Fareed Zakaria of Time has a very good article on how being a conservative in America has changed:

"Conservatism is true." That's what George Will told me when I interviewed him as an eager student many years ago. His formulation might have been a touch arrogant, but Will's basic point was intelligent. Conservatism, he explained, was rooted in reality. Unlike the abstract theories of Marxism and socialism, it started not from an imagined society but from the world as it actually exists. From Aristotle to Edmund Burke, the greatest conservative thinkers have said that to change societies, one must understand them, accept them as they are and help them evolve.

Watching this election campaign, one wonders what has happened to that tradition. Conservatives now espouse ideas drawn from abstract principles with little regard to the realities of America's present or past. This is a tragedy, because conservatism has an important role to play in modernizing the U.S.

Full article here:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077943,00.html#ixzz1PRckoY00

I think the term "Conservative" has been hijacked by the far right. Any far leaning position on either side simply can not be "conservative" yet that's what they have been doing.
Now, the interesting thing that just hit me, is this due to the far right trying to claim some legitimacy or could the left be attempting to paint even those "real" conservatives as crazy far right idiots? Either way, this seems to be the case to me. Maybe we need a new name for one group or the other?

It's a great article, and Mr. Zakaria is one of my favorite commentators.

I actually think that both parties ignore reality, but that on economic matters the Democrats are even further off in imaginary land. Geo, do you think that the Democrats have a coherent plan as it relates to health care and deficits? (Apologies if you just want to talk about Republican irrationality and view this as hijacking.)

RJ, no, I don't know of any coherent plan regarding health care and deficits. Part of it is that the country has become so polarized and ideologically driven, that there is no party of "true" anymore. When it's done "well," we make policy based upon theory rather than reality. When it's done badly we make policy based upon special interests. Did you see the vote to end ethanol subsides? Oy.

The Senate beat back a challenge to ethanol fuel subsidies on Tuesday in a demonstration of how the drive to cut the federal deficit can run headlong into a favored interest on Capitol Hill.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/us/politics/15senate.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=ethanol&st=cse

Yeah, I saw that one. It was muy depressing. There have also been efforts to increase the Commerce Dept budget which has no place in either capitalist or socialist ideology, but seems to work under political ideology. Oy.

ray

I actually think that both parties ignore reality, but that on economic matters the Democrats are even further off in imaginary land

Ray, as Fareed points out, there is abundant evidence that socialized medicine works more efficiently and abundant evidence that strategic govenrment involvement in economies have been enormously successful. And yet, in the american political landscape these are considered virtual non-starters today. Even though the latter was demonstrated by the US for decades.
Thats because the whole idea of evidence has been eroded by people used to "faith" as a method of making decisions.
If conservatives in the US lost the compass that evidence based decision making provided it was whn the religious right took over and began espousing arguements that required no evidence. Only faith.
That "faith" became translated from belief in religious ideas to unbalanced belief in the "wisdom of the markets" . And when evidence became unuseful it became easier to subject the political discourse to a debate between characatures of the opponents positions then a reason discourse on problems and solutions....
Everything becomes a 2 sided debate between us and them rather than a rationale discussion about a rationale course of action. I guess thats why you brought the Democrats into the discussion?

rickyp wrote:If conservatives in the US lost the compass that evidence based decision making provided it was when the religious right took over and began espousing arguments that required no evidence. Only faith.That "faith" became translated from belief in religious ideas to unbalanced belief in the "wisdom of the markets" . And when evidence became unuseful it became easier to subject the political discourse to a debate between characatures of the opponents positions then a reason discourse on problems and solutions....
Everything becomes a 2 sided debate between us and them rather than a rationale discussion about a rationale course of action.

Interesting theory, and if you take just Redscape, there's a lot of evidence supporting it that could be found here.

Ricky said:

And when evidence became unuseful it became easier to subject the political discourse to a debate between characatures of the opponents positions then a reason discourse on problems and solutions....
Everything becomes a 2 sided debate between us and them rather than a rationale discussion about a rationale course of action.

Irony alert.

I think that the example of Russ, Tom and Brad swallowing whole an article on a spoof website (clearly marked as fake news) as evidence that NOW said Palin should be chained to the kitchen sink highlights a fair degree of cognitive dissonance.

But the left are not immune to it, nor is anyone - we find it easier to accept 'facts' that back up our existing beliefs.

GMTom wrote:I think the term "Conservative" has been hijacked by the far right. Any far leaning position on either side simply can not be "conservative" yet that's what they have been doing.
Now, the interesting thing that just hit me, is this due to the far right trying to claim some legitimacy or could the left be attempting to paint even those "real" conservatives as crazy far right idiots? Either way, this seems to be the case to me. Maybe we need a new name for one group or the other?

Isn't this just what happened with 'Liberal'? It used to be that most Americans were 'liberal', heck, Presidents of both parties in the 50s and 60s were 'liberal'. Nowadays, it is associated with the far left of the Democrats (and seen as equivalent to socialist, which is seen as almost identical to communist).

But a lot of the recent use of 'conservative' seems to be from the right, and aimed at pushing out the 'RINOs', who are not ideologically pure enough.

The use of labels as perjoratives is far easier than dealing with actual evidence. It makes it easier to attack the ideas that compete with yours when a term can be flung as a disqualifier...
Yet, for instance, when Americans are reminded that Medicaid, Veterans benefits and Medicare are examples of socialism, and very popular versions especially with older republicans, they blanche. It can't be...
It doesn't fit the label that something that is socialistic (an acepted term?) should be such an important and valued part of their lives. After all, they've been told since the cradle that socialism breeds lazy evil people and can't be tolerated in a free society.
And so there is cognitive dissonance in dealing with that reality.

Whoa!

I think that the example of Russ, Tom and Brad swallowing whole an article on a spoof website (clearly marked as fake news) as evidence that NOW said Palin should be chained to the kitchen sink highlights a fair degree of cognitive dissonance.

wrong thread AND, please point to how I believed that article, I never even read it. I simply said "Thanks Russ" and that I had heard this elsewhere. I went on to mention other things (conveniently ignored) Let's get your facts straight, let's post in the right thread, lets not jump to any unfair conclusions, you yourself show how you are also reading what you want to read and are as (possibly more?) guilty of what you are accusing others of.
and before you go on with your "same but more" rant,
We had ONE person miss the fact that the site was a spoof site, he was wrong.
But then you jump into things accusing others of swallowing that site as some sort of proof, YOURS is a flat out lie vs a mistake made by one person. Yes, You are MORE guilty of this!

as far as hijacking words or labels, maybe "Liberal" was also hijacked? If so, that was a loooong while ago and doesn't change the fact of what is being discussed here. The word does seem to have been hijacked, yes, it happens from time to time, because you can point to an example where is was before doesn't change the situation now does it?

I asked for a rebuttal, and got one. I didn't even look at the link. Way to lump us all together... (oh, wait a minute, that was another thread...)

Oh, and Ricky
Medicare and Medicaid
You keep insisting they are "Popular"
...Not so!

Because you insist it must be doesn't make it so.
Because people want what they feel they have paid for, doesn't mean they LIKE it
We had a free cheese program a long while ago, hell I don't even know WHY we did it? Because Americans wanted what was being given to them for free doesn't mean it was popular, it simply means they wanted free cheese. To then try to claim we should now continue that because of it being "popular" is a myth.

Tom, Brad, I was picking up from the mention of Redscape conservatives. Brad - maybe you didn't intend it, but your post looked more like a 'gotcha!' than expressing any possible doubt as to the veracity of the story. And Tom, yours seemed to be accepting it on face value as well. You said 'thanks Russ' and that you'd heard it elsewhere, but you conveniently forget the context - it came after you had stated that NOW had indeed attacked Palin on that basis.

It was not only Russ that 'missed' it. Anyone who didn't follow the link and read the page also missed it. If they didn't follow the link, it's still 'not reading the salient information' - ie: missing it.

The point being, you see, that you were either accepting it on face value, or at the very least not openly sceptical of it, and at least one of you was expecting 'the other side' of the debate to do the spade-work to 'rebut' the point. When what we should really do - all of us is to be a bit more careful before swallowing evidence that supports our own position. Not least because if it turns out that your 'killer evidence' is actually clearly made up for a laugh, it undermines your arguments. Maybe you are cool with that. Maybe we can all make the same mistake (wow, did I say something like...

But the left are not immune to it, nor is anyone - we find it easier to accept 'facts' that back up our existing beliefs.

in this thread? Wow - so I did)

And Tom, I was not pointing out the history of the demonisation of 'liberal' to change the fact of what's happening to 'conservative', just to show that it's happened before. I am well aware that the meanings of words change over time, thanks. Stop being such a sensitive flower.