As I browse through the blogs of young “conservatives”, I am beginning to think that the term has no meaning, except perhaps as the ambiguous badge of an inchoate, inconsistent identity. . . . In a sense, being a Young Republican is the equivalent of being one of the Goth kids in high school.
As I browse through the blogs of young “conservatives”, I am beginning to think that the term has no meaning, except perhaps as the ambiguous badge of an inchoate, inconsistent identity. Is there nothing that ties these folks together, other than a fanatical devotion to the President (no-one expects the Iraqi Inquisition!)?
Well, Rick. After all that hot air you let out on us, your last sentence
sums it up. Whiners. Nobody likes a whiner and you diatribe was one. I
think the thing you “liberals” whine about most is that you can’t have
our money. We are taking it back before you decide on ANOTHER POINTLESS
SOCIAL PROGRAM TO BILK US HARD WORKING AMERICANS out of your hard earned
money. Thank God for tax cuts and PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH.
- 2______
great post. and you’re dead on with the republicans having lost their way.
compare today’s george w. bush with the former bush administration and
you’ll see the difference. preemption, massive budgets, and curtailing
state’s rights? these were all sacrilege to republicans of the past.
today’s republican party is the bastard child of neocons and christian
evangelicals.
of course there’s no place for civilized discussion in our society, so just
ignore me.
- Jeff
Hey, 2. That was a nice, overly simplistic response that really meant
nothing. A few thoughts.
(1) “can’t have our money”. Do you live in, have you been, to NYC?
There are a lot of liberals, some (though not currently all) even associated
with this website, who make what I would define as tons of money.
Conservative vs. liberal can hardly be reduced to haves vs. have nots.
(2) “hard working Americans.” I don’t know about you, but I would
define the middle class as hard working Americans. Usually when that
cliched phrase is used, that it is what it is referring to. But, as has
been well documented, Bush’s tax cuts are an illusion for much of the
middle class because the Bushies have not altered the alternative minimum
tax. Which means his tax cuts are really simply benefitting the rich.
Something called trickle down economics. Or, as Bush Sr. called it, voodoo
economics.
(3) As Rick alluded to with his reference to the Clinton administration
being arguably “more conservative” and the Bushies pumping up the federal
government, this administration has increased federal spending and the
federal government’s involvement in our lives in many, many ways, whereas
the previous adminstration, “gasp”, balanced the budget and had us running
surpluses. Americans have less personal freedom, under this administration
than perhaps any point in recent American history and we are increasing
spending, while giving tax breaks only to the very rich. While that sounds
“Republican”, as I understand the term, it does not sound conservative.
So 2, perhaps you could expand on your party line response. While Rick’s
diatribe contained many over generalizations (but there it is virtually
impossible to discuss something like his topic without over generalizing) a
strong and coherent point of his post was that if you look at what is
traditionally thought of as conservatism, the Bush administration does not
fit the bill in many ways. Yet, there is this party line response from
conservatives, especially young conservatives (and members of the
administration), of “Democrats are whilly nilly spenders who want to take
Americans money”, which is simply not true if you look at the last 8 years
of a Democratic presidency, and “Bush protects your money”, which is also
not true, unless you make a lot more money than the average American (and I
am not even talking about all the arguments that, in the long run, even the
rich will be harmed as Bush’s voodoo economics hurts the American economy
and we all suffer--but that is a more speculative, economic theory based
point).
- Signor Ferrari
Why “liberals” in quotes, #2?
Also, I’m one of that 5% of people that benefits from the tax breaks, and I’d happily pass on them to have a responsible government. I give enough on my own to support more than my fair share of the programs I’m in favor of. The problem is that the Republicans want programs they aren’t willing to pay for. “Fiscal Conservative” used to mean something. Whatever it does mean, it certainly no longer equates with Republicanism.