Conservatism today in the United States, eternal victimhood

what is going on in the real world you display. It is the fundamentalist right that is trying to force their standards on the nation. The left wants people to have the liberty to live as they wish, not to have someone else's strictures imposed upon them.

Dan

Not to seem too fiscally-minded, but true freedom is dependent upon personal ownership. It's what our country was founded upon, and what has made us strong. Yet, an increasing proportion of my taxes are spent on programs that I do not agree with (at least in their current design): Welfare, Medicaid/Medicare, Social Security, and lots of other endowment programs. The second any politician even mentions changing the current programs, a ruckus develops over the issue because activist groups fight for the rights of minority political groups, usually associated with the Left.
As for your so-called liberties that these groups lack, or have won... many of these are liberties that the common citizen lacks. For example, hate crime laws. A man assaults me, he might get a year or two, depending on his history. The same man assaults a "persecuted minority," even without knowing the stance of the victim, and he could get a longer sentence, because of the person's status. Aren't we all equally protected by the law? Ditto for Affirmative Action, sexual/gender/sexual preference harrassment lawsuits, father's vs mother's rights.

... The left wants people to have the liberty to live as they wish...

As long as they agree with them.

Seem to have no problem restricting liberty. Taxation is a major restriction on liberty as every one of my tax dollars spent on something not a legitimate Constitutional role of government is a dollar I don't get to spend for my own pursuit of happiness. It is a dollar I am robbed of my freedom to spend as I see fit.

"Liberals" seem to have no problem dictating what kind of vehicles they think Americans should be able to own and drive. "Liberals" seem to have no compunction about compelling how much each of us "saves" for retirement (the fact that it isn't deposited in an account with our name on it notwithstanding). A list a mile long can be made of similar examples. On the one hand, liberals see abstinence programs as somehow restrictive, but they have no problem raiding my wallet to subsidize free STD clinics to pay for the consequences of the irresponsible behavior of others. STD treatment is not something I would choose or need to spend my money on. But liberals always seem to know better how to spend my money for "our own good". Not very liberating at all.

To do with your money or property as you wish? To own and carry firearms concealed or not? To use "politically incorrect" terms or names? To pay whatever you choose for goods or services or labor as long as the other party agrees?

Just to name a few...

so that the Right won't force everyone to agree with Them (The Right).

Remember that the Revolutionary War was fought to establish a Liberal Democracy that allowed freedom of thought, worship, and speech so that the Conservative government they broke away from couldn't dictate worship, and speech as they had previously.

The Right doesn't stand for freedom of the majority, the Right stands for the freedoms of the few. The Right stands for Limiting the science in the textbooks, limiting color of the skins of voters judging by the last two elections, limiting the ability of individuals and groups of individuals to challenge domestic or Multi-National corporations to make decisions affecting millions of people without any protection from elected governments or elected representatives. How the Republicans have gotten away with identifying the Democrats as the party of special interests, the poor, the middle class the elderly those affected by public health issues, those affected by corporate decisions to take jobs off-shore, in short, the vast majority of the population of the US. All the Republicans have ever represented is the interests of corporations, mining and oil companies, the wealthy, the wannabe wealthy and the crypto-criminal elite. That totals 5% of the American Population.

The only freedom the Right believes in is the freedom of the corporation and wealthy individuals to do anything they want without interference.

Rob

that the American Revolution was not fought to establish a 'Liberal Democracy'.

The Constitution outlines a Republican form of government. It does not adopt a Democratic form.

Liberal in the late 1700s is quite conservative today. It was NOTHING LIKE what the left advocates today. In fact, most of the liberal people of that day would condemn today's liberal.

... don't remind Rob that the Founders were for LIMITED government ... it's right there in the Constitution!

Evie

"It does not adopt a Democratic form." The US was established as the most extensive, and complete democracy of its day.

Most writers of the time and most historians since would characterize the establishment of the Republic as a liberal Democracy (for the Period) using a republican form, i.e. with an elected rather than an hereditary leader.

While correct that late 18th Century liberalism contended with different issues than those common today, I do not think that you can cast them in any way as conservative, and to do so is to do violence to the beliefs and the clear actions of those who comprised the government then. I am sure that the restrictions and anti-democratic actions of the current quasi-royal Bush regime would offend them enormously.

The Bushite attack on the Judiciary however is an attack on the judicial branch as conceived and fashioned by John Marshall Chief Justice of the Supreme Court 1801? to 1835? Most of his work fashioning and strengthening the judiciary took place during the Monroe and Madison administrations.

At the risk of repeating myself, I suggest you seek the advice of a competent.... Historian ... to advise you on this and sooo many issues.

Rob Boyter

Democracies are were the majority directly elects its government. Too late to squirm out now by shading the meaning with terms like form that were not in your original post.

As I've said before Rob, you can't seem to admit your mistakes even when caught flatfooted. It's not a matter of debate Rob. Use your dictionary. Look up the words and study their meaning.

Your arrogance would be insulting if it weren't so laughable.

you didn't miss a lot of lessons in public school. A Democracy is a form of government where the people directly elect elect the representatives for their constituency. They may or may not elect their leader. In the case of the United states the Electoral College selected by different means over the past 2 and a quarter centuries is a loosely democratic (or appointed by democratically elected representatives) convention to select the President.

This is called election by indirect democracy. The system of government that forbids inherited office and requires frequent elections, (every 4 years or less)is called a Republic after the first form of its kind, the Roman Republic.

The magistrates in the Roman Republic was directly elected by the people though by a much smaller pool of voters than would have been though appropriate at the time of the American Revolution, by the simple means of requiring a majority of a certain number of the tribes of Rome. The most numerous tribes were the last to vote, and freguently didn't have to because the election was already decided. This appears to be the sort of voting approved by George Bush and is not legally a democracy, in the original Greek sense.

Perhaps that's where yuo've gotten confused. The model for the Republican format used by the Founding Fathers was undemocratic, but the form by which they chose to adopt it was democratic to the best of their ability. You really need someone other than me (whom you don't trust or believe) to confirm this stuff for you since your own understanding is so completely at odds with what went on in 1786 and should have gone on in 2000.

Rob

democracy are two different forms of government. Most educated people know that Rob.

It shows your method in modifying what you originally said to try to make it look like you were correct and the person calling attention to your error is wrong. Of course, there's also the attempt to mock the intelligence of your opponent. This is your method Rob, and you've shown it in all of your fallacious posts in both history and politics.

It's unfortunate that you've never learned to admit or profit from your mistakes. Your style lacks both grace and understanding.

understanding. Suggest you check a dictionary, a history book, or a decent university course. Democracy is a category which overlaps Republic, and the US is both. The president is not elected directly, which is problably what you are trying (characterization omitted) to point out, that's the only difference. Hence the ability of Bush to win in 2000 with fewer votes than Gore.

Rob Boyter

... changes the fact that your assertion that "the Revolutionary War was fought to establish a Liberal Democracy" is utter bunk.

because God knows you need it.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=440639

"A web search for the terms "democracy" and "republic" finds many essays where writers passionately insist that the United States is a republic and not a democracy. Since they typically define "democracy" as either direct democracy only, or direct democracy without law, also known as "mob rule," their statements are quite true, but the word is also used with other meanings, which overlap the second definition of "republic."

In fact, some sources describe the words as interchangeable. The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, in the entry cited above, says "Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed. Democracy implied direct rule by the people, all of whom were equal, whereas republic implied a system of government in which the will of the people was
mediated by representatives, who might be wiser and better educated than the average person."

Similarly, the Online Learning Center for the textbook "The American Democracy" by Thomas E. Patterson says "Today, the term republic is used interchangeably with democracy."

------------------------------------------------

Frankly, I find all of this obfuscatory and hairsplitting. The United States has always been a liberal (meaning broadly defined suffrage and restricted governmental powers) democracy in a republican form, i.e. with an elected head of state rather than a monarch. A republic is by definition a government with an elected rather than appointed or hereditary head of state. It has been defined this way since the Roman Republic (instituted after they deposed their King) and based on Greek ideas of democracy. Thus the two concepts have been intertwined since their origin. To maintain that the US is not a democracy but a republic is to maintain that the two are not mutually compatible in the case of the US. Since there are numerous republics of democratic form viz. Ireland, France, et al compatibility is not at issue. It is obvious to everyone that the legislature is elected directly by district and state, and that the President is elected indirectly by the Electoral College.

The best you can say is that the Presidency is not elected through direct democracy, but rather through an indirect democratic process. The Legislative branches, the State governments, and everything down to dog catcher is elected directly and democratically SO WHAT IF ANYTHING OTHER THAN PURE ANIMADVERSION, CONTENTIOUSNESS AND CONTRARINESS IS YOUR POINT KIDPEAT? This is worse than your wittering on about the War of 1812. One could be forgiven for not understanding that, but to completely fail to comprehend the basis and function of American government and to belittle someone with a graduate degree in History for your own aggrandizement is ludicrous. You'd have failed any course I taught at the undergraduate level, or any graduate seminar I led by maintaining this rubbish.

If you were to propose the thesis "The United States is Not a Democracy. It is a Republic and Republics cannot be Democracies" on the Speakeasy Forum, how do you think your support would turn out?

Rob

You are correct however that the Roman Republic was not democratic owing to its weighted voting system favoring the country tribes over the city tribes. There were more country tribes and these had fewer members than the city tribes which though fewer in number had far greater numbers of members. This kept Rome an hereditary oligarchy rather than a democracy (the wealthy who deposed the King being able to afford a country address at the time of the creation of the Roman Republic and at the time of the creation of the voting tribes). Perhaps it is this that has confused you. (That's an olive branch in case you missed it)

What a load of utter garbage!

Which party discriminates on the basis of race and color to deny benefits to one color it give to another? Which party presumes those of a particular skin color or ethnic background to be monolithic having inate "proper" beliefs based on that skin color or ethnicity?

Liberal Democracy? Back to school for you! Or time to dust off the Eighth grade text you accuse others of having their history education limited to. You apparently didn't even comprehend that much!

to pick apart all the bits of nonsense in Rob's post but that is certainly one of the most infuriating. I don't know what the numbers are for 2004 but in the 2000 election where the Republicans supposedly blocked the voting of minorities in Florida there was actually a huge record turnout of minority voters. Not reported very widely.

The restricting of minority vote was a myth, pure and simple.

it's yet another example of the pitiful, eternal claims of victimhood by the LIBERALS.

... but why waste the time on those that don't read that which refutes their absurd contentions anyway? A review of the stats (you are correct, not widely publicized) demonstrated that the charges of mass disenfranchisement were statistically impossible.

Evie

him from his self appointed task of educating those who will read or listen.

between a talk show person and who I believed to either be a state or US congressman (from some southern state, possibly Georgia). He believed there was some conspiracy by conservatives to deny the black vote by insisting on having photo ID in the form of a drivers license. He argued that many blacks couldnt get to a place where they could get a drivers license. I wanted the guy to ask him how they could possibly make it to a voting booth in the first place, if they couldnt get a drivers license. I think he wants as many people who arent registered to vote as possible who may not be registered or who may not be legal in the first place.

people to register 'before it's too late?' Could work; falls under 'campaign rhetoric,' I think. And what if the purpost of the license is voter ID at the polling places?
Your comment about getting to the polls is good. But the guy's comment will resonate with those who remember the "poll tax." Supposed to be fair for all; legit way of funding the election process. Of course, back then hardly any Blacks- and not many poor Whites- could afford it, so they were disenfranchised. Just what the White establishments wanted.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

And an unfair one, at that. I think he just wanted to portray blacks as victims who would find it a hardship to get official picture ID, and wanted to paint the Republicans as the guys wearing black hats.