Conservativism - the path forward

[TGHusker]

5 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Good article.

 

I'm a Bernie supporter, so I'm probably not the best to answer. But one other thing to consider is that the President isn't a king, so Bernie won't be able to do too much without Congress, and it'll only be for 4 or 8 years, not forever. So I think on balance it makes sense, especially since Bernie is also non-establishment, so there's a really strong chance he'll be opposed on various policies from within his own party. And even if Bernie accomplished everything he's promoting policy-wise, it'd just be a return to the FDR/Truman years. Is that really so bad?

 

But another question to as yourself, is whether Bernie is more opposite of your life long held political values or is it really Trump and the Republican politicians?

 

(EDIT: And Bernie is sort of the extreme. You could also vote in the Dem primaries to try to get a Dem candidate closer to your own political views. Selfishly, I of course hope that doesn't happen, but that's democracy with a lower case 'd'.)

Well I for one will vote for the candidate who is best for the nation long term.  From the conservative perspective, we've survived LBJ, Carter, Clinton and Obama and from the more liberal perspective, we survived Nixon, Reagan, Bushes - but Trump is not one of those - he is a party onto himself. If I can vote for George McGovern for Senate back in the day, and I still count Hubert Humphrey as one of my all time favorite politicians on a personal level, I can pull the level for a respectful Dem.  I don't see the repub party reforming itself soon. 

Now if the Dems could get back to a Truman, who I respect and I think is ranked too low in the estimation of many historians, I'd be all for that. David McCullough's book "Truman" is a great read by the way. 

[RedDenver]

12 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Well I for one will vote for the candidate who is best for the nation long term.  From the conservative perspective, we've survived LBJ, Carter, Clinton and Obama and from the more liberal perspective, we survived Nixon, Reagan, Bushes - but Trump is not one of those - he is a party onto himself. If I can vote for George McGovern for Senate back in the day, and I still count Hubert Humphrey as one of my all time favorite politicians on a personal level, I can pull the level for a respectful Dem.  I don't see the repub party reforming itself soon. 

Now if the Dems could get back to a Truman, who I respect and I think is ranked too low in the estimation of many historians, I'd be all for that. David McCullough's book "Truman" is a great read by the way. 

Out of curiosity, what do you like about Truman that you don't see in modern politicians, and in particular Bernie?

[TGHusker]

I think politics has always been partisan.  For one, he never self identified as a socialist. Very far from it. While Truman was 'liberal' on social issues, he was still a believer in free enterprise.  Truman was the kind of guy who had principles and he stood by them.  He was also the type of guy who wasn't afraid to work with the 'other side'.  He wasn't so quick to demonize the other side. Not that he never did so - as noted by his  "Give them hell, Harry" moniker.  So, it may be a personality side.  My impression with Bernie and modern liberalism (vs FDR/Truman era liberalism): With Bernie - I think he would be very comfortable wt a full scale social state - anyone who is wealthy got it by cheat, steal, privileged or favoritism.   I didn't see that attitude in the old Dems like HHH, McGovern, LBJ, etc.  I think they were all believers in the American economic system - I have my doubts about Bernie and others like him. 

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, TGHusker said:

I think politics has always been partisan.  For one, he never self identified as a socialist. Very far from it. While Truman was 'liberal' on social issues, he was still a believer in free enterprise.  Truman was the kind of guy who had principles and he stood by them.  He was also the type of guy who wasn't afraid to work with the 'other side'.  He wasn't so quick to demonize the other side. Not that he never did so - as noted by his  "Give them hell, Harry" moniker.  So, it may be a personality side.  My impression with Bernie and modern liberalism (vs FDR/Truman era liberalism): With Bernie - I think he would be very comfortable wt a full scale social state - anyone who is wealthy got it by cheat, steal, privileged or favoritism.   I didn't see that attitude in the old Dems like HHH, McGovern, LBJ, etc.  I think they were all believers in the American economic system - I have my doubts about Bernie and others like him. 

Interesting, thanks for the comments.

 

I'm on the other side of the fence in that I think Bernie is exactly in the mold of those old Dems and that the major difference is more in perspective of time and media coverage. And notice that while Bernie calls himself a socialist, he points to the social democracies of Europe as his examples, not full scale social states.

 

Anyway, I'm curious what others think of the original topic.

[BigRedBuster]

 

[TGHusker]

Good article -    I'm all for this.  Kasich with another moderate Dem (they don't mention a dem in the article running wt him) running with him - hopefully could get some traction if the Reps stick wt Trump and the Dems nominate a Sanders type.

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/05/03/why_john_kasich_should_run_as_an_independent_in_2020_136965.html

 

opening paragraphs:

Quote

 

The reform movement fueled by political centrists is getting stronger all over the country, but it needs a heavyweight 2020 Independent presidential candidate to gain national traction and big-time financial backing. Ohio Gov. John Kasich ought to take up that challenge.

He can’t get the nomination of his own party. Although he’s a lifelong Republican who won statewide in a key battleground state the GOP needs to win the presidency, he’s become much too moderate, not to mention high-principled and independent, for the party. But he could be the strongest, best-financed and most compelling third-force presidential candidate in decades.

 

 

[Making Chimichangas]

13 hours ago, TGHusker said:

Good article -    I'm all for this.  Kasich with another moderate Dem (they don't mention a dem in the article running wt him) running with him - hopefully could get some traction if the Reps stick wt Trump and the Dems nominate a Sanders type.

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/05/03/why_john_kasich_should_run_as_an_independent_in_2020_136965.html

 

opening paragraphs:

 

 

I think, all things considered, I'd vote for Kaisch.  He's a policy wonk but he's also, if I remember correctly, the only GOP person I have ever heard who has said he'd attend a gay wedding.  If I am mis-remembering, somebody please correct me.

[BigRedBuster]

 

[TGHusker]

On 5/11/2018 at 9:40 PM, Making Chimichangas said:

 

I think, all things considered, I'd vote for Kaisch.  He's a policy wonk but he's also, if I remember correctly, the only GOP person I have ever heard who has said he'd attend a gay wedding.  If I am mis-remembering, somebody please correct me.

You are correct.  But I think there were other but now I'm 'mis-remembering' myself

[Landlord]

6 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

 

 

 

Romeny isn't attacking a person's religion - he's pointin gout that Jeffress obviously does not respect any faith system other than his own, and to have him in that position is presumably incredibly disrespectful to... pretty much every non-American Christian involved

[funhusker]

4 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

 

 

Romeny isn't attacking a person's religion - he's pointin gout that Jeffress obviously does not respect any faith system other than his own, and to have him in that position is presumably incredibly disrespectful to... pretty much every non-American Christian involved

Conservative_independent agrees

[Landlord]

Ah, I totally misread that.

[TGHusker]

Trump's take over the Repub party is complete with how he has gained tea party support even though his spending policies are opposite of tea party goals.

 

 

https://www.vox.com/2018/5/15/17263774/tea-party-trump-2018

 

 

Quote

This time they’re not trying to blow up the system or fight big government. They’re here to support President Trump, no matter that he’s the biggest big-government Republican of them all. And in 2018, they’re trying to get more Donald Trumps into office — from state-level races to the halls of Congress.

 

[Danny Bateman]

2 hours ago, TGHusker said:

Trump's take over the Repub party is complete with how he has gained tea party support even though his spending policies are opposite of tea party goals.

 

 

https://www.vox.com/2018/5/15/17263774/tea-party-trump-2018

 

 

 

 

Makes you rethink whether the Tea Party was ever really about small government at all.