Why does the world hate American conservatives?

Post Reply New Topic

I feel a lot of people view conservatives as being narrow minded and intolerant of people not like themselves. I think most people view everyone as coming from different backgrounds and have different beliefs. There is no right or wrong way to think and as long as someone is not hurting anyone else who cares what they think or do.

According to liberal doctrine, human rights are indulgences conditionally granted by government until such time that they become inconvenient to the interests of the government. They are simply marketing hype deployed as a means toward achieving unlimited government. There is little doubt that liberals are no fans of the concept of human rights as described in the Constitution, as this limits the power of government.



Liberals taking up arms against the King of England? Not likely. Conservatives of that day rejected the centralized monarchy just as today’s Conservatives tend to reject federal authority in favor of state authority. Case in point, the Founders included Amendment ten in the Constitution which specifically states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

After the revolution was over and the New Nation had cemented its foundation with the American Constitution, then those who are Citizens and who adhere to that Constitution would be considered to be Conservative. Those who seek to alter it by loose interpretation of its stabilizing characteristics would be Liberals.

So by your reasoning Thomas Hobbes and H P Lovecraft were liberals??? You're just babbling the kind of philosophical nonsense you read on pundit blogs.The whole idea of freedom and personal responsibility were once considered liberal beliefs. And in fact, they are rooted in protestantism; a rebellion against the Catholic church which was founded by St Peter and is the oldest Christian institution in the world. The word "conservative" is a relative term that does not apply the way you think it does to 17th century Europe(including Britain). For most of history until the last 400 years, central authority and hereditary rule were the pillars of civilization.
The establishment of centralized authority in the form of a hereditary leader is what allowed civilization to began and flourish. Democracy began in ancient Greece, but classical Greek democracy was very short lived. But the Roman Republic was based on Oligarchy rather than absolute Monarchy. A republic has a ruling council that elects a supreme leader but has the power to depose that leader under certain provisions. That US government and legal system is modelled off of the Roman republic.



What American conservatives ultimately seek to do is to preserve the social order and maintain the status quo. They do recognize however that freedom and equality cannot coexist with each other and that's precisely why they favor the former: Because at the end of the day they are hierarchical. People generally favor freedoms in areas where they are superior so the idea of absolute freedom is very much a survival of the fittest.


No matter what your religious beliefs are, it is pretty clear that the almighty cannot be bothered to enforce "natural rights"(assuming the existence of a divine Creator). It is clear from observing the behaviour of people in SOMALIA and AFGHANISTAN what happens in the absence of a government: might makes right. Labor laws must be enforced by the government because there is no other incentive for employers and corporations(let alone people with a lot of money) to treat their workers fairly. The same goes for civil rights. People favor their own over those who are different from them and will treat people from different groups unfairly because that's their instinct to do so.

The famous civil rights activist .S.B. Fuller would disagree. He used capitalism to defeat racism.

Oh did he really *defeat racism*? Or simply enrich himself and do little to create opportunities for other blacks. Surely poverty wouldn't be nearly as widespread and the civil rights act unnecessary if your bold claims are true.

What liberal doctrine is that? I've never heard of anything like an Anthanasian Creed for liberals, save in the imaginings of conservatives.
And why wouldn't liberals take up arms against Britain? The founders' belief in the equality of all (white) men, as well as their dedication for liberty shielding laws, were very much in keeping with liberalism. Conservatives of that day were the monarchists who the founders fought against, as the monarchy was the establishment standing in the way of equality and freedom.
Incidentally, conservatives today support limited government and states rights in order to oppose civil rights specifically. The struggle for civil rights is representative of the fight for equality that dates back to the founding fathers.

H.P. Lovecraft had become increasingly liberal in his later years, seeing the failures of conservatism. And I am very aware of the history of Protestantism - I was taught all about it growing up in my Lutheran church. And I can tell you right now, the kind of Protestantism promoted by right wing idealogues has more to do with a selective, and erred, reading of Calvinism, than it does with the real Calvin, and certainly has nothing to do with Luther.
If your freedom is something without equality, then I want nothing to do with it, and I dare say, most conservatives would probably agree with me.
In closing: no, I don't get my ideas from liberal pundits, though I certainly do listen to them rather than to their conservative counterparts. My ideals are my own.

I don't believe laws have the effect you describe.

For example, in the US, the liberals brought us our inner city ghettos, because they foolishly believed racial integration laws would result in people being treated equally. Predictably, the white people fled.

Whites are still fleeing from non-whites. Plus, there is now "black-flight" (see Wikipedia black-flight) as blacks flee Hispanic areas.

Since when did you turn into such a teabagger?

Inner city ghettos in the US have been around long before racial integration laws. Back in the 19th an early 20th century it was poor white immigrants(lots of Irish and Italians back east) living there. Do you seriously expect me to believe that black people were once prosperous before the civil rights act was passed? Keep drinking the koolade. This is the reason why American conservatives are disliked: They keep spewing propaganda and using liberals as a scapegoat instead of getting a life because it's easier to do and they think it makes em look tough....LOL

Your response indicates that you don't know much about this subject.

The inner city ghettos were created because of "white flight".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight

Whites fled to the suburbs, and the inner city was left with mostly poor blacks.

"White flight" happened in response to desegregation of schools and forced busing.

So, liberal policies largely created these inner city ghettos.

Wikipedia:
"The United States during the 1940s, for the first time a powerful interaction between segregation laws and race differences in terms of socioeconomic status enabled white families to abandon inner cities in favor of suburban living. The eventual result was severe levels of urban decay that, by the 1960s, resulted in the crumbling urban "ghettos".

"Upon desegregation in 1957 in Baltimore, Maryland, the Clifton Park Junior High School had 2,023 white students and 34 black students; ten years later, it had twelve white students and 2,037 black students"

White flight has more to do with flawed human nature in regard to racism, than due to any failure with the idealism of civil rights.
And yes, there were always inner city ghettos - it's just that blacks and Latinos are the most recent denizens of said ghettos. In the past, it was inner city Irish, Italians, Eastern European Jews, and others who were described as intellectually and morally inferior. Someday, it'll be somebody else living there who will be despised as the dregs of society.

And in hindsight at least, do you think a pragmatic solution would of been better ?

I cringe when they applaud Thurgood Marshall.

Evidence ?

It takes poverty to make a ghetto. Likely, the groups you mentioned of "Italians, Eastern European Jews" were not poor
enough to make it a ghetto.

So you actually yearn for a robot dictatorship. Now I've heard everything.

Uh... it's called history books. They were desperately poor people, who the rest of America in the 19th and early 20th centuries saw as unwanted outsiders to be kept away from "decent" society, with few economic or social opportunities. That, and as ethnic street gangs have arisen in modern inner cities, you had Italian, Jewish, and Irish gangs terrorising their own neighborhoods, before evolving into organized crime.
And what's your beef with Thurgood Marshal?

I spent the last half hour trying to find out if the earlier immigrants created ghettos. Could not find any info on it.

Marshal is celebrated for "Brown vs Topeka Board of Education".

That is partly how these ghettos were made.