Are you becoming more conservative?

[HuskerDU]

The past 5 years have forced me to distrust the gov't. I thought that was a conservative position just a few years ago. And these days, I believe in states rights, which they used to and now don't. I am now a gun owner. Didn't used to be.

I wonder if they meant to force us right in some of our thinking. I could go either way on states rights depending on the issue, but my distrust of the gov't and ownership of a gun go hand in hand and are set in stone. If the dems ever take back power I could maybe trust the gov't again, but I don't trust the R's to let us in power again. They have too much to lose.

I am more virulantly anti-Republican than ever, but simultaneously more conservative as well. In many ways, I think that the neocons are more anti-traditional conservatism than they are anti-liberalism.

Thoughts?

[readmoreoften]

1. I was leaning towards states rights, but now I'm not.

If Scalia and Thomas get their way, states will be able to have their own state religion (only the FEDERAL government can't impose religion in their view) and millions of people will be stranded in theocratic states where gays and women who have abortions are imprisoned.

I do believe in the right to bear arms (big furry bear arms :)) to protect onesself against the totalitarian state. But more realistically, we'd do better with a network of freedom tunnels.

I do not trust the government because it is the marriage of corporate interests and authoritarian militarism. If non-DLC Dems won, I'd begin to trust again. But that's a long long battle.

[HuskerDU]

3. I agree with you about states rights. But I also think that it may

be inevitable and soon.

Any thoughts on neocons being more anti-Goldwater than anti-McGovern? This idea has actually peeled a few Rs away lately.

[readmoreoften]

10. Well, I agree with it actually.

Paleocons hate the neocons.

[stopbush]

2. I'm 51 and more liberal than I've ever been.

I've gotten to the age where I've realized that so much of what Americans take to be "important" is
pure bullshit, served up to us to keep us in line...and poor.

Religion, patriotism, the heartland, the idea that we're the good guys and all of the bromides that send many Americans into a
soporific swoon are illusions that drive the engine of our benign submission.

America used to be a country of guts, a country of innovators and risk takers. Now, the risk is socialized and the rewards are
privatized; you're honored for being a war hero if you played one on TV, vilified if you actually served; we're a country where
most people think they're in the top-earner category when they're so far down the chain it's laughable; where the realities we
face on the ground (war, economic ruin) are treated as an illusion while reality TV shows and bullshit "you can be a rich person" media
fare (shows like Luxury Hotels, High Net Worth, Celebrity Lifestyles, etc) pose as reality. Since Reagan made it Priority One to look out
for Number One, our nation has lost it's collective sense of community. The rules no longer apply. Hell, we admire those who
break the rules because we all know that "that's how it's done."

No, I'm more liberal than ever. MY dream for the USA - and for the world, for that matter - is that governments and countries would
be secular institutions that allowed for people to practice their religious fantasies as they saw fit. Humanism is what we should be
about at this stage in our development, not nationalism...and certainly not not mind-enslaving religiosity. I would posit that the neo-cons
would be totally against my world view...and that qualifies as their being anti-liberalism.

I'm liberal, progressive and not at all bashful about it...and happy to be that way.

[HuskerDU]

4. There is nothing there I disagree with. But do you trust the gov't

as much as you used to? How do you feel about the second ammendment today as opposed to 10 years ago?
Should the fed have the power to intervene in private matters ala Schivo? Should the fed be expanding it's police powers?

I think that the fed should have less power. Isn't that what they used to call a conservative position?

[stopbush]

11. I've never trusted the government. I came of age during Watergate.

Second amendment? I believe "the militia" referred to is the standing army, not the citizen soldier. I am for gun control.

The Sciavo matter? One of the great embarrassments in our country's history and a dangerous precedent.

Fed expanding police powers? Absolutely against it.

Fed having less power is a two-edged sword. I believe that the Fed has a role to play in issues of equality, ie: voting rights,
education, gay rights. I believe that the Fed is sometimes forced to step in to address the injustices that the States allow
to happen. I believe in States rights to the extent that there are certain states in this country that I will never visit - I refuse
to contribute to their economies or their knuckle-dragging beliefs. But that's OK...just stay out of my bedroom.

[stopbush]

13. dupe - self delete

[cornermouse]

6. Well said.

[Blue_Tires]

5. no, i've probably only become more extreme in my views

and i remember then the RWers and talk radio were all on the "we hate the government" bandwagon--that was when Clinton and Reno were in charge, now that the GOP is in control, they have changed their tune.....

well, there's always the libertarians:silly: :rofl:

[BooScout]

7. Nope.........as time passes I become more Liberal.

I find myself leaning much more towards Socialism if anything. I want the government to concern itself with the welfare of it's own citizens....ie....health care, education, the environment, etc. and stop concetrating on world dominion.

[wickerwoman]

8. It sounds like you're more libertarian, not more conservative.

Are you feeling more and more that laissez-faire capitalism is the way to go or that the government should be making more laws based on Judeo-Christian morality? No? Then I'd say you're not becoming more conservative in either an economic or social sense.

[readmoreoften]

12. Yes, definitely more libertarian. You're probably going left-libertarian

and away from left centrist or even left towards authoritarian.

[Selatius]

14. There are several very good examples of left libertarians

One of them being Gandhi himself.

[Richard Steele]

9. You simply have an incorrect definition of "conservative".

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution is the most
radically LIBERAL law in all of recorded human history.

I deliberately phrased that sentence for maximum effect,
to be honest;
but it is actually 100% LITERALLY correct.

No LITERATE society in history had ever given such unfettered liberty to
ANY group...and we gave it to EVERYONE!

(I included the "literate" caveat because the Celts assumed that
the right to own the means of personal defense was inherent,
and it never even OCCURED to them to debate it.
But they left no real WRITTEN records.
And the very notion of a centralized,
hierarchical authority-structure was just such an ALIEN idea that
they never really got their heads around it. It was just too damn
SILLY for them to waste time thinking about.)

[niyad]

15. are you kidding? I get more radical every day (and that is really saying

something, considering I have always been a radical)

[magellan]

16. Interesting observation

"I think that the neocons are more anti-traditional conservatism than they are anti-liberalism."

That would make sense, since many neocons were once, as they like to describe themselves, "liberals mugged by reality". (Personally I don't think these people were ever Liberals with a capital "L" but rather authoritarian-leaning socialists a la the Pope. They slide over to "fascist" when allowed to run amok with weapons, wealth and power, as they do currently.)

Anyway, in answer to your question, I've grown more conservative in certain respects. I was a moderate to begin with on issues of size of government and individual rights (like gun ownership), and now lean more libertarian in those areas than before the neocons came to power. Like traditional conservatives I also think we need a strong military -- to defend us, not to be misused as an interventionist tool for profit and empire as the neocons have done.

[HuskerDU]

19. Thank you magellan. You articulated what I meant far better than

I ever could. And your point on the strong military to defend, not offend, is one I should have included as well.

I think that we need to exploit even the idea that 'neocons are more anti-traditional conservatism than they are anti-liberalism.' As I have said, it seems to be resonating with self-described TCs.

[magellan]

25. TCs do seem to be very aware that Bush** snookered them

But they also seem to be in the "silenced" minority on the Right, much as we are on the far Left. Sometimes their silence is so resounding I wonder if they even realize what a devastating blow the neocons have dealt them! I mean when you stop to consider the ideological differences between a true Republican and a neocon, there's just one inescapable conclusion: the TCs have literally been left without a party for the foreseeable future.

We on the far Left have a lot in common with them where that's concerned.

Surely there must be a way for TCs and Liberals to work together to rid ourselves of the neocons. Then we can get back to arguing with each other over welfare and such. Wouldn't that be nice!

[Judi Lynn]

17. Absolutely not. These criminals are an aberration.

My convictions are exactly the same.

[HuskerDU]

18. Rather than respond to each of you, I wanted to just further

clarify my point.

I hear in my head the paranoid anti-gov't rants from '94 about dems, but they are now about repubs, and they are real. Ann Coulter is a gov't mouthpiece and she advocates Guantanamo for liberals. Not particularly comforting.

I feel that the neocons are more anti-traditional conservative than they are anti-liberal. ie They are more anti-Goldwater than anti-McGovern.

I have used this on another site to peel people away from the Republican party who strongly believe in a smaller fed, the second ammendment, states rights, no outsourcing, and no nationbuilding. These folks are looking at our party because theirs clearly left them.

I contend that a lot of us feel the same way and we need to get this partyless, yet principaled group in the fold now to defeat the neocons. Forget about our differences, we have much in common right now and much to gain by working together. NEOCONS MUST GO After the neocons are gone, we can hash out where this country is on the political spectrum. There is nothing more important than getting rid of the neocons and we should welcome those on the right who feel the same way.

Hint- I am not one of 'em. I believe in all the liberal benchmarks- choice, separation of C & S, very progressive tax code etc etc. I just want them to join us to defeat neoconservatism. I think stressing distrust of federal gov't, support for 2nd ammendment and at least some aspects of states rights helps. We have plenty of examples of where this regime has shit on those beliefs.

[HuskerDU]

21. Er

I mean further convolute it. May be bed time folks.

[magellan]

26. Exactly

I hear you, Husker, and I believe you're spot on. We on the Left have our differences with true Republicans, no two ways about that. But the one thing we have in common and should find a way to build on is our desire to protect this country and its founding principles from the neocons, who aren't conservative by the Republican definition of the word, and who got to where they are today through a subversive takeover and gutting of the GOP, enabled by Bush**.

Sometimes I point people to Bush**'s 2000 campaign platform. There's very little in there he hasn't reneged on, or done just the opposite. How long are true conservatives going to let him and his cabal play the 9-11 card to justify the de-Americanization of the USA?

[Dogmudgeon]

20. Much less "hip", much more radical

I'm damn near a Georgist Bakuninian Marxist Kropotkinite these days.

Naturally, I maintain most of my anti-gummint ideas, but in general, my personal ideology doesn't discretely separate state and non-state power. The lust for power is the overriding political problem.

My rejection of hipness often makes me target of accusations of "fascism", particularly since I support nuclear power. Once they hear that, the "political f-word" is trotted out within seconds. They don't stick around to hear how I also support public ownership of the entire energy system, and an overall Georgist political-economic system where every citizen would be a "shareholder" in the collective wealth of the country. They likewise seldom read far enough to catch my criticism of corporations, which are, after all, artificial beings created by the collusion of a greedy state and avaricious businessmen.

Ah, but I'm pro-nukes. That's, like, so Corporate, dude.

So, I hate politics-by-hipness; politics-by-reaction; politics-by-South-Park (Parker and Stone are right-wingers anyway); politics-by-bad-comedy; politics-by-ascribed-reputation; politics-by-ridicule. But when someone is actually able to read to the end of the post or listen until I've finished my train of thought, there's no doubt that I'm about as far from "conservative" as it's possible to be.

--p!

[NMMNG]

22. No, I'm becoming more hardcore Liberal

The harder they push, the further left I move--and the harder I push back.

[HuskerDU]

24. I am definitely more hardcore anti-republican than ever.

But I just wanted to point out that what *co is doing today is directly opposite of what Rs talked about during the 'Contract with America' days. I think we can take advantage of that. It has worked for me here in flyoverland.

Tell 'em vote dem, vote constitution, vote libertarian. Just don't vote R.

[B Calm]

23. I always considered it a very liberal idea for people to own guns...

[benEzra]

27. Gun ownership is not a conservative position

although Karl Rove would like people to think it is...

Fully half of gun owners in the USA are NOT repubs...

[Taverner]

28. Technically, you are more liberal

Gun freedom, states rights - this are considered liberal ideas in the true definition

[Zomby Woof]

29. "States' Rights" is the greatest myth in American history

This grave semantic corruption took root early in the history of the republic, and became so deeply ingrained, that the Civil War was fought largely over the concept and how it is implemented. The fact that the term is used widely today, cherished, and in particular fetishized by the GOP, makes it likely it will always be falsely and permanently part of the American political landscape. It is understandable - the history of the republic is rooted in the tensions between federal and state powers (hence the Civil War), and so the origin of any philosophy that defends the emphasis of power in the weaker or minority entities, allows itself to evolve and create the idea that "rights" often correlate with those powers. This is naturally going to be a sensitive topic for Americans raised on the myth. I can already hear the cries of protest over this post. But here is the historical reality:

The 10th Amendment grants the states (and the people) POWERS not enumerated in the Constitution, not RIGHTS. There is an enormous difference. Ponder those two concepts for awhile. The 9th Amendment grants the people ONLY, not the states, unenumerated rights.

But it wasn't the 10th Amendment by itself that created this indoctrination of the "states' rights" term. It was the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, which asserted that states had "rights" that superseded those in the federal document. The antifederalists embraced the precepts of the VA & KY Resolutions, and the 10th Amendment did not appease them quite far enough when added to the Constitution. The VA & KY Resolutions have no actual legal authority.

John Marshall established early on that the Constitution was "the supreme law of the land", but the Civil War settled the question of federal supremacy once and for all. It is the 10th Amendment and its granting of POWERS, that should carry the debate - not the outdated and discredited notions put forth in the VA and KY Resolutions.

It is so ingrained that I rarely argue the point - but every now and then it needs to be said: There is no such thing as "states' rights". We, the people, have rights, and to a certain extent, powers. The states have powers. They draft their own constitutions so that they can enumerate their powers, but that is the extent of their "rights".

[Hell Hath No Fury]

30. Just a note on "states' rights"...

That has an appeal to it, but can have unintended consequences. Which "rights" should states have the power to superscede the fed? The "right" to tell a woman she can't have any reproductive choice? The "right" to criminalize any sexual behavior outside of married/straight? The "right" to abolish a state-funded educational system? The "right" to establish a state religion? The "right" to pollute the shit out of a state with no penalty?

Those are all "rights" that too many states would LOVE to have back, but the federal system says nope, can't do that. And, frankly, I'm thrilled the feds do.

"States' rights" can be a nasty Pandora's Box.

[devilgrrl]

31. I drift farther to the left as time goes on...

so no, I'm not becoming more conservative.

[JHB]

32. Those aren't exclusively "conservative" points of view

You may be rethinking issues that conservatives had claimed as "theirs" (much like a dog marking its territory), but both are wider than the pidgeonholes that they've been put in for the last two-three decades.

So no, you're not becoming "more conservative." You are taking another look at the big picture and how these things balance out (and why we have to defend that balance), and that's all for the good.

[VOX]

33. BushCo and the right-wing media have pushed me to the brink of socialism.

I've always been liberal, but the past six years have been agony. Literally, I wake up each day and wonder what new brand of outrageousness will occur with * , and how will it be spun in the corporate media.

This country has become something unspeakably ugly, mixing Jesus with fighter jets, putting nationalism ahead of diplomacy, all the while being incredibly incompetent and heartless here at home as well. For God's sake, a major American city is GONE.

I can't further enumerate the long list of travesties committed, for fear my blood pressure will rise. :grr: