Conservatism in America - minority or not?

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

I read a story yesterday about how a significant percentage of Americans are not fond of Obama and his Democrats but don't really like Republicans either.

I'd be willing to venture a guess that a lot of people who feel that way would categorize themselves as "conservative".

As I understand, true Conservatives feel that the Republican party has gotten far too liberal for its own good and no longer accurately represents true Conservative values.

Apparently, Conservatives are pro free market, pro constitution, anti government regulation and pro "the government should be afraid of its citizens and not vice versa."

And, if you believe folks like Glenn Beck, Conservatives should also be anti-communist and anti-socialism at any cost. Conservatives will tell you that America is becoming a very liberal and very government controlled country. They'll talk about the decline of moral values and the rise of government corruption and the non existence of free speech.

They'll talk about how Obama has all the media except Fox News in his back pocket and how he's hiding and deceiving us on so many things and how Americans need to rise up for their country. They'll talk about the importance of the second amendment and how Obama wants to take all our guns away.

What I am wondering is how widespread are these beliefs? How powerful really is this group anti-Democrat, anti-Obama, conservatives?

[jackfaire]

Not sure where I fall actually. It seems if I advocate for taxes to help my fellow man with food, job searches, etc then I am a liberal trippy treehugger.

But since I don't think corporations are the devil but rather just groups of people trying to make a life for themselves and their families I am a conservative.

I don't feel like I really have a place in the political landscape that is my country because they all feel I have to fit one pigeon hole or the other.

Honestly I think the liberals and the conservatives get plenty of representation in this country. Yes both sides are in the minority but it feels like we are all standing helplessly in the middle while they scream at each other deaf to our cries of, "can't we all just get along"

[BlaqueKatt]

As I understand, true Conservatives feel that the Republican party has gotten far too liberal for its own good and no longer accurately represents true Conservative values.

Apparently, Conservatives are pro free market, pro constitution, anti government regulation and pro "the government should be afraid of its citizens and not vice versa."

And, if you believe folks like Glenn Beck, Conservatives should also be anti-communist and anti-socialism at any cost.

that is actually a Neo-con

this is the Republican Oath which the neo-cons that have taken over the Republican party have all but buried.

two main points of it prove that"

I believe in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, age, sex, or national origin. I believe that persons with disabilities should be afforded equal rights, equal justice, and equal opportunity as well.

I believe we must retain those principles worth retaining, yet always be receptive to new ideals with an outlook broad enough to accommodate thoughtful change and varying points of view.


Remember it was Republican president that freed the slaves, and the Democratic party was formed by white slave owners.

The divisions became fully exposed with the 1860 presidential election. The electorate split four ways. The Southern Democrats endorsed slavery, while the Republicans denounced it. The Northern Democrats said democracy required the people to decide on slavery locally.

from this site

A bitter election battle in 1888 marked by unmatched corruption and violence resulted in white Democrats’ taking over the state legislature. To consolidate their power, they worked to suppress the black vote and sharply reduced it through changes in voter registration, election procedures and poll taxes. From 1890 to 1908, starting with Mississippi, Southern Democratic legislators created new constitutions with provisions for voter registration that effectively completed disfranchisement of most African Americans and many poor whites. They created a variety of barriers, including requirements for poll taxes, residency requirements, rule variations, literacy and understanding tests, that achieved power through selective application against minorities, or were particularly hard for the poor to fulfill.
In practice, these provisions, including white primaries, created a maze that blocked most African Americans and many poor whites from voting in Southern states for decades after the turn of the century. Voter registration and turnout dropped sharply across the South. … For decades white Southern Democrats exercised Congressional representation derived from a full count of the population, but they disfranchised several million black and white citizens. Southern white Democrats comprised a powerful voting block in Congress until the mid-20th century. Their power allowed them to defeat legislation against lynching, among other issues.


in 1968. …
The States’ Rights Democratic Party opposed racial integration and wanted to retain Jim Crow laws and white supremacy. The party’s slogan was “Segregation Forever!” There were members of the Democratic party in the 60's that were active in the KKK(the 3 civil rights workers killed in Mississippi who's story was the basis for Mississippi Burning were murdered by Democratic KKK members)

that's less than 50 years ago-have they ever apologized? No they continue to bury the truth.


this is why I will never register as a democrat

[HYHYBT]

Well, there's the fiscal/social-moral split to consider. I'm a lot less politically conservative on the fiscal side since the last year and a half or so, and have always found it amusing that people who shout about wanting less government intrusion, so long as it's about their money, are just the opposite when it's about anyone else's personal lives.

[crashhelmet]

But Blaquekatt, the problem now is that the two parties have traded their stances with each other. Everything that you associated with the Democratic Party years ago is now associated with the Republican Party.

CH

[guywithashovel]

Extremes on both sides are minorities. Most people swing towards the center, even if they lean more to one side than the other.

However, I think it bears mentioning that the notion that conservatives want "small government" while liberals want "big government" is usually demonstrably wrong. Both sides want basically the same size of government. They just disagree on where governmental power should be concentrated.

[draggar]

I read a story yesterday about how a significant percentage of Americans are not fond of Obama and his Democrats but don't really like Republicans either.

It's taken people THIS LONG to figure out that neither party is best suited for today's government? What, we had 8 years under an R and now that no one is happy under a D NOW they're realizing this?

For many years I've been saying that we need to either completely eliminate the political party system or allow smaller groups the same access to the public than the two big ones have.

It's sad that many people think there are only two names on the ballot (I even asked some Obamites this past election how many were on our ballot for president and they said two. Nope, we had 13 candidates on our ballot. They claimed that they aren't serious candidates).

Maybe in 2012 people will start to take the other candidates seriously and look into them. Sadly, it will take more than 4 years to straighten out the mess we're in now.

[jackfaire]

Maybe in 2012 people will start to take the other candidates seriously and look into them. Sadly, it will take more than 4 years to straighten out the mess we're in now.

People only consider a candidate a serious one if they have an actual chance of winning. Anyone with a snowballs chance in hell isn't seen as a serious candidate because they were unable to garner enough support.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Maybe the next election should have neither a republican nor democrat on the ballot? Just a thought, though I can think of at least 12 different reasons not to do it....

EDIT: oh and @ Blaquekatt, that's really getting into the 'sins of the father' area. Which is, quite frankly, total BS. The connection is at best thin and at worst irrevocably arbitrary, and thus unsuitable grounds upon which to dislike 21st century democrats. That dipshit white supremacists 50 years ago used the same name for their club means nothing of any real importance about today's democrats.

[Anthony K. S.]

Remember it was Republican president that freed the slaves

Remember, also, that abolishing slavery was something that he had no intention of doing when he became President.

Abraham Lincoln despised slavery and opposed any effort to expand it, but he was willing to allow it to continue in its existing form.

It was Lincoln's hope that slavery would eventually die out as an institution all on its own, but, in a concession to the South, he was prepared to refrain from taking any steps to speed that process.

Sacrificing moral principle for the sake of political expediency was not something that Lincoln did lightly . . . but one cannot truthfully say that it was something he never did at all.

The Emancipation Proclamation was only symbolically an abolition of slavery, since it only applied to the Confederate States, where Lincoln no longer had any recognized authority.

The material effect of the Emancipation Proclamation was that it prevented Great Britain and France from entering the war on the side of the Confederacy.

Up until that time, France had been fully prepared to extend diplomatic recognition to the Confederate States, and Great Britain was hovering on the edge. (All of the other European nations, with the possible exception of Russia, would likely have been willing to follow a British and French lead.)

And then, after the Union victory at Antietam, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and changed the moral character of the war, effectively turning it into a crusade against slavery. (Prior to this, the war had largely been viewed as the Southern states fighting for independence.)

From that moment on, supporting the Confederacy would have been tantamount to supporting slavery, something that neither Great Britain nor France was willing to do. Europe would stay out of the war, and, left on their own, the Confederacy would eventually fall.

The political climate after the end of the war finally made it possible for Lincoln to abolish slavery.

I believe that it's fair to say that if the Southern states had not attempted to leave the federal Union in the first place, then Abraham Lincoln would not, in the present day, be remembered as the President who freed the slaves.


Now, a question :

What does any of this have to do with current day politics?

The answer is . . . Nothing.

It has nothing to do with current day politics.

These events happened nearly 150 years ago, and although an important part of our history, they are completely irrelevant to whether or not we should be voting for Republican candidates today.

The current leaders of the G.O.P. always like to tout the fact that theirs is the "Party of Abraham Lincoln" . . . but that statement has no meaning.

Republican politicians today cannot truthfully say that Abraham Lincoln's accomplishments are a reason to vote for them, any more than their opponents can truthfully say that the fact that Lincoln's Vice-President, Andrew Johnson, was the first President to ever be impeached should be considered a reason to vote against Republicans today.

And the exact same thing can be said for the Democrats.

Thomas Jefferson was a Democrat, although, in Jefferson's time, the party was actually called the "Democratic Republicans," and, ironically, was typically called simply "the Republicans" in everyday speech. (The modern day Republican Party didn't form until several decades later.)

Jefferson was also a slave owner. But if the fact that the Democratic Party was formed by slave owners, like Jefferson, should be viewed as a mark against them, then should we also consider Jefferson's accomplishments, such as the Declaration of Independence, to be a reason to vote for current day Democrats?

Of course not. Thomas Jefferson has even less to do with current day politics than Abraham Lincoln does.


BlaqueKatt, I have to agree with Wingates_Hellsing here.

50 years ago, 150 years ago, 230 years ago . . . Doesn't make any difference. People should not be expected to apologize for crimes that they had no part in committing, any more than they can expect to take credit for accomplishments that they had no part in achieving.

[Boozy]

That dipshit white supremacists 50 years ago used the same name for their club means nothing of any real importance about today's democrats.

Agreed. I would hope that people look at the policies and beliefs of today's politicians when they go to vote. However one may feel about Abraham Lincoln, he's unlikely to show up in Congress and cast a vote for you.

Even the Dixiecrats are long out of office - or dead. Some, like Strom Thurmond, switched part allegiances as the party policies shifted.

[ditchdj]

I read a story yesterday about how a significant percentage of Americans are not fond of Obama and his Democrats but don't really like Republicans either.

That's because BOTH parties are corrupt and power and money-hungry. It's the two-party system that's destroying this country. This election I voted independent. I voted for Bob Barr of the Libertarian party since he was the only other candidate on the presidential ballad here in Indiana.

I knew that Obama's "change" of platform was bullshit from the start when I noticed that he appointed OLD Democrats from the 90's. Notice there is no "change"??? Two wars, out-of-control deficit spending, bigger government, and pretty much nothing being done to address any of our country's problems, just a bunch of hot air and false promises.

[Kheldarson]

I voted Barr too. I'll admit that I'm moderately a Republican, mostly because that's what the family is. But I associate more Libertarian. I will also say that I do listen to Glenn Beck. Mostly because I like how he presents his arguments. So I can I also says I'm conservative. But I've never felt like a minority.

What I will say is that as my family is conservative and a number of my friends are, the concerns about the size of government is a constant question, and was even when Bush was in office. I'd like to see a return to the layered cake model of federal government versus the marbled cake model we're running now. I'd like to see people be able to vote with their feet. I'd like to see society stabilize itself (which it can) without having a constant see-saw effect thanks to government aid.

Chances of this happening with either political party in office: Zilch.

[KitterCat]

Woot Woot!! I’m not the only voter for Barr and Libertarian on the board. I may have more of a conservative leaning, but as for the two party system? Well at this point I don’t think it works. Both parties have shown that they are more than willing to grow government involvement in our everyday lives. Both parties seem to have no problems in interpreting our constitution in legalize that makes an Appalachian Mt. road look straight. Both don’t seem to have a problem in racking up debt, without thinking about where the extra money is going to come from. They just have different platforms to rally voters behind.

So my message to both, Republicans, stay out of my bed room and morals. So long as it isn’t hurting anyone, I don’t see how what I do there is any of your business. Stop growing the size of government involvement in our everyday lives - a thing you whine about the democrats doing- and then say your doing it for our own good.

Democrats, stay out of my pocketbook. Stop taking my money that I’ve worked for and giving it to other people saying that its “charity” to help others. Little note - its not charity when your taking it without asking, that’s stealing. I’m all for the mentality behind teaching a man to fish as opposed to just giving a fish to him for a day. If your going to get government assistance I personally think you should have to enroll in some sort of technical school where you have to maintain a "B" inorder to keep any assistance, so your not permanently stuck in a minimum wage job and can stop having to apply for government assistance.

Both of you stop growing government powers and then complaining when the other party gets to use them. Stop and think for a moment, if you don’t want the “other side” to have some new power to use why should your party have them ether?

[smileyeagle1021]

Glenn Beck conservatism = government just small enough to fit in the bedroom.
The "conservatives" wish to be able to control people's morals...those people are a supermajority in some areas, but I doubt that they'd be a majority nationwide when so many people are smart enough to realize that these people would restrict their freedoms as well.