From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum)
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 09:07:57 GMT

Mike Jones (mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com) wrote:
: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
: : Russ Anderson (rja@mahogany126.cray.com) wrote:
: : : In article <1gl52rINN4mf@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu>, pearsodc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU (if God's your father then call home!) writes:
: : : > I would like to formally propose a new group, alt.conservative.forum, 
: : : > a moderated group to discuss conservative values and assorted political
: : : > goings-on from a distinctly right-wing standpoint.
: : : What are "conservative values"?
: : : Take the following issues:
: : : Drug prohibition: Conservative (former Drug Czar) Bill Bennett supports the
: : :     "War on Drugs" while Conservatives such as Milton Friedman, William F.
: : :     Buckley, and George Schultz oppose it.  Which side represents the 
: : :     conservative view?
: : The difference between Bennett and the othes mentioned are that Bennett
: : is a pragmatist who was put in the position of Drug Czar, because the war on
: : drugs was mandated by the people....
: 
: Bwahahahaha. Sorry to begin a post that way, but I can't possibly summon any
: other response to this cliam. The war on drugs was mandated by lots of
: (mostly right-wing) politicians as a way to get more control over the
: population, espcially the poor and minorities. It is promulgated by the same
: sort of bluestocking Puritanism that drove the Prohibition movement, and is
: having about the same amount of success (i.e., costing the taxpayers lots of
: money, cutting down slightly on use among the middle class, and creating a
: whole new generation of crime figures).
: 
: :                                    Friedman, Buckley, and Shultz are strong
: : believers in the FREE MARKET...  in a TRUE free market, legalized drugs would
: : result in a significant decrease in drug use - or at least the least harmful
: : drugs would get more use than the harmful ones.  A pragmatist like Bennett
: : knows we don't have a free market, and even the most radical conservative
: : policies implemented towards a move to free market would take decades to
: : achieve.  After all, it took us 60 years to go as far downhill as we have
: : since FDR's massive anti-free market policies were enacted...
: 
: Please elaborate. If, say, marijuana were made legal tomorrow, what
: inhibitors would there be to a basically free market in it?
: 
: : Bennett's policies are good today, while the others' are good goals to
: : achieve over the next half century...
: 
: No, and yes. Bennett's policies are an excuse for much greater government
: interference in our lives. They've resulted in the gutting of the Fourth
: Amendment, and serious dents in the Fifth.
: 
: : : Abortion: Conservatives such as George Bush & Dan Quayle want abortion 
: : :     made illegal (in most cases) while Conservative Barry Goldwater does
: : :     not. Which side represents the conservative view?
: : You make a HUGE mistake in calling Bush a conservative.  That aside,
: 
: You mean he's a liberal? Bush may not be a true-believer Reaganista, but
: surely on the political spectrum of the country, you'd have to accept that
: he's a conservative. The problem is that, whatever his beliefs, he's
: wishy-washy about them. The man just isn't very ideological.
: 
: : consider that Bush was in favor of legalized abortion in 1980, but as the
: : increase in volume of abortions became an alarming trend, his position changed.
: 
: More like, "as it became a requirement for his holding office, his position
: changed." The man has no principles. One of the reasons he's about to become
: the ex-President is that in the absence of Lee Atwater it became all too
: obvious that the primary reason George Bush wanted to be President was that
: "being President" seemed like a pretty neat thing to do.
: 
: : As for Goldwater, not all of his ideas are mainstream conservative.  In 1964,
: : he proposed using nuclear weapons in VietNam...
: 
: This sounds like some of the Christianity arguments in sci.skeptic. Whenever
: presented with an X that doesn't match your picture of X, claim they're not
: *really* X. The point of the original article was that there's not "a
: conservative position" on many of the issues that are now claimed as
: conservative (by, say, the Republican convention). OK, so Goldwater's not a
: mainstream conservative. He's still a prominent conservative, and he doesn't
: agree with the Robertson wing on abortion. Which is "the conservative
: position"?
:   
: : : Isolationism:  Conservative George Bush supports an activist US role in
: : :     the "new world order" while conservative Pat Buchannan does not.  
: : :     Which side represents the conservative view?
: : Flat out wrong assertion here.  Buchannan advocated america first as a policy,
: : which is not the same thing as isolationism.  The only reason America First
: : was deemed important was the slow economy.  Also, Buchannan sure got a lot
: : of votes and won a lot of states during the primaries... that should indicate
: : to you which side represents the conservative view.
: 
: No one claimed that Buchanan was a complete isolationist. It would be hard
: claim that Buchanan would support an activist role for the US, though. By
: the way, your second argument here contradicts your claim above that Bush
: isn't a conservative. By count of votes, I'd certainly have to say that he
: represents the conservative view.
: 
: : A more appropriate question is "Does Reagan support america first or an
: : active foreign policy role?"  After all, Reagan won almost 100% of the
: : conservative vote in two elections, plus a LOT of democrats, too...
: : (In case you don't figure it out, no doubt you will, Reagan would favor
: : active foreign policy...).
: 
: What the hell does Reagan have to do with anything *now*? Besides, Reagan
: supported a very limited activism. I expect that he would have supported
: Desert Storm, but I think he'd have sent troops (or at least air power) to
: Bosnia long before he sent anyone to Somalia.
: 
: : : Free-Trade:  Conservative George Bush supports free-trade while conservative 
: : :     Pat Buchannan does not.  Which side represents the conservative view?
: : : 
: : : Capital gains tax: Conservative Ronald Reagan wanted capital gains taxed 
: : :     at the same rate as other income (1986 tax reform) while Conservatives
: : :     George Bush and Jack Kemp want capital gains taxed at a lower rate than
: : :     other income.  Which side represents the conservative view?
: : If you want a real laugh, conservative Patrick Moynahan suggests a capital
: : gains tax cut to 15% from 28%.
: 
: Pat Moynihan? Conservative? Whaaaaa?
: 
: :                                 How can you lump Bush and Kemp into the
: : same camp?  Bush never followed any of Kemp's policies, and even had promised
: : to not have Kemp in his next cabinet.
: 
: Well, that's sort of the point. Bush and Kemp put themselves into the same
: camp. They run under the same party banner, compete for the same votes in
: primaries (at least hypothetically), look for support from the same
: interest groups, etc. But they don't agree on many issues. Which represents
: the conservative position? How can you tell?
: 
: :                                        The most successful governmental
: : economic policies in this century, known as trickle-down, were a Kemp/Reagan
: : implementation.  Reagan's terms not only produced enormous prosperity and
: : growth, but year after year the debt and defecit as a percentage of 
: : GDP _decreased_ (source: Milton Friedman, interviewd on Wall Street Week).
: 
: This claim is so vague as to be meaningless. It is true that you can pick
: starting and ending points to illustrate this fact, but there's no independent
: reason to pick those points. If you take "the 80's" (1980-1989), or "the
: Reagan years (1980-1988), that isn't a true statement. (I'll welcome FACTS
: to prove me wrong, because I don't have the numbers handy.) The growth was
: largely fueled by massive increases in public and private debt, which has
: been very much responsible for the mess we're in now.
: 
: : Allow me to refer to Rush's book, which I got as a Christmas present (note:
: : I would not have bought it for myself :)...  The difference between
: : conservatives and liberals is that liberals believe that there is a finite
: : pie which must be allocated among the population, while conservatives believe
: : the pie grows all the time.
: 
: That's about what I'd expect from Rush. He speaks well, I'll give him that,
: but that statement is completely self-serving and false. It's as though I
: said that the difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals
: love their children and conservatives eat theirs for breakfast with
: strawberries and cream. 
: 
: :                              Kemp's (and Moynahan's) capital gains tax cuts
: : are meant to spur growth of the pie at a time the pie is growing slower
: : than we would have liked.  Given the spending controls Reagan (and Bush, btw)
: : proposed, Reagan would have liked to have lowered capital gains more than he
: : proposed in '86.
: 
: But Moynihan isn't a conservative by any sensible measure! What's he doing
: in a discussion of what conservative issues are? And here's Bush again. I
: thought he wasn't a conservative (ref: your post, above)? By the by, it
: would have been pretty nice (and I mean that seriously) if these alleged
: spending controls had ever shown up in any budget proposals.
: 
: : : Yugoslovia breakup: Conservative (former Sec of State) George Schultz supports
: : :     intervention in the former Yugoslovia while conservative George Bush does
: : :     not.  Which side represents the conservative view?
: : Who says (besides you) that Bush doesn't favor intervention in the former
: : Yugoslavia?
: 
: Ummmm....Bush? At least so far. To date, Bush has opposed intervention in
: Bosnia. This is a fact. Schultz supports it. Fact. Which side represents the
: conservative view?
: 
: :              Bush is simply a lot slower at getting involved because he
: : (and consistently so) prefers to use force and commit american lives to such
: : noble causes only if he can see a logical, successful, and rapid solution.
: : Remember VietNam?  VietNam is similar to this situation in that it is a civil
: : war, albeit with attrocities being committed that nobody here likes.
: 
: Well....it's not really very much like Vietnam at all. In Vietnam we were
: supporting a puppet regime (first of the French, then of ours). The vast
: majority of the citizens of South Vietnam were opposed to the existing
: regime, to the extent that the US military classified all South Vietnamese
: civilians as potentially hostile. The Bosnian situation really is a civil
: war. It's also nice that our nobility only exists when we can ensure that it
: costs us virtually nothing. Besides, the other big difference between Bosnia
: and Vietnam is that we, alone and through NATO, have been studying that part
: of the world militarily for the whole damned Cold War! Theoretically, we've
: been spending literally billions of tax dollars to prepare for meeting the
: whole damned Red Army in Eastern Europe for the last 40 years. Now you
: expect me to believe that we can't mop up the Serbian Air Force in an
: afternoon? What have they been spending my tax dollars on, the officers'
: mess?
: 
: : my turn:
: 
: It'd be nice if you'd answered any of Russ' questions before taking your
: turn, but OK.
:   
: : Last night on larry king, guest hosted by liberal Bob Beckel (who also filled
: : in for Mike Kinsley on Cross Fire), two guests were Patricia Ireland (NOW)
: : and a woman from Clinton's campaign staff.  The hypocracy was sooo evident.
: 
: Hypocracy, eh? OK, proceed.
:   
: : 1)	Clinton's cabinet is representative of America.
: : 	Who on the cabinet represents me, or Pat Buchannan, or (gasp)
: : 	Pat Robertson, or Dan Quayle, or George Bush, or Ross Perot,
: : 	or John Switzer, or the 57% of the population that didn't vote for
: : 	clinoccio?
: 
: Here, at least technically, you have a point.
:   
: : 2)	Both women agreed that they were comfortable with clinton because
: : 	with hillary as his wife, he is obviously comfortable with strong,
: : 	capable women...  Comfortable enough to have a 12 year long affair
: : 	with someone else?
: 
: 1. How does this relate to hypocracy?
: 2. What proof do you have that Clinton had an affair? (Hint: Unsupported
: allegations made to a tabloid for pay don't count.)
: 3. What is the connection between Clinton's having an affair (if he did) and
: his being comfortable working with capable women? 
: 
: : 3)	Clinton promised a NEW kind of government and change.  How does
: : 	appointing several former Carter administration people to his
: : 	cabinet mean NEW or change (other than change back to the old that
: : 	failed)?
: 
: Several? I thought it was two, out of about 15. Are you claiming that there
: was *no one* in the Carter administration with worthwhile ideas? If they
: support Clinton's ideas and policies, what does their prior service mean
: in terms of implementing those policies and ideas? How does appointing a
: couple of former Carter administration people NOT mean NEW or change?
: 
:    Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
: 
: More young men have lost their lives to AIDS than died in the entire Vietnam
: War.
: 	- Andew Sullivan, The New Republic 12/17/1990
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh