that was truly coffee-spewing funny. Very conservative.

dr.e

Forgive the pedantic veracity of your unworthy guardian’s blowhardedness. I place my red beret at your feet and await my penance.

set and match

In my real world circles of politics, neither Beck, nor Limbaugh, nor Palin get much mention, much less are considered “movement” leaders. I laugh heartily when Joe G puts up his 101st post on the topic, because I know he is not privy to the closed-door thinking of the Republican influence circles, nor are any of the other “always offended” posters and editors here. “People” can charge us with being silent to this “movement”……so be it. Our own pure political calculation leads us to believe it is serving a useful “political” purpose. The time will come when the tenor of the Republican voice must change, but that change need not happen right now. While I do not believe Republicans will regain congressional control in 2010, I do believe the stage is already well set for sufficient inroads to derail any liberal agenda in Obama's final 2 years.

As far as Jimmy “economic malaise” Carter's charges of racism, or that of any poster on your blog, this blog, or any other blog, what outcome do you believe they are altering? That dedicated Obama supporters remain dedicated Obama supporters? Yes, but that is the only thing they are accomplishing.

Don't sweat the stuff of no significance.

“While laissez-faire Whigs perceive the state to be created by individuals, for individuals, Tory conservatives view the community as a body into which individual cells are incorporated.”

http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/etzioni/A198.pdf

“The Closed Community viewpoint is historically associated with church doctrine, nationalism,
and Tory conservatism. These approaches view the society as an integrated body and the
individuals as cells incorporated into the more encompassing entity. The collective body-if
it is mother church, the fatherland, or the invisible college, is viewed as the source of value.
Individuals gain a standing by serving the collectivity. Authority, the legitimate power of the
commons, places and guides individuals, who, it is assumed, are inherently unable to guide
themselves and subject to urges to debase society and themselves. Hence the need to keep the
societal 'lid' on by the use of moral persuasion and/or force. …

In political science Leo Strauss has been a strong advocate of the doctrine of absolute values.
Absolute values provide positive direction to the members of society, and constitute in his terms,
the true liberalism, in contrast to false liberalism that treats all desires (of individuals) as equal,
and leads to spurious freedoms and a decaying society, a very Tory viewpoint. In contempurary
USA the “social agenda” of the Reagan Administration, including its efforts to prohibit
abortions, to force prayers in schools, to decide which medical treatment is to be provided to
handicapped infants, is a direct policy outcome of the Tory position supported by the Moral
Majority and other fundamentalist groups.

The Whig position rose in direct challenge to the Tory dominance. (No attempt is made here
to do justice to many other differences between the two positions or subpositions within each
camp and changes over time. The focus here is on the main positions.) In the opposing view
the individual is not merely the center of the societal universe but the only legitimate actor
and entity. There is, in principle, no need for societal order; it arises automatically out of the
interaction among individuals, whose self-interests are complimentary and harmonious. There is
no justification for external coordination, let alone for an imposed order, by anybody above and
beyond that introduced by individuals themselves. Not only is the legitimation of the state at best
minimal, typically, and negative, but community bonds, if they are mentioned at all, are not part
of the main Whig conceptual framework. While the position is as old as The Wealth of Nations
(and it continues to disregard the 'other' Adam Smith, the author of the Theory of Moral
Sentiments), its contemporary legions are numerous, including both laissez faire conservatives
and libertarians. Among its most forceful proponents are Friedman (1962,1982), von Hayek
(1945, 1960) and Nosick (1974). Their “undersocialired” view of persons is still dominant in
neo-classical economics (Granovetter, 1985), a new school of political science ('public choice')
(Mueller, 1979), and in a sociological branch known as 'exchange theory' (Blau, 1964) and in
psychology (Kelly and Thibaut, 1978). …

In contemporary USA the Whig position is dominant not only in social sciences but also in
the government economic policy, or at least in its ideological manifestations.”

http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/etzioni/A176.pdf

“The Revolution was by no means a clear-cut nationalist movement, but began as a
civil war that split Whig and Tory in Britain, the United States and in what was to
become Canada. In fact, British Whig intellectuals like Edmund Burke and Charles
James Fox encouraged the American Revolutionaries, while members of the colonial
Whig elite like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington became convinced of the need
for independence no sooner than a year or two before the Revolution. In fact, in much of
the Middle Atlantic and in parts of the South, Tories were a majority, but eventually, the
Whig vision prevailed and the Revolution began to be woven into a new American ethnohistory,
in which a nation of small-farming Davids had vanquished the Imperial Goliath.”

http://www.bbk.ac.uk/polsoc/staff/academic/eric…

Why are you being so combative? I think Rick has made some very good points. I don't agree with everything he writes, but his post is thoughtful and fair. I think sometimes it's hard to let go of the puglilistic stance even after the other guy has stopped punching you (and I include myself in this; the “you” is meant broadly).

You are confusing “conservatism” as a cultural identifier with the philosophy. You might wear a “conservative” tie but that doesn't make you a political conservative.

And I think your confusing “conservatism” as a cultural identifier with “conservatism” as a political agenda. There is actually quite a bit more conformity in the later than found in the former. Libertarian type Conservatives bear not such a strong resemblance to the social conservatives of the religious right, but both can find more common ground with each other than with progressives. This does not make them blindly conform but it does lead them to unify with reason for some items. When in the minority or during times when under attack strange bedfellows occur. The US did not share alot of values with the USSR under Stalin, but they still found cause to work together to oppose Hitler (not invoking Godwin, just the theory of the enemy of my enemy is my friend). On issues with a common interest is not shared there is little conformity, gay rights for example. At present individual freedoms and capitalismare under fire from the progressives, so its not surprising that those who wish to preserve them, be they conservatives, right-leaning moderate, or blue dogs.

This cartoon sums it up
http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/090821/asay.gif

DLS wrote: “Well, Steve, perhaps one day you'll be both more mature and also someday learn what the various logical fallacies actually are, rather than learn one or two terms and use them too “liberally”(!).”

See what I mean?
h/t DLS

What dictionary do you derive your definitions from? Conformity is a measure of relativity to something else, as is conservatism. So, the very meaning of your statement is to say one measure of relativity is the meaning of another measure of relativity.

I could “conform” to the liberal mindset of TMV posters like you. I could be “conservative” in my approach to the overturning Roe v. Wade.

Thanks for playing….try again.

There appears to be conformist pattern in conservative _commentary_ by Rush Limbaugh's followers-on. That was the gist of what I just posted. That is distinct from conservatism (which in fact can and does change, just with much more thought and reasoning and “inertia” and _substance_ than modern liberalism, and especially contemporary post-1960s radicalized liberalism, has ever possessed or exhibited).

As for this thread:

“Does not calling the president a Communist or Marxist disqualify my opinions because they are not hateful enough?”

Actually, no, but the real issue is more subtle and more broad at the same time. The problem isn't extreme or demented hatred, but rather your terms are commonplace and that is where on-the-air conservative commentary, in particular, has something of a “cookie-cutter” nature, as I observed on the road these past couple of days. There's a standard playbook with talking points that so many of the commentators appear all to read, which is their own form of conformity that isn't as oppressive or as stupid as the PC Herd and its frequently pathological character, but still — becomes predictable. Mark Levin as well as Glenn Beck routinely say “Marxist,” for example, and with overuse comes a loss of power those words have, as well as boredom from predictability. (In many ways, Limbaugh and his show remain the gold standard; so many others are simply imitating and thereby flattering him, and often doing not much else.)

Perhaps you also believe if someone wears an outrageously colored, crazy patterned tie, that automatically makes them a liberal instead of someone with very poor fashion sense.

I would give it up. You've already lost and are now just making an idiot of yourself.

Please restrain yourself to facts. I suggest you start with self introspection. Maybe with a little education thrown in.

…and of course your intellectual encyclopedic reference is….what….there….mister….honest?