←
→
eftychia: Me in kilt and poofy shirt, facing away, playing acoustic guitar behind head (Default)
Add MemoryShare This Entry

QotD

posted by [personal profile] eftychia at 05:26am on 2007-02-12 under ,

"You cannot spend and borrow more than any Democratic Congress since FDR and remain a credible conservative. You cannot elevate executive power permanently above individual liberty and remain a credible conservative. You cannot wage a war without the care, resources, and troops needed to win and remain a credible conservative. You cannot wage a religiously-based culture war and remain a limited government conservative. It's not that complicated really." -- Andrew Sullivan, 2006-10-20

←
→
There are 6 comments on this entry. (Reply.)
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] dptwisted.livejournal.com at 01:38pm on 2007-02-12
I think the gay marriage thing finally dispelled the myth that conservatives want less government interference. The truth is, everyone wants more government interference; the only difference is where they want the government to meddle.
[link] [reply]
zenlizard: Because the current occupation is fascist. (Default)

(no subject)

posted by [personal profile] zenlizard at 02:44pm on 2007-02-12
This is a point that I've been trying to make for years.
Thank you: by coming up with in independently, you demonstrate that someone out there besides me really does understand it.
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] scooterbird.livejournal.com at 05:18pm on 2007-02-12
Well, sort of. I'd say Sully is a real conservative. There are still some out there who are less government, low taxes, less interference, laissez-faire kind of guys. The remainder are essentially proto-fascists.
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] dptwisted.livejournal.com at 08:21pm on 2007-02-12
See, though, I'd bet even Sully has some hot-button issues. Sex offenders registry, maybe? The problem is, with 300+ million people in the country, everybody has a little something they want the government to do more about. Eventually you end up with the bloated bureaucracy we have now, that continues to grow while everybody screams how it needs to shrink.
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] realinterrobang.livejournal.com at 11:29pm on 2007-02-12
I'm not defending conservatives here, but they're reactionaries. Revolutionary reactionaries, even. Some of them are theocrats. Others of them are proto-fascists. All of them are pro-aristocracy.

I'm not sure there are any "real" conservatives left, if there ever were any in the first place.
[link] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] garnet-rattler.livejournal.com at 02:30am on 2007-02-14
'Conservative' has ALWAYS been a code-word for pro-aristocracy, as far back as the days of the fertile cresent. It was well-known and relatively widely acknowledged as such in Greece and Rome c. 2000 BP (Before Present) and then later in England after the Norman invasion. And most incumbents start the transition to 'conservative' as soon as they realize their continued, and increasing, access to power depends on it. Even the nominal 'liberals' are only Very rarely more liberal than socialist, although usually still Somewhat better than the so-called 'conservatives'.

Only a truly balanced system that could keep an emperor, legislature and a judiciary (and often an institutional priesthood thrown in as well for ~leavening) too busy arguing amonst themselves to do almost Anything else, has ever even come close to fixing the problem. And, at that, it assumes a Competent, fair and conscientious emperor as a minimum requirement ... None too likely, nor has it happened for more than one or two reigns in a row, nearly ever, anywhere, at least that I've ever heard of.
[link] [parent] [reply]

Links

January

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
1
1
 2
1
 3
1
 4
1
 5
1
 6
1
 7
1
8
1
 9
1
 10
1
 11
1
 12
1
 13
1
 14
1
15
1
 16
1
 17
1
 18
1
 19
1
 20
1
 21
1
22
1
 23
1
 24
 
 25
 
 26
 
 27
 
 28
 
29
 
 30
 
 31