How to Have an Intelligent Conversation with a True American Conservative

It is possible to engage in intelligent debate with conservatives, but you must first understand that there are sound ground rules that have to be followed. Most people calling themselves conservatives today don’t really subscribe to the traditional conservative American values they
 espouse. Most conservatives today actually hold liberal—even radical—views on a multiplicity of issues. They’re just too ignorant to realize it.

Talking with a true conservative about politics.

Okay, an American who holds true conservative American values in the US today is very, very difficult to find. In order to be a true conservative in America, you see, you need to be a monarchist. Because true conservatives in America are the inheritors of the tradition that the leader of their country should be to the manor born. Admittedly, many neo-conservatives labor under the delusion that George W. Bush was born to be our leader, especially since he wasn’t actually elected the first time around. So you can forgive the neo-cons for thinking that we do live under a monarchy in which the son takes over for the father. But it’s simply not true. To believe in democracy is to be a radical liberal of the most rascally sort, at least according to true conservatives. The true conservative political mindset in America was set in stone forever by those who were committed to maintaining loyalty to the British throne—subject to Germanic inbreeding, of course.


Talking with a true conservative about race.

 
Comments 1 - 10 of 14 Next >>
Comments
Type in Your Comments Below

For an article supposedly championing intelligent conversation, this is pretty stupid. I understand there's a level of satire here, but even taking that into account, you really have no understanding of conservative principles beyond deluded stereotypes.

Posted on 11/01/2008 at 1:11:35 PM

Right on Tim. Terrorism is the communism of our generation--a useful, fear mongering tool of this authoratarian government. It never ceases to amaze me how "conservatives" always whip out the old "intrusive government" line. Yet, as Tim points out, they continue to make excuses for the Bush regime as they lay the groundwork for a future dictatorship. And Kim, you say terrorism is as big a threat as we are led to believe, and that security has been "sacrficed". Well, Washington was burned by the British in 1814, we endured a civil war, two world wars and thousands of Soviet missiles targeted at our cities and we never had to scrap the Constitution the way the bush cabal has. If anything, terrorism is a larger threat today because the "war on terror" has made it so by legitimizing teh tactics of Al Qaeda etc.

Posted on 09/21/2006 at 10:09:00 PM

No, Kim, the political manipulation going on here is stoking the fear of terrorism. The plain fact of the matter is most of us will never face a terrorism threat in our lives. The security measures that were already in place before 9/11 would have been enough to stop the hijackers if Bush had only been paying attention and the security measures that he's put in place are not worth the civil liberties we've given up. Do you realize there were tens of millions of names on the NSA domestic wiretapping list? Do you honestly believe that tends of millions of Americans are in contact with Al-Qaeda. Security isn't being sacrified for political gain, it's your civil rights that are being sacrificed.

Posted on 09/21/2006 at 7:09:00 PM

And as far as intrusion goes, well, as long as they can tell you who you can sleep with, and they know what you read, what you watch, who you've been talking to, and they can create a new status of arrest where they can hold you indefinitely without charges, well, hey, I guess that's not too intrusive. Sure.

Posted on 09/18/2006 at 5:09:00 PM

Methinks that the issue here in a lot of ways is that today conservatives may well believe the "less government intrusion" line, as well as the "tax-cut" line, but the politicians don't and haven't in years. The "tax-cuts" are for them and their cronies, not the working man.

Posted on 09/18/2006 at 5:09:00 PM

Tim, you are laboring under the impression that the government is organized and purposeful. Having worked within the system for many years, I can personally tell you, it is not. The original documents that founded our country were designed to keep the government tied up, disorganized and out of our daily lives. The Federal government was created "to provide for the common defense," which is what our current president is attempting to do, but there are those pesky "perfect union," "domestic tranquility," and "general welfare," clauses that irritate me.

Posted on 09/16/2006 at 7:09:00 PM

My point exactly. "Democrats" in the South were the "conservatives" of their time. When we resort to labeling people and name calling to twist the point, we lose perspective. Having grounded values does not mean one should oppose new ideas. But a society can not survive in a state of constant revolution. The same man that wrote "a little revolution now and again is a good thing," believed strongly in the limitation of Federal power and the rights of the States to govern themselves. He would have defended the South's secession if he were alive at the time. He also tried to amend the constitution to overturn Marbury v. Madison because he thought the idea of "judicial review" (insert dig on modern liberals trying to make law via courts here) was absurd. Bi-polar? Not in my opinion. Jefferson's ideals could be considered both conservative and radical at the same time.

Posted on 09/16/2006 at 5:09:00 PM

Okay, let's do away with liberal and redefine it as progressive. Do you find it progressive or regressive to have fought against slavery, women's right to vote, democracy over monarchy. You can use all the wordplay you want, the fact remains if you were to go back in time and bring those who were for slavery, unequal rights and monarchy those same people today would probably all be Republicans. I realize this makes many conservatives unhappy, but compare liberalism and conservatism in the Soviet Union to America is really, sorry, pathetic. That's the best you can do? Come on, show me how slavery is a liberal value and not a conservative value.

Posted on 09/16/2006 at 10:09:00 AM

Barefoot is right. It all comes down to how you define "conservative" and "liberal." The Soviet coup that briefly took down Gorbachev was, according to the media, led by "conservatives." That was of course a relative term - used in THAT case to describe people wedded to the communist tradition. Yet, "conservatives" could just as logically been applied to any Russian wanting to take the country back to the czarist regime. In other words, you can make whatever argument you want by defining the terms to suit your own purposes. That's what you've done here.

Posted on 09/16/2006 at 9:09:00 AM

The terms "conservative" and "liberal" have changed over the years. The Republicans were the party of liberation for slaves and now their descendents are 99% Democrat. For a more recent example, explain how George Wallace can stand in the doorway of the U of AL and defend segregation, but garner 90% of the Afro-American vote only 20 years later.

Posted on 09/15/2006 at 8:09:00 PM

Comments 1 - 10 of 14 Next >>