Essay: Everyone's a Conservative

[Jake Patterson]

No Child Left Behind was pushed by a Republican president and passed
by a Republican Congress. Notice I did not say a "conservative"
president or Congress. We'll come back to that later. The point is
that this act was used by the Democratic party as a hammer with which
to bludgeon the other party. It has been an enjoyable and powerful
tool to use. It gave the Democrats such a strong standing. We agreed
with them because the tenets of NCLB were so reprehensible and went
against our values and common sense.

Enter the Democratic Congress. And our Democratic president.
Promising change. CHANGE! Actually read up on what he intends with
the bill. Nothing. His appointee as Secretary of Education is not
aiming to do much about it. They may allow the law to be changed
piecemeal, but they aren't looking to get rid of it. This is
something they've hated for years, something they've beat Bush to
death with. But they'll take it for themselves and do with it what
they want. I find this interesting. And it makes me ask why? Why
would they deal with it this way?

Perhaps it is because it expands the government's power. And while
the parties will battle against each other, neither will get rid of
something that expands their power. Look at this example. The power
of the presidential role expanded a lot under FDR, but then remained
relatively stagnant until Reagan. Then Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush,
and now Obama, and they all have somewhat expanded the role of the
president. The power of the president, or the Federal government.
It's all about power.


Flashback to 1800, an extremely relevant election on which our party
system is based and the traditional "conservative" and "liberal" views
were first established. But back then, the conservative Federalists
backed John Adams. They believed that the government should be large
and powerful, like the monarchies of Europe, to have power over the
states and the people. The Madison's Republicans backed Thomas
Jefferson and they were the liberals, who were fiscally responsible
minimalists who believed in live and let live.

What happened? How have we completely flip-flopped (sorry to use that
phrase)? At least, how have the people with their ideologies gone
from calling big-government people conservatives to calling them
liberals? How did fiscally responsible minimalists go from being
liberals to being conservatives?

Actually that doesn't bother me nearly as much as this question: Which
party is the conservative party? I would answer in the traditional
sense, both of them. In the modern usage, neither one. Look at the
support of No Child Left Behind. It's unpopular with the people so
it's an easy sledge to use against one's political opponents. But
neither is willing to get rid of it because it lets them lord over the
education system so powerfully. Other than attempts to appeal for
votes, both sides desire the same thing. Both are traditional
conservatives.

[Scott Nesler]

Most relevant topic for a page I need to expand on the Do Good Gauge
abstract.

http://www.dogoodgauge.com/site/DoGoodGauge/page_contents/display/57

I feel it is unreasonable to pin the term conservative or liberal to a
party. It makes more since to tie the terms to an argument or area
of expertise. There are some topics which have concrete answers
or where trained individuals have proven methods for a problem. In
these cases a conservative mindset is warranted. As for the
economic philosophy, I don't know if my opinion is closer to the
truth, but my upbringing has taught me to spend what I can afford and
to put money aside for less prosperous times. I would call this
conservative as well.

With most complex arguments I realize there are many attributes and
the potential for collateral damage can be high. On these topics I
believe a liberal or open minded approach is needed. From a
polarization point of view I don't see this as opposite of a stern
dead-set position. Instead it is more of a middle of the road
position.

I've mentioned this in other threads, but I don't see argument
positioning as a polarizing line. I see most arguments analogistic
to balancing a marble on a plate, where the center represents a common
solution and opposition are thumbs tugging at a corner of the plate.

I would suggest Orwellian framing is a large factor in the confusing
the liberal/conservative ownership. As a frame, "No Child Left
Behind" sounds like a liberal cause. My take is it is a ploy by a
group of individuals wanting to destroy public education and sponge
public funding to private schools. Of course, my opinion is just
one thumb pushing on the corner of the plate.

Here is another one of my paranoid theories. At one time the
Libertarian party was considered a bunch of nut jobs. Their motto
was to drag Federal Government to the bathtub, where they can drawn
it. By far Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have run up the highest
deficits since FDR. The fascination by conservatives with these two
presidents may have more to do with the Libertarian motto than fiscal
responsibility.

Sorry, I realize I'm leaning in one direction. I hope Jake's
topic becomes a long House of Junto discussion. I would love use
some of the material to provide balance on the Do Good Gauge page I
mentioned above. The goal of my page is to discount polarizing
methods which discourage solutions for the common good.

[Jake Patterson]

I agree with a standing ovation that the labels "conservative" and
"liberal" ought not to be applied to the parties. They are arguments,
they are ideologies. But they're not parties. They do tend to appeal
to one persuasion or the other, but not strictly.

And it drives me crazy when people try to pretend that they do.

Plenty more paranoid theories to add to yours, Scott! But that's a
discussion for another time.

> > conservatives.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Scott Nesler]

I have a second essay I'm working on which is related to Jake's
post. The essay is called "Just answer the D%@n Question".

As an I.T. professional I have seen my share of big six consultants
who come in with an answer for every question. Even though it may
not be the right answer. A friend of mine who worked for Andersen
Consulting mentioned the company ingrained this tactic into their
consultants. I actually do not appreciate the tactic. It may
impress the less technical managers, but in the end it results in
miscommunicated requirements. It is a win/lose situation, where the
contracting firm wins the contract and the company overpays for
mistakes. I would appreciate the consultant walk a way from the
table with a comment to get back with a well thought out win/win
answer.

If you are a fan of the Sunday morning political journals or if you
enjoy the debates, you will notice how skilled politicians are at side
stepping questions.

I see this topic relating to Jakes query. The stereo type for
conservatives is that they see the world as black and white, right or
wrong, concrete answers. The stereo type of liberals is that they
see the world in shades of gray and never a clear answer.

[Jake Patterson]

And yet, we get no clear answers from any of them. That's one of the
reasons I actually liked Ron Paul: he let you know exactly what he was
thinking and what he would do. And he wasn't afraid to mention some
of his more controversial ideas without flinching.

I read a report four years ago during the Bush-Kerry debates that
showed point for point, no matter where you stood on an issue, you
heard from Kerry exactly what you wanted to hear. Brilliant
politicking. But I agree with Scott's assessment of the consultants;
we just don't appreciate it. The point of debates is to clarify your
standpoint to your voters. But in all the debates I've paid attention
to, they have simply muddied the questions and blurred the issues.

One thing I find fascinating: I drive a lot, so sometimes I venture
into the Depths of Hell and tune into Limbaugh or Hanity and time
myself for how long I can tolerate it. One common thread between them
is that they both believe that the Republican Party has lost its
conservative stance. But they still cling to their party
desperately. Why not the call for a new party? It works in other
countries all the time. But OUR two parties are so engrained into our
psyches that we cannot see beyond them. Past the thought that
ideologies should not be tied to parties is the question of what makes
the parties so indispensible to our society?

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -