CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Will Conservatives Blow It?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Will Conservatives Blow It?

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 
It's been discussed before, but the author of "What's the Matter With Kansas?" is on John Stewart right now talking about the Conservative tendency to paint themselves as victims.

Clearly the anti-everything crowd feels emboldened right now, as we see in any number of cases...the drawing and quartering of Arlen Specter, the quasi-banning of Saving Private Ryan.

I can't help but think they're going to push it way too far and lose all their power. Much as the conservative, buttoned-down 50s erupted in the leftward political movement of the 60s and 70s (anti-establishment, down with materialism, don't conform), which in turn eventually fizzled and became the materialistic, "Team America" 80s (and, arguably, 90s). I think things have been pretty stabilized for a while now, but we're seeing the tipping point in which the extremists start to send people fleeing in the other direction. Bush was lucky, he got re-elected JUST under the wire, at the point when conservatives wielded the most power. Of course, it's the re-election and the emboldening (these people were kept honest by the knowledge that Bush and the conservatives didn't really have a mandate last time) that could easily contribute to this tipping point anyway.

I know the argument has been, "Well, they turned a blind eye to everything Bush did until now", but this isn't about Bush so much as it is social conservativism and activist groups. I think we're getting a sense that these people, now that "their side" won the election, are cutting loose and demanding supreme power, which is going to really scare everyone off. I mean, you have to be pretty hardcore conservative not to think the FCC/SPR thing is stupid...indeed, if there's a movie conservatives in general can get behind, it's SPR, and watching it get slapped down probably won't sit right with most normal people.

I just don't see the usual rhetoric about "the forces of paganism" encroaching on America having much clout outside the usual circles in the next little while. And indeed, that Liberals will legitimately be able to claim victimhood before much longer, and have people take them seriously.
post #2 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster
I can't help but think they're going to push it way too far and lose all their power. Much as the conservative, buttoned-down 50s erupted in the leftward political movement of the 60s and 70s (anti-establishment, down with materialism, don't conform), which in turn eventually fizzled and became the materialistic, "Team America" 80s (and, arguably, 90s).
The 60's were also the result of the post-WWII demographic explosion, with all the baby-boomers being young and idealistic at the same time, and then growing older and to the right through the 80s and 90s. Maybe with the hispanic immigration we're going to see another demographic boom and a shift to the left in the US?

I agree that we are currently more like the 50s now, but I think it's going to take a while before the left takes the upper hand again - and it's going to have to be a worldwide effort, not just the Democrats winning a few seats but the real left making its voice heard like at Seattle in 99.
post #3 of 24
The way I see it, the whole system runs in cycles: left, right, left, right, so on. Lately the cycles have become more like wobbles. They've been shorter, and the distance between the ideological peaks has shrunk. The post-Clinton conservative cycle started downhill halfway through Bush's term, when the country began to become heavily divided. But instead of allowing a natural shift to the left, the Republicans used rhetorical tricks (gay marriage and the like) to hang on, even while their policies collapsed.

So what we have now is a Republican majority who are busy screaming about 'moral values' even while the floor falls out from beneath them in the more mundane, day-to-day aspects of government and society. The country can't swing permanently to the right, and until the current conservative domination of the country ends, the shift towards liberalism is going to grow ever stronger. There's no telling how long this trend can continue, but at some point people are bound to notice that the country they live in isn't as nice as it used to be, and the longer that takes, the more violent the backlash is going to be.
post #4 of 24
You know, from an outsider's POV the Democrats really don't represent the left at all - here in Europe they'd be center-right, with the Republicans far-right. So it seems that since the 60s the US has been shifting between different shades of right. A real leftist backlash is only going to come from a third party or a real push of anti-globalisation forces, which is going to be extremely hard as long as the mainstream media are controlled by giant corporate entities.
post #5 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster
I mean, you have to be pretty hardcore conservative not to think the FCC/SPR thing is stupid...indeed, if there's a movie conservatives in general can get behind, it's SPR, and watching it get slapped down probably won't sit right with most normal people.
I think most of the conservatives see the SPR as some station ownership(probably viewed as left leaning) saying screw you to the FCC. This will point the anger at the stations not the FCC per say. The FCC can not say up front what is indecent, as it would infringe 1st amendments but the stations need to decide based on judgement and past FCC fines.
Also they've all moved on to bitching about the monday night football intro anyhow.
post #6 of 24
America as a whole is tending more towards conservatism, even among the younger crowd. Essentially, the twenty-somethings are seeing the fallout of the free-spirit 60s and 70s had in the older generation; drugs, broken families, STDs, and the like, and want little to do with it. I expect that this will continue for a few more years, at which point lessons learned will be forgotten, and we'll start the cycle over again.
post #7 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas.galvin
America as a whole is tending more towards conservatism, even among the younger crowd. Essentially, the twenty-somethings are seeing the fallout of the free-spirit 60s and 70s had in the older generation; drugs, broken families, STDs, and the like, and want little to do with it. I expect that this will continue for a few more years, at which point lessons learned will be forgotten, and we'll start the cycle over again.
Broken families are not limited to 'free-spirit' people. Plenty of conservative marriages have become broken. Take Rush's third divorce for example. And there are some marriages that stay togeather because of conservative leanings, when they really shouldn't. For example women who stay married to wife beaters because divorce is wrong. Spread of STD's is in part because of irresponsibility. A person can be a swinger, and have a low risk of STDs because they take proper precautions, while a more 'conservative' person does not take proper precautions due to lack of real sex education.

The lessons we are learning by the current situation is fear, corruption, cronyism, greed, and one not fear repercusions of their actions.
post #8 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by marc
Broken families are not limited to 'free-spirit' people. Plenty of conservative marriages have become broken. Take Rush's third divorce for example.
No, but marriage, on the whole, is seen as less important, and less 'sacred,' now than in previous times. The divorce rate it over 50%, and this is in no way healthy. The spirit of the 60s and onward was 'me first, everyone else if I can get to them,' and the current generation is seeing just how destructive that attitude is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marc
And there are some marriages that stay togeather because of conservative leanings, when they really shouldn't. For example women who stay married to wife beaters because divorce is wrong.
Hardly the norm. Generally, women stay in bad relationships because of emotional / psychological issues. Their sense of self worth is generally very low, they basically lack the ability to defend themselves from emotional attacks, etc. Their sense of self-worth is completely tied up in their relationship with a man, even if that man beats them. Conservative or liberal ideology has very little to do with it.

The conservative view on things is that, if you made a mistake, and the guy/girl you married isn't the person of your dreams, the health and stability of the children is more important, and the marriage should continue. The liberal view is that personal happiness is more important, and that the marriage should be abandoned. Both sides agree that, in the case of abuse, the woman should leave, and the man should be neutered with a slow, hot knife.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marc
Spread of STD's is in part because of irresponsibility. A person can be a swinger, and have a low risk of STDs because they take proper precautions, while a more 'conservative' person does not take proper precautions due to lack of real sex education.
Or, hey, you can have a monogomous relationship, and not have to worry about it. Sex education is attempting to address the symptom (disease) and is ignoring the problem (promiscuousness.) On top of that, it is largly agreed that Freud got it all wrong, and that promiscuity actually lessens a person's ability to feel loved, fulfilled, and valuable. It's quite sad, actually. People are going out of their way to try and let people cast off as much restraint as possible, only to learn that those restraints were actually there for their benifit. They get everything they ever thought they wanted, only to find it empty.

On the other saide, "if you don't want kids, wear a rubber" doesn't exactly require a college education.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marc
The lessons we are learning by the current situation is fear, corruption, cronyism, greed, and one not fear repercusions of their actions.
In the current political climate, I agree. I'm talking more about social moores, though.
post #9 of 24
Quote:
The conservative view on things is that, if you made a mistake, and the guy/girl you married isn't the person of your dreams, the health and stability of the children is more important, and the marriage should continue. The liberal view is that personal happiness is more important, and that the marriage should be abandoned.
Give me a goddamed break.
post #10 of 24
The Conservative view is that it's better for the children to watch their parents in a loveless marriage? Are you trying to make conservatives sound stupid?
post #11 of 24
Quote:
Galvin said:
No, but marriage, on the whole, is seen as less important, and less 'sacred,' now than in previous times.
What? Then why all the furor over the evil "we dont' want no fags gettin' married" amendments? And why did a sizeable section of Bush voters consider "morals" as the key issue?
post #12 of 24
The first president to have had a divorce was a liberal, right?
post #13 of 24
Which is why red states have lower divorce rates than blue states. No wait, they don't.
post #14 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas.galvin
No, but marriage, on the whole, is seen as less important, and less 'sacred,' now than in previous times. The divorce rate it over 50%, and this is in no way healthy. The spirit of the 60s and onward was 'me first, everyone else if I can get to them,' and the current generation is seeing just how destructive that attitude is.
But you miss the point. The divorce rate is just as high, and by some studies higher, among the conservatives who do not go in for the 'spirit of the 60s'.


Quote:
Generally, women stay in bad relationships because of emotional / psychological issues. Their sense of self worth is generally very low, they basically lack the ability to defend themselves from emotional attacks, etc. Their sense of self-worth is completely tied up in their relationship with a man, even if that man beats them. Conservative or liberal ideology has very little to do with it.
Again you miss the point, how in some cases divorce is a good thing. That conservative attitude against it can sometimes promote bad situations. I know a woman who was regularly beaten in her marriage. She had married into a supposedly good Baptist family. The one time she brought up divorce he threatened her life, saying the only way she would leave him was in a casket. You can in no way convince me that when she managed to get out of there and get a divorce it wasn't a good thing.



Quote:
The conservative view on things is that, if you made a mistake, and the guy/girl you married isn't the person of your dreams, the health and stability of the children is more important, and the marriage should continue.
How is it good for the children to be in a house where their parents don't love each other and fight constantly?




Quote:
Or, hey, you can have a monogomous relationship, and not have to worry about it. Sex education is attempting to address the symptom (disease) and is ignoring the problem (promiscuousness.)
Real Sex education does not ignore the value of abstinance. It is however realistic and give people the information on how to be safe if they choose to have sex. Promiscuity does not have anything to do with it, you only need to have sex once to catch something. (or even share needles or some other unhealthy practice) The conservative approach of abstinance only is naive and irresponsible. It actually leads to a rise in STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Sex education deals with the problem and the ways to avoid or deal with it. Conservative abstinance only or no education simply ignores the problem and human nature, letting the problem just happen.




Quote:
On the other saide, "if you don't want kids, wear a rubber" doesn't exactly require a college education.
Nope, but all the reasons behind the need for rubbers, spermacide, and other contraceptives could drive home the point enough so kids would insist on using them.
post #15 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravedigger
What? Then why all the furor over the evil "we dont' want no fags gettin' married" amendments? And why did a sizeable section of Bush voters consider "morals" as the key issue?
As I worte above, it's starting to swing back to the other side.
post #16 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by marc
But you miss the point. The divorce rate is just as high, and by some studies higher, among the conservatives who do not go in for the 'spirit of the 60s'.
I'm not using "conservative" and "liberal" here to mean "republican" and "democrate." The traditional view of marriage as a lifelong, sacred commitment has largly been abandoned, and children are paying as a result of that. Whether it is being adandoned for the hot secretary or the higher salary is relativly unimportant. In this context, a card-carying Republican CEO that divorces his wife has a more 'liberal' view of marriage, i.e., that divorce is an acceptable solution to boredome, etc.

Also, I would wonder what the marriage rates are among the more free-spirited. I would guess that more in the hippie set didn't bother to get married at all, which would deflate their divorce numbers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by marc
Again you miss the point, how in some cases divorce is a good thing. That conservative attitude against it can sometimes promote bad situations. I know a woman who was regularly beaten in her marriage. She had married into a supposedly good Baptist family. The one time she brought up divorce he threatened her life, saying the only way she would leave him was in a casket. You can in no way convince me that when she managed to get out of there and get a divorce it wasn't a good thing.
It was nice of you to clip the part of my post where I already addressed this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marc
How is it good for the children to be in a house where their parents don't love each other and fight constantly?
Maybe, just maybe, the parents can act like mature adults, go to marriage counseling, and learn how to sustain a relationship past the "hey, you look good naked and it's fun to screw each other" stage of things. Maybe, just maybe, there are learnable skills that will help keep a relationship loving, healthy, and life-giving. Maybe, if people valued their marriage and their families more than they do today, they would investigate these options, and we would see a decline both in loveless marriage and divorce.
post #17 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas.galvin
I'm not using "conservative" and "liberal" here to mean "republican" and "democrate."
Neither am I.

Quote:
It was nice of you to clip the part of my post where I already addressed this.
yes, you did express disdane for abusive husbands... and ignored how the conservative idea of marriage for life always contributes to people being stuck in such relationships. Like Ireland where divorce was illegal, and when they tried to amend their laws to change that Mother Thereasa lobbied to keep the law as it was.



Quote:
Maybe, just maybe, the parents can act like mature adults, go to marriage counseling, and learn how to sustain a relationship past the "hey, you look good naked and it's fun to screw each other" stage of things. Maybe, just maybe, there are learnable skills that will help keep a relationship loving, healthy, and life-giving. Maybe, if people valued their marriage and their families more than they do today, they would investigate these options, and we would see a decline both in loveless marriage and divorce.
and when that counceling fails? And maybe, just maybe, a couple can be mature adults and realize their incompatability, get divorced, and still have an amicable relationship in which the both care for their children and raise them in a loving environment. Maybe if people valued truth and reality they would see a sham marriage for what it was and take steps so both people would be much happier.
post #18 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by marc
yes, you did express disdane for abusive husbands... and ignored how the conservative idea of marriage for life always contributes to people being stuck in such relationships. Like Ireland where divorce was illegal, and when they tried to amend their laws to change that Mother Thereasa lobbied to keep the law as it was.
Even the Bible allows for divorce in some circumstances. You're setting up a strawman, and pretending that we are saying divorce is never an acceptable laternative, when we are besically saying that it should, for the most part, be the last alternative. People take marriage, family, and divorce far too lightly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marc
and when that counceling fails? And maybe, just maybe, a couple can be mature adults and realize their incompatability, get divorced, and still have an amicable relationship in which the both care for their children and raise them in a loving environment.
And at least they would have tried to rebuild their relationship, and tried to keep their family intact, which is the better solution. If it doesn't work out, it is time to reevaluate, but people these days don't even try. It's been a nive five years, let me know when I can pick up my half of the stuff, oh, and do you want the kids for Christmas, or thanksgiving? It's too easy, much a part of our culture.
post #19 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas.galvin
The conservative view on things is that, if you made a mistake, and the guy/girl you married isn't the person of your dreams, the health and stability of the children is more important, and the marriage should continue. The liberal view is that personal happiness is more important, and that the marriage should be abandoned.
I know there's been a lot of conversation since this, but I just wanted to point at it again for laughs.
post #20 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas.galvin
Even the Bible allows for divorce in some circumstances. You're setting up a strawman, and pretending that we are saying divorce is never an acceptable laternative, when we are besically saying that it should, for the most part, be the last alternative. People take marriage, family, and divorce far too lightly.

And at least they would have tried to rebuild their relationship, and tried to keep their family intact, which is the better solution. If it doesn't work out, it is time to reevaluate, but people these days don't even try. It's been a nive five years, let me know when I can pick up my half of the stuff, oh, and do you want the kids for Christmas, or thanksgiving? It's too easy, much a part of our culture.
That's an interesting assumption-that most divorced people didn't try to keep their family intact. You are setting up a strawman pretending that most divorced people think divorce is always an acceptable "laternative" and that a majority of marriages that end in divorce were casually tossed aside like a Wal-Mart blouse. Seems more logical to assume that those that bothered to get married had some vested interest in remaining so.

"People these days don't even try" is a blanket statement trotted out when you actually have no idea what a married couple is doing in their private life to resolve their conflicts. Unless you see proof of beatings or extramarital sex, you seem happy to assume that "nothing was tried" and that the marriage was abandoned in a selfish act of personal happiness (as referenced by you in post #8).

On a side note- I know my happiness reached a high point when I divorced my ex-husband. It was a "nive five years" and I got all the stuff. Woot!
post #21 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by marc
Broken families are not limited to 'free-spirit' people. Plenty of conservative marriages have become broken. Take Rush's third divorce for example.
My favourite example is Newt "moral purity" Gingrich informing one future former wife of his intent to divorce her over the phone and serving the divorce papers to another future former wife while she was being treated for cancer in the hospital. He's also dodged his alimony and child-care payments. Galvin's blanket generalization of what the conservative and liberal views are, is nonsense.
post #22 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas.galvin
America as a whole is tending more towards conservatism, even among the younger crowd. Essentially, the twenty-somethings are seeing the fallout of the free-spirit 60s and 70s had in the older generation; drugs, broken families, STDs, and the like, and want little to do with it. I expect that this will continue for a few more years, at which point lessons learned will be forgotten, and we'll start the cycle over again.
Especially if this nonsense about only funding abstinence-only sex-ed programs continues. Good idea, that.
post #23 of 24
post #24 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentOrange

Genius!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Will Conservatives Blow It?