Respecting "real" conservatives.....and us?

[OnionPatch]

I hear over and over from many liberals how they "at least have respect for the old-fashioned, real conservatives." I can also usually muster up some respect for them because I think most of them are well-meaning, anyway. IMO, they just don't understand how conservative economics serves mainly the rich and tends to drain away the fruits of our labor from the rest of us.

Now, my question is this: Has anyone ever heard ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN ever say they had respect for the liberal viewpoint even if they don't agree? Because I never have. I hear only vitriol and accusations of communism and anti-Americanism. I hear only ridiculous conspiracy theories about how we want to "sexualize the children" or make the US part of a "New World Order."

Is there a single conservative out there that understands that our only real motives are fostering a world that is more fair to the downtrodden and a world where peace is the norm and war is an abberation?

I hate to stereotype, but I'm wondering if the reason for this is that we are just naturally more tolerant to other ideas. As for me, I'm thinking I'm through giving respect to "old-fashioned conservatives." I've been called a traitor and anti-American too many times.

[Warpy]

1. I know quite a few Goldwater conservatives

and we want the same things for this country. We simply disagree on how to achieve them.

They're different from the self identified neoconservatives in that we don't want what the neocons want for this country and we both think their means are appalling.

[Bozita]

4. Before dying, Goldwater warned of the forces taking over the Repug party

[bennywhale]

8. Easy to be a conservative

The values and means that con's and neo-cons talk about sound so moral and more like common sense. Their arguments and criticisms of liberals sit easier with a lot of people.

Its easy for example to say you are anti-American when someone is arguing against US policy.

Its easy to argue Pro-life rather than pro-choice which is a more complex argument.

There arguments are so easy to make, with 'isn't America great' propaganda dripping out of every source over generations.

[newyawker99]

13. Hi bennywhale!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

14. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. No, but there's a reason for the difference.

There's always been the hard liberals vs. conseratives thing going on, but what we've encountered now is a two pronged battle: liberals vs. conservatives AND liberals vs. neo-conservatives. While the two are on the same side, true conservatives do hold the same modicum of respect for liberals that liberals hold for conservatives - both sides understand it's just politics and they make actual arguments for their beliefs.

Neo-cons, on the other hand, are the reprehensible scum of the earth. They are the types that calls us traitors and anti-American and have no rational reasoning for their beliefs. They are also called Theocrats.

Since libs like us often have to distinguish between the two groups, that's why you hear US stating our respect for true conservatives. It doesn't go the other way around because there's no distinction to make. We're all just libs.

[goodboy]

3. what "real" conservatives? you mean lieberman?

[OnionPatch]

5. He's another story completely

I have no idea WHAT he is. I suppose he's an old-fashioned conservative. I'd have more respect for him if he stopped pretending to be a Democrat.

[rpannier]

6. Actually Yes I have

I have many friends who are old style conservatives and they do say they respect other points of view.

[OnionPatch]

17. Thank you

I'm happy to hear that.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

7. R - E- S - P - E - C - T, that is what you've got from me....

I have a whole lot more respect for the Democratic party now than what has become of my own intrusive, fiscally irresponsible Rapturist Right Republican party.

I'm not the Goldwater kind of conservative either...more of the Northeast socially liberal/fiscally responsible kind of Republican. And I will vote for virtually any Democratic candidate who opposes the zealot brand of Republican now in power.

[OnionPatch]

9. Well at least that something

It's probably the first time I have heard an actual Republican say anything respectful about Democrats. But I'm not sure if you count. You sound like you're coming over to our side. :thumbsup:

By the way, who says we aren't fiscally responsible? I think we've just always had different fiscal priorities. Do you think your party will ever unhook itself from the radical religous zealots?

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

11. The unholy alliance CANNOT last forever....

There are already signs of splintering. You see, the Rapturist Right is NEVER satisfied and they NEVER compromise...that's a good thing because they will never shut up. They are even upset that Laura Bush "disrespected" her husband at that dinner the other night. I say, let the idiot politicians keep pandering to the religious right, it will make 06 and 08 that much easier for the Democrats.

There is hope.:D

[autorank]

10. Good point. After nasty divorce, hard to say nice things about the ex!

However, there are some conservatives who I love even if they think I'm a schmuck! Paul Craig Roberts is one of them. This link is to his archive of columns and take a look at this snip. This is his moderate criticism of *.

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/all_columns.htm

April 03, 2005
Whither America?

By Paul Craig Roberts

What is America’s future? Prediction is no one’s strong point. A century after the fall of Rome, no one could have predicted that Roman armies would reappear to reclaim for the Empire "that which was lost to neglect" and destroy the Ostrogoths in Italy and the Vandals in Africa. Neither could anyone have predicted that Justinian the Great’s restoration of the Roman Empire would be undone in the following century by the rise of an obscure people united under the banner of Islam.

It is easier to note that which America is losing to neglect than to predict the consequences. Failings are everywhere apparent.

President Bush has led us into a gratuitous war that has destroyed America’s soft power and demonstrated the limits of its hard power. In the name of fighting terrorism, Bush has eroded already weakened civil liberties. President Bush’s "war on terror" has inflicted greater costs on America than that inflicted by the terrorists themselves.

[sweetheart]

12. I'm a small "c" conservative

I believe in small and efficient government, that human beings are
wiser with their taxes than public officials, that foreign wars are a
travesty for the people, that the government has no business in fighting
a drugs war against people's free will, that all citizens are ultimately
responsible for their own behaviour and that it is the individual who
controls their own destiny, that corporations have NO natural rights
and should have no rights as persons. Government has no business in
the bedroom, between a person and their doctor, or in any form of
restriction of our natural liberty.

Libertarian conservatives are not your enemy. The "C" onservatives of
the GOP are nothing of the sort.

[bennywhale]

16. Problems with being a small c

"Human beings being wiser with their taxes results in exploitation, poverty and starvation of the type in Charles Dickens' London.

Governments can be wise with peoples taxes if people have a proper say in how their spent, and the "rage to consume" subsides.

Look at Sweden for a blueprint

[sweetheart]

18. I don't buy that

Charles Dickens london was run by hoarding monarchists. It was not
a state of libertarian values. It was a state that imprisoned gay
people, and repressed women, in which women had no right to vote,
and so many things that are anathema to this conservative. In this
regard, it is a poor example.

A better example of small "c" conservative is switzerland, or and
increasingly the eastern european countries that have implemented a
flat tax and are experiencing very high annual economic growth as a
result.

I do agree there are issues with income distribution, and i have no
problem with a welfare state. Yet, here in britain, the taxes are less
than i once paid in the USA, and yet there is universal healthcare and
so much provided to help the disenfranchised. In this sense, the
real problem for america, is the foreign wars. If the military was
pulled back to the borders, the taxes could be cut in half AND every
american could have free medical care and state welfare for single
mothers and the poor. The cost of empire is the feeling that everyone
must scrounge, as all the money is poured in to murdering people in
asian deserts, with no returns.

This is certainly not conservative, and hardly have libertarian
principals been applied... so the old DU habit of kneejerk libertarian
and conservative bashing is inappropriate. In fact, we are part of
the coalition that seeks to unseat these big-government militarist
assholes.

[bennywhale]

19. You Contradict Yourself

You say that human beings can better spend their taxes and that the government Yet then propose a massive government welfare programme once the military has been cut.

And no Charles Dicken's London was not run by hoarding monacists, that was feudalism pre-industrial revolution, it was run by hoarding bourgoisie and merchants who were human beings spending their taxes as they saw fit.

I'm sure we share much as i am also a libertarian but of socialist ilk.

[More Than A Feeling]

15. I glanced at a Thomas Sowell book once. He said something like that

He was saying how he has never doubted that liberals are sincere about wanting to achieve the goals they talk about, just that he thought our solutions just didn't work.