impetus for the South to secede, the formation of the Klan, the founding of the John Birch Society, the anti-gay marriage amendments to state constitutions, and the recent passage of HB2 in NC.