can anyone explain the "conservative" idea of "small government" and "individual liberty?"

[Syrinx]

My brain is rather weak, I suppose, but this concept, judged against rather recent history, leaves me confused and grasping for air.

The Justices of the Supreme Court which the "conservatives" revere, as representing "small government," are the ones that have interjected themselves into the personal lives of all American citizens.

The conservatives are the ones wanting to determine when life begins, and when it should end, whether by natural causes, or mandated by the state.

The conservatives are the ones wanting to deny, by the power of the federal government, the ability of doctors to administer medicines that will improve or prolong their patients' lives.

The conservatives are the ones that want to deny a certain class of people of the right to share their lives with those of their choice.

So-called conservatives on the Supreme Court are the worst. Maybe Clarence Thomas isn't quite as bad as the worst, because he is at least in favor of adults being allowed to view pornography, but he is still pretty bad.

Thomas and his amigos hate the American people. They rule against the people every time (when it doesn't involve porn).

The cops can pull you over for any reason. Or for no reason at all.

They can bust into your home and tear the place apart. And find nothing. Yet, you have no recourse. That's okay.

They can come in blazing, and kill your grandma.

That's okay, because the conservative majority on the Supreme Court says they were only trying to stamp out the marijuana trade.

If the state makes a boo-boo that kills your grandmother, that's okay. But if the state finds a cannabis seed in your upholstery, they can confiscate your business.

Maybe liberals should reclaim the term "conservative" from the haters and paranoids. I'm a liberal but I'm also "conservative," as in get the government out of my personal business.

I hate the self-proclaimed conservatives, that don't know what "conservative" means, that claim to believe in conservative politics that want to throw everybody in jail, except for the real criminals.

[zbdent]

1. today's "conservatives" believe in double-speak ...

at least, those that were in control of gov't since 1995 ...

[KG]

2. conservatism is a mental disorder.

[Believing Is Art]

3. It's quite simple really

Small Government: Of the rich people, by the rich people, and for the rich people. No longer does the government represent all Americans. Just rich Americans. Since the government is only representing a small percentage of Americans, it must be smaller!

Individual Liberty: We have the right to eat crappy food, buy cheap shit made overseas, and watch TV. Because of the rich small government principle, our education and job opportunities are so crappy we will become so dumb that all we really want to do is consume in front of the tube. And vote Republican. You know, cuz the Democrats will just let the terrorists win cuz those terrorists hate our TV-Walmart freedoms.

[Lyric]

4. They're only for small government in economic terms.

They'd be perfectly content with an authoritarian Daddy Government to strictly control everybody's sex life.

As for "individual liberty," to conservatives that just means the liberty to make money however they want to (ethical, moral, or not) and to own enormous amounts of firepower. That's pretty much it.

[KharmaTrain]

5. No Two "Conservatives" Define Themselves The Same Way Now...

The one thread that runs through a majority of them is being selfish. They feel entitled to all they earn and should be rewarded for their hard work with special laws and services. The essence of "trickle down" was if you make them rich they'll throw money at the rabble...who would then make them even richer. It almost worked.

You have fiscal conservatives...all they care about is money...making it, spending it and making even more of it. They want both the 20% returns and the elimination of the capital gains taxes...their money means far more than your school or road. Those things will take care of themselves.

Next there are the "social conservatives"...to them society has gone to hell and we need to return to the good ole days of Ozzie and Harriet...where a woman knows her place, men control the universe and minorities are seen, not heard. It's where a "higher power" trumps all here on earth and are told what these higher powers think by their "spiritual leaders"...never questioned...ignorance is bliss.

And then we come to the neo-cons and chickenshits...the kids who grew up watching way too many Rambo movies and pumped full of fear and misinformation. They're into "law and order"...but it's fed by their fear...the more scared they are, the more they lash out. In essence they see the world in black and white...no middle ground, no compromise...nuance is a needless detail. These are the ones who salivate over hate radio and Faux Noise for their daily affirmations.

The GOOP is in a free fall right now. Kudos to President Obama to single out Rushbo and we're seeing how the right wing is splintering in their support. For years these groups found common ground...misery loves company...but in defeat and having their agendas totally debunked, the blame game is going on. The problem is those winning will only splinter the party further. Well...IMHO, not really a problem....

[Clarence Birdseye]

6. What is conservatism? Not what we had.

Real conservatives are suspicious of government because of the potential abuses. There is not place for government in your home, least of all your bedroom. Bush was not a conservative in any way, shape or form and it is highly insulting to others who are to refer to him in that way.

"Small government" means just that, not the bloated corrupt mess we currently have. BTW, that is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue, they both well and truly suck.

The polarization of the court reflects the polarization in congress and is decidedly not healthy. Yet when Obama attempts to reach out and work from the middle, he is castigated. The fault for a lot of this mess is us. The SOBs that voted the patriot act in are largely still there. Didn't Kerry say that he didn't even read it? Jesus. We could have been out of Iraq two years ago.

Unfortunately job one of our elected officials is to get reelected. That is what causes the dishonesty and the pandering and the corruption.

This is a little rambly, for which I apologize but I see that the OP falls into the trap laid by the bozos in Washington: blaming the "other" guy, party, person rather than looking at the mess as a whole and throwing all of the rascals out and maybe even instituting term limits.

[zipplewrath]

7. Read George Will

He's one of the few that might give you some honest answers, although even he has a tendency for blather. Near as I can sort out the conservatives want a "small" government because they want a powerful government. They want to give it alot of power, and then limit the size to limit the reach. A small government has to pick an choose where and when to use its power. The way Will puts it, liberals are more concerned about fairness than freedom. Conservatives are more concerned about freedom than fairness. I don't agree, but that's one way of describing their point of view. A way I find to look at it is to realize that many of the people who today call themselves conservatives, would have been "anti-federalists" at the time of the Constitution's authoring.

And in the end, much of the discomfort between the "fiscal" conservatives and the "social" conservatives is that they didn't like each others core issues, but they weren't all that concerned about them either. And that is where you find much of the conflict you describe. Applying the fiscal conservative rhetoric to the social conservatives issues as well as the reverse.

What is far more telling to me is that once in power, no one ever chooses to govern "conservatively". Not Reagan, either Bush, not Nixon, etc. Heck, Huckabee couldn't do it as Governor. Once they have to govern they all abandon much of their rhetoric. It reminds me of the Taurus/Accord statistic. Some years back the two cars competed every year for the largest sales. Taurus frequently won, but alot had to do with fleet sales. But none the less, the cars were very similar. And really, neither of them were particularly "sexy" or a stand out. They were basic transportation. Not the worst, but certainly not the most innovative or "idealistic" in any manner. Pragmatism won out in the car buying decision a very large part of the time. Governing is no different. Once in power and actually responsible for governing, pragmatism is the key to any kind of success. Dogged idealism will get ya in trouble every time.