How can I say this without offending anyone?

[johnrocks]

So many of us love Ron Paul because he is the total package, he's got a thirty plus year record of being about as consistent as anyone can be but as great as that is, it has made everyone else look pale in comparison, even his own Son isn't good enough for the most pure among us, I love that but think of it this way, we didn't get this out of kilter overnight, it took 230 years to get the size government we have and going "all in or none at all" will only get us "none at all"

This country has gone so far toward the left that we have to conduct "Operation Norman Thomas" in reverse, he said ""The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under
the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without
knowing how it happened."

We need to take one or two steps right each time and think ...


"The American people will never knowingly adopt Constitutionalism . But under
the name of ' "Conservatism"they will adopt every fragment of the libertarian/constitutional
program, until one day America will be a Constitutional Republic again , without
knowing how it happened."


This may not make any sense to anyone but myself since I haven't had my quota of coffee yet, it may not be as good in print as it seemed in my head:p

[Stary Hickory]

Yes I think like this too. You have to be relentless and crafty in a sense. We are dealing with real serious elements in society, that is why I always support anyone who supports less government even if they are not perfect.

In this way we gradually move the ball forward. What irks me are those that want instant gratification and a complete reverse of everything they happened over the course of 100 - 150 + years. It's very naive to think this will ever happen. BUt by working persistently and applying pressure on all levels and continuing the intellectual thrashing statists have been recieving we can eventually get there.

[FrankRep]

Fabian Constitutionalism!

:)

As opposed to Fabian Socialism (AKA: Progressivism)

[johnrocks]

Yes I think like this too. You have to be relentless and crafty in a sense. We are dealing with real serious elements in society, that is why I always support anyone who supports less government even if they are not perfect.

In this way we gradually move the ball forward. What irks me are those that want instant gratification and a complete reverse of everything they happened over the course of 100 - 150 + years. It's very naive to think this will ever happen. BUt by working persistently and applying pressure on all levels and continuing the intellectual thrashing statists have been recieving we can eventually get there.

I think we need a set of ideas and perhaps a "line in the sand" that we won't cross but being against someone because he stands for everything I do; from foreign policy to economic issues; but dismiss him because of not coming out and saying "legalize drugs today" when society as a whole just isn't ready is not being realistic, it's like buying a pizza and trying to shove the whole pie down their throat, give them a bite at a time, this year, audit the Fed, next,change foreign policy,next revamp entitlements, etc., perhaps not exactly in the order as my example but I think you get the picture.:)

[JohnEngland]

I'M OFFENDED!!! GRRRAAAAARGGHHHHH!!!!! *rips shirt*

Actually, I agree.

One cannot expect to magically turn the country around. It takes not only an evolution in the type of politician elected, but also an evolution of society, such that people want to look after themselves and not have the government babysit them.

But of course, economic reality will force things to change anyway. Not all the way, but it'll help. Meanwhile, we just need to make sure people like Rand get elected.

And look at Rand - he's the perfect balance between libertarianism, conservatism, republicanism and tea partyism. He's widely accepted in right-of-centre circles and can articulate the message and use reason very well.

The problem is the media.

[johnrocks]

I'M OFFENDED!!! GRRRAAAAARGGHHHHH!!!!! *rips shirt*

Actually, I agree.

One cannot expect to magically turn the country around. It takes not only an evolution in the type of politician elected, but also an evolution of society, such that people want to look after themselves and not have the government babysit them.

But of course, economic reality will force things to change anyway. Not all the way, but it'll help. Meanwhile, we just need to make sure people like Rand get elected.

And look at Rand - he's the perfect balance between libertarianism, conservatism, republicanism and tea partyism. He's widely accepted in right-of-centre circles and can articulate the message and use reason very well.

The problem is the media.

Yep, he is doing a great job, he is walking a frigging political tightrope in Kentucky, that is "Social Con Central" and to win will be huge if we can pull that off, imagine, Ron Paul's Son a US Senator, that apple didn't fall far from the tree:p

[Original_Intent]

Fabian Constitutionalism!

:)

As opposed to Fabian Socialism (AKA: Progressivism)

Would that make us sheep in wolves clothing? :D

And OP, anything worth saying is going to offend SOMEBODY.

[FrankRep]

Fabian Constitutionalism!

:)

As opposed to Fabian Socialism (AKA: Progressivism)

Not to be confused with Natalie Fabian. :p

[TonySutton]

If you are not offending someone, you are doing it wrong :P

[RedStripe]

I'm not offended - more like confused. I'm not sure how anyone could say that this empire has been headed "strongly to the left". I mean, that's a joke right?

[FrankRep]

I'm not offended - more like confused. I'm not sure how anyone could say that this empire has been headed "strongly to the left". I mean, that's a joke right?

This thread addresses that idea..

Cultural Marxism (Political Correctness) ft. Ron Paul, G Edward Griffin, Pat Buchanan
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=257495

[RedStripe]

This thread addresses that idea..

Cultural Marxism (Political Correctness) ft. Ron Paul, G Edward Griffin, Pat Buchanan
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=257495

Um, no it doesn't, actually.

[Stary Hickory]

I'm not offended - more like confused. I'm not sure how anyone could say that this empire has been headed "strongly to the left". I mean, that's a joke right?

How can you even question that it has. Look at the progressive bloat of government. It's literally wrecking us now. The entire Federal Reserve was a progressive creation. It's part of the Communist agenda, as a priority. Centralized banking.

Progressivism has affected both parties to from left to right. The left though has been taken over so completely that there is no redemption. The right has it's share of progressive moments as well Medcare prescription drugs, support for Social Security and so on.

[FrankRep]

Um, no it doesn't, actually.

Check out this video then.

Glenn Beck - A Closer Look at the Progressive Movement
YouTube - Beck 1-29-10-1 Historians on Progressives-1.avi (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxmV3cfSKGE)

[erowe1]

How can you even question that it has. Look at the progressive bloat of government. It's literally wrecking us now. The entire Federal Reserve was a progressive creation. It's part of the Communist agenda, as a priority. Centralized banking.

Progressivism has affected both parties to from left to right. The left though has been taken over so completely that there is no redemption. The right has it's share of progressive moments as well Medcare prescription drugs, support for Social Security and so on.

My guess is that RS and you are aligned differently when it comes to what's left and what's right. I can only hypothesize, but he may tend to want to count all the corporatist big government things (i.e. pretty much every war, the Federal Reserve, Romney-/Obamacare, Medicare Part D, all the bailouts) as right wing, whereas others might want to call them left wing. Personally, I don't think there's a simple objective way to resolve which is which.

And for the purposes of this discussion, I don't think that debate matters. What I think the OP is proposing is that we work on rhetorically turning the Nolan chart 90 degrees so as to equate consistent totalitarianism with the left and consistently smaller government with the right, so that we can present those alternatives to people as the two political wings they need to choose between.

I don't think we stand a good chance at succeeding at that. But I like the idea.

[RedStripe]

How can you even question that it has. Look at the progressive bloat of government. It's literally wrecking us now. The entire Federal Reserve was a progressive creation. It's part of the Communist agenda, as a priority. Centralized banking.

Progressivism has affected both parties to from left to right. The left though has been taken over so completely that there is no redemption. The right has it's share of progressive moments as well Medcare prescription drugs, support for Social Security and so on.

Wait, you think that banking cartels (for the benefit and profit of the wealthiest 1%) are LEFTIST institutions? I mean, I realize that the the reactionary right-wing, has, as the middle and working classes are being obliterated, done the best it could to pin the vast corporatism of American capitalism on the "left" but the reality of the situation is that progressive-era reforms were simply compromises by the reactionary, conservative wealthy economic interests that controlled the nation to those who wanted to essentially overthrow state-capitalism (crony capitalism, corporatism, fascism, whatever you want to call it).

They were compromises and co-opting ventures engineered at the highest levels of the political and economic hierarchy (the CONSERVATIVE RICH) which basically succeeded in heading off any large-scale political destabilization, and which gave the working class a little larger slice of the pie in exchange (while also, at the same time, stabilizing the economic order and guaranteeing the large slice of the pie already controlled by the wealthy elite - through regulatory schemes which had the effect of turning most heavy industries into quasi-cartels administered through the state - which they owned and controlled, as always).

Big government isn't "leftist" if it is still controlled by and administered on the behalf of the tiny wealthy aristocracy! Big government, including social programs to keep the masses at bay, is often overtly RIGHT WING, especially when it involves jingoism, empire abroad, etc. Conservatism has always meant the preservation of and the respect FOR the status quo.

Right-wingers who want to re-right history never want to ask the tough questions about class, distribution of wealth, etc. That's why their ideology relies so heavily on conspiracy theories - theories that turn reality on its head by suggesting that the rich who control the system are somehow conspirators against the very system they control, and are seeking to implement radical "leftist" policies. When the interests which control the system attempt a compromise with the restless masses, there are only two groups fooled by these compromises: the masses (at the time) who believe that the reforms will address their grievances, and right-wing 'historians' who will look back to that period and claim that the reforms are proof of some "leftist" conspiracy where the the people in charge were secretly infiltrated by marxists (which is utterly hilarious).

One of the reasons all of this non-sense is frustrating to me is that I once bought into this "anti-progressive" world view created by such books as None Dare Call it Conspiracy and Creature from Jekyll Island (and associated videos, lectures, etc - all produced by, coincidentally, people with very sketchy credentials. They aren't real historians. They pick and choose a few primary sources that fit in well with a crafted narrative that serves an ideological purpose). I'm glad I grew out of that, although I learned many things in the process.

[pcosmar]

Not a bad idea.
It is actually the stated goal and method promoted by Freedom Force International.
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/

My concern is that it may be too late.

[lucius]

So many of us love Ron Paul because he is the total package, he's got a thirty plus year record of being about as consistent as anyone can be but as great as that is, it has made everyone else look pale in comparison, even his own Son isn't good enough for the most pure among us, I love that but think of it this way, we didn't get this out of kilter overnight, it took 230 years to get the size government we have and going "all in or none at all" will only get us "none at all"

This country has gone so far toward the left that we have to conduct "Operation Norman Thomas" in reverse, he said ""The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under
the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without
knowing how it happened."

We need to take one or two steps right each time and think ...


"The American people will never knowingly adopt Constitutionalism . But under
the name of ' "Conservatism"they will adopt every fragment of the libertarian/constitutional
program, until one day America will be a Constitutional Republic again , without
knowing how it happened."


This may not make any sense to anyone but myself since I haven't had my quota of coffee yet, it may not be as good in print as it seemed in my head:p

I may not understand your position completely, but share your sentiment. I am ready to get politically involved at the local level and will be active if Dr. Paul runs again, but I see that as an extreme sacrifice upon his part at his age (I believe that he has been primarily educating us and for that I am thankful). I think our political process has been well broken for a very long time and do not expect much salvation from that direction. But the power of education is immense and I have great relief from all the young people educating themselves and getting involved. Change comes from within...

[jmdrake]

So many of us love Ron Paul because he is the total package, he's got a thirty plus year record of being about as consistent as anyone can be but as great as that is, it has made everyone else look pale in comparison, even his own Son isn't good enough for the most pure among us, I love that but think of it this way, we didn't get this out of kilter overnight, it took 230 years to get the size government we have and going "all in or none at all" will only get us "none at all"

This country has gone so far toward the left that we have to conduct "Operation Norman Thomas" in reverse, he said ""The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under
the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without
knowing how it happened."

We need to take one or two steps right each time and think ...


"The American people will never knowingly adopt Constitutionalism . But under
the name of ' "Conservatism"they will adopt every fragment of the libertarian/constitutional
program, until one day America will be a Constitutional Republic again , without
knowing how it happened."


This may not make any sense to anyone but myself since I haven't had my quota of coffee yet, it may not be as good in print as it seemed in my head:p

You mean like this?

An Idea Whose Time Has Come - G. Edward Griffin - Freedom Force International (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6015291679758430958#)

Of course there is an obvious problem. How to separate those who are really "part of us" from those who merely "talk a good game" and say there "just saying that to get elected" but don't really mean it. With Rand and Peter we can say "They were with us when freedom wasn't cool". But how far to go with that? Yes we want to take over the GOP by stealth, but can we be taken over by stealth as well? Just some things to think about. I think if we concentrate more on local elections then it doesn't matter. Nobody cares (or should care) what their state rep thinks of Iraq or Afghanistan.

[erowe1]

Big government isn't "leftist" if it is still controlled by and administered on the behalf of the tiny wealthy aristocracy! Big government, including social programs to keep the masses at bay, is often overtly RIGHT WING, especially when it involves jingoism, empire abroad, etc.

I could easily see someone retorting that administering big government programs on behalf of the tiny wealthy aristocracy, keeping masses at bay, jingoism, and empire abroad, are all left wing.

I almost agree that conservatism always equates to preservation of the status quo. And that definitely makes up a huge part of what passes for "conservative" in normal usage of that word in politics even today (despite how some so-called conservatives might feign objection to that). But, then if you accept the converse that liberalism equates to radical change from the status quo, you run into the problem that some who want radical change want changes that accrue more power to the government and others want radical change that undoes the ways that the government has already accrued power.

I don't think it makes sense to group both of those proponents of change together as liberals. And I can see a certain logic to wanting to call the latter group "conservative," since, even though they don't want to preserve the status quo, they do take positions on many issues that identify with those who in the past did want to preserve their status quo against the advent of what was for them a new government program and what is for us the status quo. For example, inasmuch as we would like to overturn the New Deal policies, we identify with the Old Right who originally opposed their implementation.

[Stary Hickory]

Wait, you think that banking cartels (for the benefit and profit of the wealthiest 1%) are LEFTIST institutions? I mean, I realize that the the reactionary right-wing, has, as the middle and working classes are being obliterated, done the best it could to pin the vast corporatism of American capitalism on the "left" but the reality of the situation is that progressive-era reforms were simply compromises by the reactionary, conservative wealthy economic interests that controlled the nation to those who wanted to essentially overthrow state-capitalism (crony capitalism, corporatism, fascism, whatever you want to call it). .

Yeah see I see your hand now. The cartels were formed under a progressive hero. You equate the left with helping the poor, which means you bought a big fat propganda cigar and smoked it heartily. Yes I know the drivel from the left, Republicans are for the rich. Nevermind that it's political suicide to really be for like 1% of the population.

Corporatism is a problem of government when it works with private agencies, something the left has never shyed away from. In fact corporatism is in it's hayday right now under leftist control. I am sorry I cannot stomach much of this lame krap about the evil Repulicans are for the rich. It's disingenious and shows a severe lack of real objectivity. The left was in the early days a decent movement, when it became progressive in the early 1900s it became the opposite.

I see you are from a leftist background and will not honestly look at the world around you. The republicans have never been for the rich, it's just a simple political slogan that the left uses to sway the masses to vote. Government growth is a leftist phenomena, starting from the early 1900s. They embraced marxism and were heavily influenced by it. The Right as pathetic as they are have been about the only thing slowing the government down.

Also to be so naive and not see the transition that the left has undergone is silly. Even in the early 20s and 30s...and so on the left held some of it's former ideals of freedom, but they have become more and more radicalized against freedom until you are faced with what we see today...as a result the Republican party is becoming more liberty oriented as a reaction and attempt by the people to find a stop to the loss of their freedoms.

The Democratic party of today has undergone a complete transformation, I find them difficult to support on anything except ending the wars. And this is not the default leftist position. They started many a war in there day and the last leftist POTUS had no problem dropping bombs or starting military operations.

[Baptist]

How can I say this without offending anyone?

Choose your words more carefully?


So many of us love Ron Paul because he has the total package

:eek:

[erowe1]

The republicans have never been for the rich

I thought you were being pretty reasonable until I saw this line.

[yokna7]

Wait, you think that banking cartels (for the benefit and profit of the wealthiest 1%) are LEFTIST institutions? I mean, I realize that the the reactionary right-wing, has, as the middle and working classes are being obliterated, done the best it could to pin the vast corporatism of American capitalism on the "left" but the reality of the situation is that progressive-era reforms were simply compromises by the reactionary, conservative wealthy economic interests that controlled the nation to those who wanted to essentially overthrow state-capitalism (crony capitalism, corporatism, fascism, whatever you want to call it).

They were compromises and co-opting ventures engineered at the highest levels of the political and economic hierarchy (the CONSERVATIVE RICH) which basically succeeded in heading off any large-scale political destabilization, and which gave the working class a little larger slice of the pie in exchange (while also, at the same time, stabilizing the economic order and guaranteeing the large slice of the pie already controlled by the wealthy elite - through regulatory schemes which had the effect of turning most heavy industries into quasi-cartels administered through the state - which they owned and controlled, as always).

Big government isn't "leftist" if it is still controlled by and administered on the behalf of the tiny wealthy aristocracy! Big government, including social programs to keep the masses at bay, is often overtly RIGHT WING, especially when it involves jingoism, empire abroad, etc. Conservatism has always meant the preservation of and the respect FOR the status quo.

Right-wingers who want to re-right history never want to ask the tough questions about class, distribution of wealth, etc. That's why their ideology relies so heavily on conspiracy theories - theories that turn reality on its head by suggesting that the rich who control the system are somehow conspirators against the very system they control, and are seeking to implement radical "leftist" policies. When the interests which control the system attempt a compromise with the restless masses, there are only two groups fooled by these compromises: the masses (at the time) who believe that the reforms will address their grievances, and right-wing 'historians' who will look back to that period and claim that the reforms are proof of some "leftist" conspiracy where the the people in charge were secretly infiltrated by marxists (which is utterly hilarious).

One of the reasons all of this non-sense is frustrating to me is that I once bought into this "anti-progressive" world view created by such books as None Dare Call it Conspiracy and Creature from Jekyll Island (and associated videos, lectures, etc - all produced by, coincidentally, people with very sketchy credentials. They aren't real historians. They pick and choose a few primary sources that fit in well with a crafted narrative that serves an ideological purpose). I'm glad I grew out of that, although I learned many things in the process.

This really doesn't have merit, considering its riddled with references to monikers established by the msm that have very little substance to your point. You contend that "Big government isn't "leftist" if it is still controlled by and administered on the behalf of the tiny wealthy aristocracy" which I mostly agree with, but at the same time your insinuating that if no "rich" people existed that government would be pure and noble. Government is the negation of liberty no matter who the government is. You propose that if "leftists" were running the government, instead of the aristocracy, then it would be fine in spite of utilizing the same policies? That's garbage. You are trying to draw lines where none exist to support your progressive bullshit.

Remember "To see the farm is to leave it."

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

YouTube - No! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhzS1nOq6qU)

[Vessol]

Conservatism in America has never and will never be about Constitutionalism.