With the exception of candoxx, who obviously never had an original thought it its life, the responses to my previous post were well thought out. What most did though, was put historical reference into 21st century context. My reference to the 200 year success of the constitution and the successful congressional resolution of contentious isssues in order to benefit the country with true, bipartisan effort was to point out that yes, although contentious and in some cases downright hostile, the gentlemen in congress were able, at the end of the day, to come together to compromise and get it done. The key word here is compromise, something Pelosi, Reid, Bush, Cheney and the Obama administration have killed dead.

I am in the position of being able to remember all the way back to the Truman administration. We were taught in school, during the cold war, of the evils of socialism and communism. I remember crawlling under my desk when we had a nuclear war drill, as if that would save us. I remember all the tales of my father and his friends who served in Europe and the Pacific, about hte hell of war, but why the war had to be fought. Freedom. Freedom from Fascism, freedom from communism, freedom from whatever ism the Japanese operated under.

It seems to me that we now have a whole lost generation who do not know those lessons and who think socialism and communism are not only not evil, but desirable because they think it means getting something for nothing, it we are just willing to give up a lot of our freedoms. It also seems we have an entire government running on one of the basic tenets of Fascism, private ownership of, but government control over buiness and commerce and a good portion of the public supporting this highly dangerous scenario.

A one party system is not desireable. Pelosi's supremely arrogant comment that "we won and we will do whatever we want" does not make for a healthy political environment and means the idea of compromise is as dead as the Ottoman Empire. If one assumes that democrats are the smartest people on earth and republicans are the dumbest, then one is willing to succumb to a system set up and run by one party, whose agenda may or may not be in the best interest of the citizenry, as witnessed by the Soviet Union, the Nazi's and the Fascists, prime examples of the dangers of a one party system. If one party completely dismisses the ideas of all but themselves, then political discourse dies, the state run media bends the thinking of the citizenry to the goals of the state (1984) and the citizenry is going suffer big time in the long run. If conservatism is truly dead, then so is the U.S. constitution and everything it stands for.

With the exception of this:

With the exception of candoxx, who obviously never had an original thought it its life (which I call the nothing good can come out of Nazareth fallacy…) excellent post; I had top posted this and removed it so I could repost it here.

What do you think about Gabler’s thoughts?

Conservatism has been converted into a religious belief, and now compromise doesn't have a prayer.

If one party completely dismisses the ideas of all but themselves, then political discourse dies.

A one party system is not desireable. Pelosi's supremely arrogant comment that "we won and we will do whatever we want" does not make for a healthy political environment

Good recognition. But where where you when Bush said, "Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. "

If you will notice, I blamed Bush and Cheney right along with Pelosi and Reid.

HAP, I am a fiscal conservative, but I am not religious nor do I condone any of the right wing bible thumping ignorance espoused by the religious right, the christian coalition or any of the talking heads who try to impose their religious beliefs on me. On the other hand I do not condone the blatant arrogance of Pelosi and her mind numbed cohorts either. I am a pragmatist and am not represented by either political party and feel that as long as the right is coming at me from the side of religious extremism and bigotry and the left comes at me worshipping socialism/communism/fascism, I agree wholeheartedly with Gabler on his thoughts of compromise.

Gabler: I don't mean "religious belief" literally. This transformation is less a function of the alliance between Protestant evangelicals, their fellow travelers and the right (though that alliance has had its effect) than it is a function of a belief in one's own rightness so unshakable that it is not subject to political caveats. In short, what we have in America today is a political fundamentalism, with all the characteristics of religious fundamentalism and very few of the characteristics of politics.

I’m a fiscal conservative as well, but when it comes to personal rights I’m just this side of anarchy (toward the non-anarchy side). And I agree... it cuts both ways on the far left and the far right. Maybe Pelosi (and her mind numbed cohorts) need to chill. I will reiterate I do not see the group referenced by Gabler as being small, not at all, not in numbers nor in influence.

I have yet to see Pelosi or Reed caning their political opponents half to death. Nor have I heard of anyone using the "Senate Dueling Field" where Burr and Hamilton went at it. So its hardly a case that our current discourse is anywhere near the level of discomity that much of the US underwent for most of its history.

Nor is the "one party rule" such a horrible thing. Teddy Roosevelt did pretty well with it, so did FDR. What seems to matter more is the connection between the philosophy the parties brought and the real world. LBJ and Dems did NOT do very well because of the disconnect between reality and dogma - same applies to GWB and somewhat Reagan (who had the dems cowed in the first term and caused the S&L trainwreck).

And while Pelosi's comment could be seen as egregious - remember also the context of what came before - GWB despite not really winning - goverened as though he had been given a mandate. And the GOP completely dismissed Dems.

1. Turn about is fair play
2. There is much to be undone of the failed GOP dogma - but which will be resisted by the entrenched hyper-partisan GOP
3. This is the start of the reversal of a 3 decades long pendulum swing - we have a long way to go before there is anything close to the damage caused by GOP policies.

Its not that Dems are the "smartest people on earth and republicans the dumbest". Rather it is that in the last 70 years the GOP has chosen more and more to target the emotional angry constituency and less and less to address actual factual needs of governance.

The Dems have of course not been perfect.Particularly from Kennedy onwards they have become TOO focussed on being "The Smartest Guys In The Room" focussing on self-congratulatory logic while missing how to translate it into messages that resonate with people who only have High School educations.

The challenge in essence is to Conservatives to come up with a set of policies that are connected to the real world:

• It is one thing to be a "fiscal conservative" it is another to pretend that private sector and free markets ALWAYS work better.
• It is one thing to argue for what preferential benefits should accrue to citizens vs. immigrants, it is another to use toltec ancestry to mark those you accuse of being "illegal"
• It is one thing to defend religigious freedom , it is another to assume that ONLY christians can be moral (even Buckley fell into this trap)
• It is one thing to be proud of the USA, it is another to argue America First
• It is one thing to wish to eliminate racism - it is another to redefine racism to be so broad that it includes the acts of combating it including MLK's Freedom March

And it is in these, and a hundred other "anothers" that Conservativism is hopefully finally dead. These were dogmatic aspects of conservativism, grown out largely from the scientologist like self rationalization of wealth that a small handful of Texan roughnecks created in the 1920s, that have lead conservatives astray

was a good post, D.

degsme, if Pelosi and Reid thought they could get away with caning repubs, you better believe they would do it in a heartbeat.

Do you just lie all the time? What is your basis for saying that Pelosi and Reid would be willing to cane anyone?

Everything you've posted here has been a big damn lie. To call moderate to conservative Democrats 'socialists' is a lie. To claim that Obama and the Democrats are refusing to be bipartisan, when it's the Republicans who refuse to support any Democrat proposals, is a lie. Just a plain damn lie and nothing else but.

Wow, let’s see that again, dang, nerdnam has a staccato producing Tommy gun blaster!

Everything you've posted here has been a big damn lie. To call moderate to conservative Democrats 'socialists' is a lie. To claim that Obama and the Democrats are refusing to be bipartisan, when it's the Republicans who refuse to support any Democrat proposals, is a lie. Just a plain damn lie and nothing else but.

Excellent.

Americafirst:

degsme, if Pelosi and Reid thought they could get away with caning repubs, you better believe they would do it in a heartbeat.

And with that AF, you spin off into Ron Paul and Joe Wilson land. I actually refrained from making the equivilency, but Joe Wilson's outburst is closer to the public caning that took place in the House Well, than anything Pelosi or Reid have ever done. To pretend otherwise is to be as connected to Reality as Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are.

I am in the position of being able to remember all the way back to the Truman administration. We were taught in school, during the cold war, of the evils of socialism and communism. I remember crawlling under my desk when we had a nuclear war drill, as if that would save us. I remember all the tales of my father and his friends who served in Europe and the Pacific, about hte hell of war, but why the war had to be fought. Freedom. Freedom from Fascism, freedom from communism, freedom from whatever ism the Japanese operated under.

During the Second World War, our major ally was the Soviet Union and it was just as communist and Stalin was just as brutal an autocrat as after the war when they became our enemies.

Also, there is a significant difference between the style of communism that was practiced in the USSR and the soft socialism practiced in Scandanavia, the rest of Europe, and yes even here in the good old US of A. The first would be the form of government. The Soviet Union fluctuated between autocracy and oligarchy whereas the Scandanavians and Europeans generally have Parliamentary systems. A second would be the desire to spread the system through force and subversion, an aim possessed by the Soviets, but not by the modern europeans.

It's also important to note that the death of conservatism as defined by Tanenhaus need not lead to a single party system. The death of conservatism is being driven not by the Democrats, or even by liberalism but rather by the metamorphasis of the Republican Party which has left little room for those with a coherent, consistent conservative philoshiphy. It's either sell out and join the circus, or be left out in the cold.The Republican Party will likely persist in its increasingly frightening form. If it does not, it's conceivable a new party will rise from the ashes of the old, much as the Republicans assumed the position of the Whig Party. Alternately, the broad tent known as the Democrats will split into different parties.

As a quick side note. if you look at the structural form of the Governments of the USSR and the PRC - they are consistent with their historic models. Essentially unchanged since the 1500s in Russia for example: an all powerful autocrat whos still is held responsible to an oligarchical elite and with a largely centrally directed economy. Tsar, Chairman, President, Archduke, Politburo member, Oligarch - the names matter not a whit.

This is where conservatives went off the rails in believing "socialism is discreditted"...It never was.

Otherwise wholeheartedly agree

Hiding under a desk to survive nuclear attack is stupid, as you admit, yet you use it to justify other things you were told. How irontic.

We didn't fight WWII for "freedom", we fought becuase Pearl Harbor was attacked. We had lots of opportunity to get into the war for philisophical reasons, and refused.

The "communist" USSR was our ally..

Your "something for nothing" point is ridiculous. We as a society decide what everyone is entitled to. This includes education, social security, life threating heal care, etal. Saying that we pay for so much but adding one more thing is "socialist" is ridiculous. It's simply a decision we need to make, whether we are willing to pay for it.

The Nazi's were the facists, they are not two different things. And one party vs. two party has nothing to do with it. They ruled and they were evil. There were opposing factions, they just didn't have power. And a primary cause of that was jingoistic stupidity.