I, and most Republicans I know, are uninterested in the “oppressors are bad guys, the oppressed must be supported “ approach that Ideologies have in common. Dividing the world into oppressors and oppresses is a totally unproductive view of the world.
I guess we are going to set aside the historical fact that it was the Republicans under Lincoln, for whatever motive you care to ascribe to it, who freed the enslaved to allow them to even begin their journey to equality. Democrats, despite the propaganda, remain the party dedicated to the dependence of large portions of the population and Republicans remain the party adamantly opposed to that - even if the outcomes are "unequal".
Despite the attempt of modern conservative commenters to denounce the party switch as a hoax (boy lot of those going around these days), it is quite real and so making an argument about what the parties of yonder did in trying to make a point about today’s politicians doesn’t really work. If you don’t believe me (or the historians) about the party switch, simply do your own research and look at political maps before and after the civil rights movements. Also look up Dixiecrats and Barry Goldwater.
I have enough education in history of both the North and the South, both before the Revolution, the intervening years, pre-Civil War, Reconstruction, Westward expansion, both World Wars, the "police action" wars, and quite an extensive familiarity with the civil rights movements of late. The thread of freedom versus the thread of government as paternal provider runs cleanly from those "of yonder" straight through Wilson, Roosevelt, right to today's "the government will provide your every need" socialists who now unabashedly sport a D next to their names. The pre-Civil War Ds also thought their enslaved could only function if they were overseen by their betters. Nothing has changed.
So to be clear, even though you know that the civil war era democrats would have an R next to their name if they lived today, you think to lay their philosophies at the feet of modern dems? It’s a disingenuous argument, and I think you know it.
I’m not trying to “get” you, this isn’t debate club, just like there is nothing for you to gain by making a ridiculous argument like that. The reason I try and engage with conservatives is to attempt to have dialogues where each person tries to understand the pov of the other and learn new information that they may not be exposed to from their normal circles. Clearly you are not willing to have a good faith conversation so I’m done.
I’m happy to have a good faith conversation with Democrats who are no radical progressives. They understand and value consensus and are opposed to tribalism. The progressives will not admit there is anything wrong with their ideology.
I think would be an interesting piece in a pre 2015 world, but we don’t live there anymore. The Republican Party of old is dying, maybe dead already. The faces of the old conservative movement (Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, John McCain etc) have been pushed out or silenced by the new Republican Party. They no longer believe in a limited government, fiscal conservatism, or many of are other trademarks. The neocons and tech bros have made their mark, but really the party does and claims to believe anything at the whim of one man.
Excellent analysis— recommended reading for anyone on either side of the aisle seeking to understand the conservative conscience, which is decidedly not an oxymoron.
I would only add that conservatives recognize the flawed nature of the human character and seek to harness it with free market capitalism, whereas progressivism has an idealistic vision of humanity that is doomed to fail because it does not recognize the immutable issues that are inherent in human nature.
If men were angels, any system, no matter how fatally flawed, including communism, would work, but men are not angels, and thus only a system that harnesses their strengths and weaknesses in a framework that rewards enlightened self interest will produce peace and prosperity, and that’s what we have seen with free market capitalism which has dominated the economic history of the world convincingly.
I, and most Republicans I know, are uninterested in the “oppressors are bad guys, the oppressed must be supported “ approach that Ideologies have in common. Dividing the world into oppressors and oppresses is a totally unproductive view of the world.
yes, that’s why the oppressor/oppressed ideology must fail. Its binary nature create bizarre connections, like pro-Hamas.
I guess we are going to set aside the historical fact that it was the Republicans under Lincoln, for whatever motive you care to ascribe to it, who freed the enslaved to allow them to even begin their journey to equality. Democrats, despite the propaganda, remain the party dedicated to the dependence of large portions of the population and Republicans remain the party adamantly opposed to that - even if the outcomes are "unequal".
Despite the attempt of modern conservative commenters to denounce the party switch as a hoax (boy lot of those going around these days), it is quite real and so making an argument about what the parties of yonder did in trying to make a point about today’s politicians doesn’t really work. If you don’t believe me (or the historians) about the party switch, simply do your own research and look at political maps before and after the civil rights movements. Also look up Dixiecrats and Barry Goldwater.
I have enough education in history of both the North and the South, both before the Revolution, the intervening years, pre-Civil War, Reconstruction, Westward expansion, both World Wars, the "police action" wars, and quite an extensive familiarity with the civil rights movements of late. The thread of freedom versus the thread of government as paternal provider runs cleanly from those "of yonder" straight through Wilson, Roosevelt, right to today's "the government will provide your every need" socialists who now unabashedly sport a D next to their names. The pre-Civil War Ds also thought their enslaved could only function if they were overseen by their betters. Nothing has changed.
So to be clear, even though you know that the civil war era democrats would have an R next to their name if they lived today, you think to lay their philosophies at the feet of modern dems? It’s a disingenuous argument, and I think you know it.
Name one living Republican who has publically endorsed the return to the enslavement of people based on their skin color, and you've got me.
I’m not trying to “get” you, this isn’t debate club, just like there is nothing for you to gain by making a ridiculous argument like that. The reason I try and engage with conservatives is to attempt to have dialogues where each person tries to understand the pov of the other and learn new information that they may not be exposed to from their normal circles. Clearly you are not willing to have a good faith conversation so I’m done.
I’m happy to have a good faith conversation with Democrats who are no radical progressives. They understand and value consensus and are opposed to tribalism. The progressives will not admit there is anything wrong with their ideology.
Lol good. Me too.
I think would be an interesting piece in a pre 2015 world, but we don’t live there anymore. The Republican Party of old is dying, maybe dead already. The faces of the old conservative movement (Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, John McCain etc) have been pushed out or silenced by the new Republican Party. They no longer believe in a limited government, fiscal conservatism, or many of are other trademarks. The neocons and tech bros have made their mark, but really the party does and claims to believe anything at the whim of one man.
Nope.
Excellent analysis— recommended reading for anyone on either side of the aisle seeking to understand the conservative conscience, which is decidedly not an oxymoron.
I would only add that conservatives recognize the flawed nature of the human character and seek to harness it with free market capitalism, whereas progressivism has an idealistic vision of humanity that is doomed to fail because it does not recognize the immutable issues that are inherent in human nature.
If men were angels, any system, no matter how fatally flawed, including communism, would work, but men are not angels, and thus only a system that harnesses their strengths and weaknesses in a framework that rewards enlightened self interest will produce peace and prosperity, and that’s what we have seen with free market capitalism which has dominated the economic history of the world convincingly.