Examples of Conservative idealism success?

[MigL]

Those examples are a good idea in 'good economic' times.

In 'bad economic' times, you end up with a bunch of college grads who can't find a job.

Do you think it would be wise for Greece to implement those policies ?

 

Now you could make the argument that providing "free' college degrees provides equal opportunities for people, but if the cost provides billions of dollars to foreign banks, from whom you borrowed the money to pay for these 'opportunities', who are you really helping ?

 

I've found that often Republicans and Democrats use the same policies, and make the same bad decisions; Conservatives grow the government and overspend, Liberals start wars and contribute to the industrio-military complex. And sometimes they can both make good decisions.

Its only when they become ideological about their decision making, and either refuse to collaborate with the opposition on an arguably good decision, or, stick to making a bad decision for the circumstances because its 'their policy', that they screw things up ( and yes, I know, the Republicans, as of late, are much more guilty of this ).

 

I also think that this is a 'bait' topic, and you hope to pounce on anyone who makes a suggestion of a 'good' conservative policy, and feel good about yourself for putting down those evil Conservatives. Maybe your 'ideology' is showing a bit.

[Ten oz]

Those examples are a good idea in 'good economic' times.

In 'bad economic' times, you end up with a bunch of college grads who can't find a job.

Do you think it would be wise for Greece to implement those policies ?

 

Now you could make the argument that providing "free' college degrees provides equal opportunities for people, but if the cost provides billions of dollars to foreign banks, from whom you borrowed the money to pay for these 'opportunities', who are you really helping ?

 

I've found that often Republicans and Democrats use the same policies, and make the same bad decisions; Conservatives grow the government and overspend, Liberals start wars and contribute to the industrio-military complex. And sometimes they can both make good decisions.

Its only when they become ideological about their decision making, and either refuse to collaborate with the opposition on an arguably good decision, or, stick to making a bad decision for the circumstances because its 'their policy', that they screw things up ( and yes, I know, the Republicans, as of late, are much more guilty of this ).

 

I also think that this is a 'bait' topic, and you hope to pounce on anyone who makes a suggestion of a 'good' conservative policy, and feel good about yourself for putting down those evil Conservatives. Maybe your 'ideology' is showing a bit.

My ideology is showing a bit? I am asking for examples and you are responding in platitudes. I have never said one system is perfect or even better. I simply asked for examples of the policies advocated for by conservatives being successful. I suppose I have defined successful as being good for the majority of the governed population but I do not feel that is a terrible high bar to set for messuring a government policy.

This is not a "bait topic". This is a standard review. For example If i were on a committee commissioned to build a rail system in a congested city first step would be to look at other cities that have rail systems and figure out what has worked, what hasn't worked, why what has work did well, and what caused the ones that struggled to not succeed. There is something to learn from what has already been tried.

If you start a thread asking for examples of progressive ideals that have been successful do you honestly think I or others would challange your thread and call it a "bait topic".

[MigL]

I may have been a little 'harsh' on you, Ten oz.

Is it only current examples you want, or can we include examples from the past ?

 

The conservatives ( Republicans ) were once champions of equal rights, for example.

And liberals ( Democrats ) got the US into the original 'quagmire' called the Vietnam War.

[Ten oz]

I may have been a little 'harsh' on you, Ten oz.

Is it only current examples you want, or can we include examples from the past ?

 

The conservatives ( Republicans ) were once champions of equal rights, for example.

And liberals ( Democrats ) got the US into the original 'quagmire' called the Vietnam War.

I am referencing current advocated policies. Politician A says we must do blank to help the economy while politician B says blank won't work. What examples can we use to evalute how those ideas have worked in the past. That is the question I am asking.

I use Conservative and Republican interchangably because for voting purposes they are but do understand the two aren't equal. As a party both traditionally and currently many members of the Republican party are arguably as moderate on most issues as the bulk of Democrats. However the strength of their support is in extremely conservative pockets that force candidates/issues to the right. The Tea Party movement which gained congressional seats and ousted traditional Republicans is an example. If conservatives truly started their own party, Tea Party as a third party, Republicans would be finished nationally. They would not control the House, Senate, or courts and would have no shot at the White House. With that in mind my question is not Republican vs Deomocrat. I honestly do not believe on a personal level there is not much difference between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. What is difference is the pressure placed on them by wings within their party. The same is not true for Democrats. If the liberal wing left the brand overall would survive. The Party is not as strongly influenced by support from left of center. So may question is directed at the conservative wing which for better or worse currently drives the Republican Party platform though are not idealogically on par with all party members.

[John Cuthber]

You need a citation for the fact that, if not for the US, all of Germany would have been like East Germany ?

Any book on the Cold War, CharonY.

 

 

True.

On the other hand, how Capitalistic is it for the government to spend vast amounts of the taxpayers' money on running an army?

(ditto the military /industrial complex).

Using tax dollars t fund huge research projects like the "tube alloys" project is hardly a "small government" policy.

So, the defeat of the Germans in WWII and of the Soviet Union decades later can't be viewed as capitalist.

[overtone]

 

 

So, the defeat of the Germans in WWII and of the Soviet Union decades later can't be viewed as capitalist.

 

Germany was defeated largely by the Soviet Union in WWII - an example of capitalists being defeated by communists. The Soviet Union was driven into economic collapse decades later by - among other things - trying to match the huge military expenditures of the United States without the necessary line of credit. The US beat them by being able to borrow fantastic sums of money.

[MigL]

No, what I said was any book on the Cold War.

Of course the defeat of Germany in WW2, and the Soviet Union can't be viewed as capitalist triumphs.

 

But the standard of living during the Cold War for the Soviet controlled East Germans, as compared to the American ( and others ) assisted West Germans, can be.

[Phi for All]

The conservatives ( Republicans ) were once champions of equal rights, for example.

 

What is conservative about championing equal rights? I guess it could be argued that inalienable rights just make a basic, foundational sense for a government, and should be championed on principle. But most of my championing these days is in direct opposition to the behaviors conservative males have inflicted upon the population. And why aren't Republicans and conservatives still supporting this mighty conservative policy? If they've dropped it, it must not have been very successful for them.

 

I would like to hear why you think there are any successful policies that have come out of modern political conservatism. Beyond things like "Taxes are bad except when you need to pay for things", is there really any substance to requiring that everybody has to do the conservative bootstrap-pull in order to be worthy in your eyes? Most conservatives I know are just afraid people on welfare are out jet-skiing all day (which has been proven false) while they work hard, and they're convinced others are getting something for free that they aren't entitled to because they're the good guys doing it right. Corporations love using that fear to change regs and social programs for their benefit.

 

So what happened? Did the people who's rights you used to champion change? Did they fail to pass the humanity test, or at least the conservative version of it?

[John Cuthber]

No, what I said was any book on the Cold War.

Of course the defeat of Germany in WW2, and the Soviet Union can't be viewed as capitalist triumphs.

 

But the standard of living during the Cold War for the Soviet controlled East Germans, as compared to the American ( and others ) assisted West Germans, can be.

So, you choose to compare capitalism with a tin-pot8 dictatorship.

OK, that will probably make it look good, but...

 

* presumably Stalin would prefer to call it a steel pot.

[MigL]

Now who's moving goalposts John?

Isuggest a re-reading of the origina lcomment made by DimaMazin ( I believe ), and the follow-up responses.

 

Are you 'suggesting' I'm a conservative because I refuse to blinder myself to issues and don't blindly follow ideology Phi ?

Capitalism and socialism can be regarded as off-shoots of conservatism and liberalism.

I suggest that for a just and evolving sociey,both are needed. Sometimes more of one than the other.

Capitalism rewards those who strive for success. Socialism makes sure everyone has equivalent opportunity to achieve that success.

The two should never be mutually exclusive.

Edited August 11, 2015 by MigL

[Willie71]

Capitalism is not evil. I don't think any major political brand in the westernized world advocates against capitalism. It is the taxation, regulation, and management of key markets that divide the political parties. This thread is asking for examples of success when using the model advocated be Conservatves. We are all well aware of examples of various amount of socialism being successful. Where you live in Canada there is socialist medicine. What are the examples where low taxation, major roll backs on regulations, and purely profit driven solutions for education, medicine, pensions, and etc have successfully helped the majority of a countries residents?

There aren't any is the short answer. In Canada, Harper has been trying to Reaganize our country, and the results are disastrous. In Alberta, the provincial Conservatives destroyed the economy, let the infrastructure crumble, and wasted decades of oil revenues, to the tune of massive debt. Giving the big corporations handouts paid for by the populace doesn't work out well for the majority.

 

Don't get me wrong, bloated leftist regimes can do damage as well, but the sweet spot seems to be the centrist/center left position.

[Ten oz]

There aren't any is the short answer. In Canada, Harper has been trying to Reaganize our country, and the results are disastrous. In Alberta, the provincial Conservatives destroyed the economy, let the infrastructure crumble, and wasted decades of oil revenues, to the tune of massive debt. Giving the big corporations handouts paid for by the populace doesn't work out well for the majority.

 

Don't get me wrong, bloated leftist regimes can do damage as well, but the sweet spot seems to be the centrist/center left position.

Center Left by Canadian standards may perhaps be further left than exist as a major party wing in the United States.

[Willie71]

Center Left by Canadian standards may perhaps be further left than exist as a major party wing in the United States.

Center, and center left exist independent of the misuse of the terms by the American corporate media. I've looked at the economies of a lot of countries in the developed world, and saw two major trends. Center left governments did better overall. Secondly, and government in power more than 10 years became corrupt, and tanked the economy. It's hard to find exceptions to those two themes.

 

Bernie Sanders is center left. He's not a communist, or a Soviet Union type socialist. He's a European/Canadian type democratic socialist.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Willie71

[Ten oz]

Center, and center left exist independent of the misuse of the terms by the American corporate media. I've looked at the economies of a lot of countries in the developed world, and saw two major trends. Center left governments did better overall. Secondly, and government in power more than 10 years became corrupt, and tanked the economy. It's hard to find exceptions to those two themes.

 

Bernie Sanders is center left. He's not a communist, or a Soviet Union type socialist. He's a European/Canadian type democratic socialist.

Great response. I like that you have taken the conversation global.

 

Throughout Central and South America the trend does appear to be as you have said. Center left with a fluid rotation of leadership works best. However that isn't a standard that can exist everywhere. At least not in the present. In the middle east for example strong long empowered groups seem to at least create stability. Countries like Qatar, UAE, Jordan, and etc have a very long way to go but are racing toward the center compared to many other countries in the region that aren't basically lead by monarchs. Education, infrastructure, and standards of living is better. Plus Capitalism and globalization does seem to be putting pressure on the wealthy monarchs to address migrant worker and womens rights. Meanwhile all "democracies" the west has attempted to foster in the region are only getting worse in every measurable way.

 

Of course wars and foreign power interventions have a huge impact. Impossible to say how well any system would work in true isolation.

[John Cuthber]

Now who's moving goalposts John?

Isuggest a re-reading of the origina lcomment made by DimaMazin ( I believe ), and the follow-up responses.

 

Are you 'suggesting' I'm a conservative because I refuse to blinder myself to issues and don't blindly follow ideology Phi ?

Capitalism and socialism can be regarded as off-shoots of conservatism and liberalism.

I suggest that for a just and evolving sociey,both are needed. Sometimes more of one than the other.

Capitalism rewards those who strive for success. Socialism makes sure everyone has equivalent opportunity to achieve that success.

The two should never be mutually exclusive.

Well what he said was "US protect Germany from russian chaos otherwise the level of living will be low."

It's rather hard to know what he meant.

it may be a reference to the Berlin airlift etc- this sort of thing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ich_bin_ein_Berliner

in which case the fact that the Soviets had to build a wall to stop people leaving would, I accept, count as pretty much proof that the West was seen as much more successful than the East.

But It may also have referred to later in the Cold War when West Germany was doing fine without much help from the US.

The point remains that the USSR is no longer a communist state (arguably it never was) and it's still struggling.

 

Maybe it's just taking its time to get going or maybe there's some more fundamental problem there. perhaps it's left over from the USSR but they didn't turn "communist" because the previous "capitalist" system had been an overwhelming success.

 

in any event, comparing the extreme Right to a bizarre parody of the Left isn't going to help much.

[Willie71]

Great response. I like that you have taken the conversation global.

Throughout Central and South America the trend does appear to be as you have said. Center left with a fluid rotation of leadership works best. However that isn't a standard that can exist everywhere. At least not in the present. In the middle east for example strong long empowered groups seem to at least create stability. Countries like Qatar, UAE, Jordan, and etc have a very long way to go but are racing toward the center compared to many other countries in the region that aren't basically lead by monarchs. Education, infrastructure, and standards of living is better. Plus Capitalism and globalization does seem to be putting pressure on the wealthy monarchs to address migrant worker and womens rights. Meanwhile all "democracies" the west has attempted to foster in the region are only getting worse in every measurable way.

Of course wars and foreign power interventions have a huge impact. Impossible to say how well any system would work in true isolation.

I am going to have to do more reading on areas of the world not in the news much. Israel is becoming quite the war mongering oppressive state. American News and politicians are in love with Israel, but in Canada, our leaders for the next election are making comments on possible boycotts. There is a petition in Britain I believe, with 40,000 signatures to bring Netanyahu up on war crimes. It would be political suicide to discuss this as a politician in the U.S.

[MigL]

Really ?

When was the last time you heard an Israeli politician say they wanted to wipe one of its neighbouring countries off the map ?

 

And Israel is the only country in the area that COULD do it !

[CharonY]

But that is the point of posturing, isn't it? Israel does not need to, as it has the military superiority.

[overtone]

When was the last time you heard an Israeli politician say they wanted to wipe one of its neighbouring countries off the map ?

When did a non-Israeli politician say that?

 

A few years ago there was a bad mistranslation of an Iranian President's speech widely publicized by the Zionist propaganda outlets and several Israeli politicians, that included that phrase, but the folks to blame for that would be the Zionist propaganda amplifiers - including the Israeli politicians: Is that what you meant?

 

 

 

 

And Israel is the only country in the area that COULD do it !

Which is why they can't say it - admitting they are packing that threat would create a crisis situation in the US, where rogue nuclear powers are forbidden by law to receive any US aid or favorable trade status etc.

 

 

 

Capitalism and socialism can be regarded as off-shoots of conservatism and liberalism

Capitalism is - historically - an offshoot of liberalism. Edited August 19, 2015 by overtone

[Willie71]

Really ?

When was the last time you heard an Israeli politician say they wanted to wipe one of its neighbouring countries off the map ?

 

And Israel is the only country in the area that COULD do it !

Israel is known to be treating the Palestinian people quite poorly. The occupation in the Gaza Strip is pretty brutal. The threat against Israel is quite small, looking at it objectively. It's amped up to intensify the fear mongering to justify war.

[John Cuthber]

Perhaps a more interesting question is Who is actually wiping another country off the map?

 

[MigL]

Palestine wasn't declared a country until 1988.

By a government in exile.

 

So your first three maps, while very pretty, aren't pertinent to your argument.

Edited August 19, 2015 by MigL

[John Cuthber]

Well, congratulations on turning this on it's head

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppose_They_Gave_a_War_and_Nobody_Came

 

It seems you think they had a war in a place that didn't exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%9348_Civil_War_in_Mandatory_Palestine

 

Do you understand why I might disagree with your view that it needed to be "declared" before it was a country?

 

Juts to clarify the terminology; from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine

"During its existence it was known simply as Palestine, but, in retrospect, as distinguishers, a variety of other names and descriptors including Mandatory or Mandate Palestine, also British Palestine and the British Mandate of Palestine, have been used to refer to it."

[MigL]

Sure, but since we're both sticklers for accuracy, you did say

"Who is actually wiping another COUNTRY off the map?".

[John Cuthber]

I apologise for making it less clear to you; I guess I should have said nation or something.