What is Conservatism?

[Jeremy]

Reagan mentioned the party. The Libertarian Party has nothing to do with libertarianism other than that's what it's named after and that's what its members consider themselves. Oddly enough for your argument, they elected a a big conservative in the 2008 primaries. However, most libertarians I know are not members of the LP.

Also, the next part of your post proves my point that you don't understand libertarianism. The dictionary definition: "a person who advocates liberty." You see, there are many different types of libertarians. Conservative libertarians, such as Ron Paul, Jeff Flake, Mark Sanford, etc, match the conservatism at its beginning in American politics. Actually, original conservatism was not pro-life when abortion became an issue (Barry Goldwater), but conservative libertarians are today.

You have also shown a bit of confusion between the Libertarian Party and the libertarian philosophy. Realize that most libertarians are not members of the LP. Think of it like the Conservative Party in Canada. It's just a name.

Let's compare conservative libertarians and the people of America's conservative movement, such as Calvin Coolidge, Robert Taft, and Barry Goldwater.
- Both support small government.
- Both are generally anti-war.
- Both are constitutionalists.
- Both support civil liberties.
- Both support property rights.
- Both support lower taxes.
- Both are opposed to government intervention in the market.

Libertarian and conservative are just words. Many people have simply decided to call their original conservative ideas libertarianism because self proclaimed conservatives today are very far from it. Conservative has also been used as a word to mean "keep things exactly how they are" lately, even though they used to want to change so much that they were called extremists by the left (Barry Goldwater is the perfect example). What's going on now is a change of words. This is why, today, conservative libertarians make up the John Birch Society, for example. Or why Barry Goldwater Jr. campaigned for Congressman Ron Paul. Or why Pat Buchanan's supporters were seen at the Rally for the Republic in Minnesota. Or why people like Bob Barr leave the Republican Party. You see, when Mike Huckabee says he thinks libertarians are going to ruin the party... he's really just using a word. Imagine how ridiculous he would sound if he said old right conservatives were ruining the party! That's essentially what he's saying because that's where conservative libertarianism comes from and that's who Huckabee is referring to.

[Gambit]

So now you introduced a new term: "conservative libertarianism," and also claim that these terms are "just words." LMAO. You sound like Obama now. Where was all of this in your previous posts? You're just getting ridiculous now.

When I defined libertarianism as I see it today and told you what I thought of them, you counter me with a "you are a bit confused," "you still don't understand" crap like in your previous posts. You offered nothing in response other than the same old "I know more about libertarianism than you or Huckabee" argument. By your simple definition of libertarianism, nearly every American and democratic societies around the world would be considered a libertarian, eh? I guess nobody wants to be without liberty....

Again, I agree with Huckabee when he said that most libertarians today are "faux-cons" (false conservatives), hiding within the Republican party, causing dissention and division, and is the biggest threat to the future of the GOP, worse than liberalism: PROVE ME AND HUCKABEE WRONG.

That's the whole point of this stupid argument. I couldn't care less about libertarians, the Libertarian Party, nor your personal definition of "conservatism," "libertarianism," or "conservative libertarians," and who left what party. None of that stuff matters at this point because of your illogical, smug, holier than thou attitude.

Oh, and it'd be nice for you to cough up some proof of Huckabee's lack of conservatism as you see it... since that laughable bar graph proved absolutely nothing. It's sad what you've become, Jeremy, since you became a libertarian and turned your back on conservatism and Huckabee. You're now a prime example of why conservatives should never be confused with what they believe in and turn into a "faux-con."

[Jeremy]

Lol, I didn't make it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_conservatism
http://www.rlc.org/

Also, if you consider old right conservatives like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan "faux-cons," that shows how out of step you are with real conservatism.

The graph proved nothing? It was quite clear. Huckabee did not want to make the federal government smaller. Look, you're obviously mad about me presenting this information. You've turned to insults. Just look at how you try to compare what I say to Obama. That doesn't even make any sense.

Of course someone who has a different version of conservatism is going to tell his supporters that the other version is the wrong one. I challenge you to look at history. If you'd like me to present historical proof of my claim, I can do that. It's ironic how you tell me that Huckabee is warning of division in the party when he is really creating the division by insulting other people. Like I said, he does this because he doesn't know what a libertarian is. He probably thinks it has to do with the political party. He doesn't realize that the libertarians in the GOP are the old right conservatives.

[Gambit]

I never said you made up the term "conservative libertarianism." It's just that you all of the sudden grabbed this term out of thin air to try and support whatever illogical argument you tried to make in your previous post. Oh... LOL @ Wikipedia as a source. LOL @ you editing in a 2nd source.

It's not odd that those like Ron Paul and Buchanan are "faux-cons." I think we all know what RP stands for and against by now. Gold standard, government is bad and evil, we (American soldiers) are evil for being in Iraq and anywhere that's not the United States, taxes are evil, etc. He has had some good ideas and I agree with him on some points, but his political stance is just not conservative... they're libertarian. We've been through this before months ago.

Buchanan has sadly become a part of the MSNBC liberal machine. They use him to counter-balance the extreme liberalism on that network, but he has become part of them this past year. Yes, I consider him a "faux-con" now too, sadly. He was once a good man with good principles, but if you paid any attention to his commentary and watched any of his various appearances on that network, you'd realize that he's no longer a conservative either. Yes, I do watch MSNBC sometimes. Mainly Morning Joe where Buchanan appears very frequently. That show has gone downhill too since the general elections.

Anyway, these 2 examples being "faux-cons" does not show I'm "out of step" with "real" conservatism. People change. Their political viewpoints change. Just like you did.

You obviously have never seen or heard Obama's "Just words, just speeches" speech. So I won't even bother to go further into that point.

Yes, your graph proved absolutely nothing, like I've said 3 times already. This is where libertarians like you seem to think that conservatism means we need to be defenseless and make our military as small as possible. People like you and RP want our "imperialistic" foreign policy cease to exist and will lambast anyone who deviates from this ideology and belief. So here comes Huckabee (and Fred Thompson) who proposed to spend more on our national security. Then we have people like you use this as an excuse to crucify him, say he's not a conservative, and claim he wants bigger government. You're once again, proving Huckabee's point about libertarians requiring absolute ideological purity or you're immediately labeled as not conservative or even a liberal. It's this kind of ridiculous, illogical, and unpractical approach that's causing dissention and division within the Republican party. If you still don't get my point, then I have little else to say to you after this.

Oh, and I am not "mad" about you presenting your faulty and partial (mis)information. I am disappointed in your approach, reasoning, and inability to debate my points like I am yours. If you think I insulted you, then you have really thin skin. I have provided counter points to most of what you've said in this thread. In fact, YOU are the one insulting me and Huckabee with your "you don't know/understand anything" attitude and comments.

About your last statement... same could be said about Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and I guess Pat Buchanan (since you used him as an example before). They have their own version of conservatism and they try to convince their supporters that the other version is the wrong one. The difference is, Huckabee isn't claiming that their version of conservatism is wrong. Huckabee is saying that their version is fake and is not even conservatism at all... it's libertarianism. Huckabee has no problems with people who claim to be liberals, conservatives, libertarians, whatever... as long as they believe in what they believe in and are honest about it. Don't pretend to be conservative when you're really a libertarian.

I challenge you to read Huckabee's new book, instead of reading his critics' biased remarks online. I also challenge you to actually refute all of the points I've made in my previous posts, instead of bringing up different issues, definitions, and arguments each time I refute one of yours.

[Jeremy]

You have completely misquoted and misrepresented people like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan. You are not using logic whatsoever. Are there different versions of conservatism? Of course. I simply said that the real ORIGINAL branch of conservatism is what these conservative libertarians are a part of. And why am I using this word? Because that's who the libertarians in the Republican Party are. You are beyond conversation now because you are refusing to use logic. When you disagree with someone, you insult them or twist what they say. Why are you asking me to read Huckabee's book? Why don't YOU read real conservative books by people like Barry Goldwater, Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Thomas Woods, etc. Heck, at least start with someone like Barry Goldwater who freaking FOUNDED the American conservative movement that leads us to even be talking about it today. I think we can agree that someone like Barry Goldwater has more say in this whole field of conservatism than anyone that ran for president in 2008.

These old right conservatives did not change their point of views. They have had consistent political records and have always supported smaller government. Congressman Paul, for example, has the most consistent voting record in congress. Simply put, real conservatives ARE libertarians like Reagan said.

I can't believe you're trying to say that these people are fake conservatives and you are getting this information form a governor who apparently supports leftist principles such as high taxes, big government, and an interventionist foreign policy. If you want to talk about fake conservatism you need only to look into a mirror. This is exactly why I said it was dead. It died just like liberalism. The word is still around, but the people who say they follow these principles are the complete opposite. Ages ago if you were a liberal it meant you supported liberty. That was lost, so then if you were a conservative it meant you supported liberty. I am saying that that is lost.

In order for me to believe you are an honest person the only thing I want you to do is say that Calvin Coolidge, Robert Taft, and Barry Goldwater are fake conservatives. Once you do that, at least I will know that you are being honest and are simply expressing an opinion I disagree with. If you can't do that in your next post... I probably won't even respond to you anymore. There comes a point in time in a debate where it's just going back and forth between nothing.

[nbhadja]

You have been fooled by the media. The right is the left.
The Dems and Reps both support a interventionist expensive foreign policy (obama is not anti war, look at his voting record for once), they both support the federal reserve, fiat currency, big government, the patriot act and other civil liberty losses, they do not follow the constitution, they support extreme economic regulation etc.


Obama/McCain, It's All the Same...

Foreign Policy
- Both support an aggressive, interventionist foreign policy
- Both support the "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive war on sovereign nations
- Neither support scaling down the enormous expenditure of policing and occupying the world by closing any one of the 700 bases we have in over 140 countries worldwide
- Both will expand the war in Iraq into Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria
- Both will expand U.N.

operations worldwide
- Both pay lip service to our continued support of Israel, while not mentioning the fact that we give 3 times as much monetary aid to its enemies
- Neither has mentioned the idea of not sending any monetary aid to other countries while the People of America suffer the consequences of a $1 trillion deficit and a $10 trillion + debt
- Both took an offensive stance against Russia, while supporting Georgia, the true aggressors in the Russian/Georgian conflict.. and of course neither has talked about just staying out of the situation all together
- Neither has taken anything, including a preemptive nuclear strike, off the table when dealing with Iran
- Neither support the humble, non-interventionist foreign policy that our Founding Fathers prescribed

Domestic Policy
- Both support the Patriot Act
- Both support the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
- Both will increase Federal spending
- Both support the expansion of our borders 100 miles inland effectively creating a "Constitution Free Zone" that encompasses 2/3 of all Americans
- Neither plan to abolish any one of the unconstitutional or redundant departments of the Federal government
- Both support the militarization of our police
- Both support the construction of hundreds of FEMA controlled detention camps across the US
- Neither plan on reinstating the Constitutional principle of property rights as a way of combating pollution
- Both support amnesty for illegal immigrants
- Both support the North American Union
- Both support NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO as opposed to truly free trade
- Neither support the 10th Amendment of our Bill of Rights by continuing the many unconstitutional programs and laws that do not fall under the authority of the Federal government
- Neither support a healthcare or education system controlled by the People as opposed to government bureaucracies and corporations
- Neither support states' rights in regard to drugs, education, abortion or marriage
- Neither support an un-infringed 2nd amendment

Economy
- Both support the unconstitutional Federal Reserve System
- Both support the redistribution of wealth via inflation
- Neither support free market solutions to our current economic situation
- Neither support Article 1 Sections 8 and 9 of the Constitution by continuing the confiscation of the People's money, gold and silver, in place of a FIAT currency system
- Both support an increased influence of such global government entities as the IMF and world bank
- Both supported the $850 billion+ Wall Street bailout bill (estimated to be 5 trillion dollars)<<<***********************************
- Both support expanding government intervention in our market
- Both support the income tax and 16th amendment
- Neither have alternative plans for the future of welfare programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicade but will both continue or even expand these programs that are bankrupting our nation

Miscellaneous
- Both have accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from banks, major corporations and lobbyists
- Both are supporters of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations
- Neither support continued investigations of the events of 9/11/01
- Neither believe in strict adherence to the Constitution
- Neither support holding charges against or the impeachment of President George W.

Bush for his blatant disregard of our Constitution and his breaking of so many laws thereof and international treaties
- Neither will grant full pardons to Ignacio Ramos or Jose Compean
- Both of their vice-presidential candidates plan to use more power than is vested in them by the Constitution
- Both believe the United States to be a Democracy as opposed to the Constitutional Republic that the Constitution and our Founding Fathers intended

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/383/ ... htsbm0.jpg

Both get paid by the same lobbyists.

[nbhadja]

"About your last statement... same could be said about Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and I guess Pat Buchanan (since you used him as an example before). They have their own version of conservatism and they try to convince their supporters that the other version is the wrong one."

Sorry buddy but people like Ron Paul have the same exact political views that the traditional party stood for. You are trying to avoid history. The REAL conservatives from back then opposed fiat currency, central banks, aggressive foreign policies, loss of civil liberties, big government, the government running the school system, the UN, etc.

If you wanna pretend the traditional conservatives voted for 5 trillion dollar socialize the bank bills (the bailout is estimated to cost 5 trillion dollars), trillion dollar wars against random countries, UNBALANCED BUDGETS BY TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS, supported central banks, fiat currency, economic regulations etc by all means be my guest. But you are kidding yourself if you actually believe it.

[Gambit]

Nice to see you've brought a fellow libertarian here to help you out, Jeremy...

"You have completely misquoted and misrepresented people like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan. You are not using logic whatsoever."

I could say the same thing about you and your misquoting and misrepresentation of Mike Huckabee.


History: Maybe that's the main problem with you hardcore libertarians. You seem to be stuck in the past and can't adapt to the current government, with all of its problems and need of reform. You people criticize anyone who doesn't agree with or abide by the "original branch" and definition of conservatism. Instead of working together to reform the GOP, you people decided to just cause problems within and even made your own (unsuccessful) party.

It's really sad that it has come to this. We should all be fighting on the same team and work together to make government better... because like you said, Jeremy (using the Reagan's words), "'real' conservatives are libertarians," right? But instead, it's just the same old bickering and labeling that's been occurring for decades, which again, causes dissention and division.

Oh, and I challenged you to read Huckabee's new book because you based your new-found hatred towards him due to reading comments on whatever Internet blog, article, or forum you visit, right? So instead of taking the words and opinions of those who dislike/disagree/hate Huckabee, how about reading his own words for yourself, instead of carefully selected excerpts on the Internet? Heck, don't even read the whole book, just read the chapter that you seem to have a major problem with, that started this whole argument here.

[Jeremy]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/featur ... ay2004.pdf

[Gambit]

"About your last statement... same could be said about Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and I guess Pat Buchanan (since you used him as an example before). They have their own version of conservatism and they try to convince their supporters that the other version is the wrong one."

Sorry buddy but people like Ron Paul have the same exact political views that the traditional party stood for. You are trying to avoid history. The REAL conservatives from back then opposed fiat currency, central banks, aggressive foreign policies, loss of civil liberties, big government, the government running the school system, the UN, etc.

If you wanna pretend the traditional conservatives voted for 5 trillion dollar socialize the bank bills (the bailout is estimated to cost 5 trillion dollars), trillion dollar wars against random countries, UNBALANCED BUDGETS BY TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS, supported central banks, fiat currency, economic regulations etc by all means be my guest. But you are kidding yourself if you actually believe it.

Before talking from your behind, please understand whom you're speaking to, newbie. You don't even know me, nor my posting history to claim that I am "trying to avoid history" or that I "wanna pretend the traditional conservatives voted for 5 trillion dollar... blah blah blah." I have been against this bailout and have been very vocal about it. Nice to see people ASSume things about me.

By the way, I just want to clarify something. History is very important. We learn from it, we don't repeat the same mistakes. However, we shouldn't make history the blueprint for what we do in modern-day politics. Those who live in the past and don't adapt to current times are just foolish. If people think that 2008 is even remotely similar to the political climate of the 60s and 70s or earlier, or that the economy is remotely similar, or the state of world affairs, then there's nothing more I can or should say to people who live in the past. I want America to regain the greatness it had in the past, but not relive the past.