We've had varying degrees of conservatism controlling our government for 3 decades. There is the Reagan/Bush borrow and spend while paying lip services to values conservatives, the Clinton call yourself a liberal but enact conservative policies (yet still get no love fom those whose agenda you advanced), and the neocon postmodern warmonger conservatives. But they all have one thing in common- they're lousy at running the government.

Clinton was a liberal in the sense that he was good at the minutiae of government- the bureacracy worked well because it was run by experts on his watch. The other 3 presidents were classical conservatives, meaning their governing philosophy was based upon a hatred of government and an inability to ever see it as an agent of good.

This is why Bush can appoint a former horse attorney to run FEMA, a former corporate lobbyist to run the CPSC, and put mining execs with horrific safety records in charge of mine safety. Because he hates government, and thinks that no matter what it won't work. Liberals have proven otherwise throughout history, that collective action through the instrument of government can be a force for good, but reality never interferes with the conservative ideology.

Their inconsistencies with regards to realities are clear in one regard, they always want to be involved in the very thing they claim as the root of all evil- government. But they are fundamentally unfit to lead government, as their actions have proven time and time again.

Now, this doesn't mean they have no place in government, they simply have no business running it. They're best as a minority opposition party, basically to keep liberals honest.

Because while liberals, unlike conservatives, do mean well, we have a tendency to get carried away. The ACLU claiming there's a legal right to solicit anonymous sex in airport mens rooms is just one recent example, but I'm sure the conservatives here can chime in and give me many more. And I hope they do, because in doing so they'll be filling the proper role of the conservatives.

Conservatives, you are the necessary brakes on progress, as unbridled progress often leads to unintended consequences. You're the ones who must stand up and make certain we're not completely off our rockers. But you're not the ones who should be running the show, and if the last 30 years hasn't convinced you of that, you're deluding yourselves.

BTW, I probably won't be responding to any claims of "those aren't real conservatives you're talking about!" Because the hypothetical conservative ideal is just that, hypothetical, and I try to avoid hypothetical arguments.

is entirely up to th voters...

<link>

Providing employment for Federal Prison guards.

If conservatives have no place in the majority, why have they been "controlling our government for 3 decades"?

Clearly the American voter disagrees with you, on the whole.

True, you guys have great marketing, but it doesn't change the fact that your product stinks on ice.

But the American voter is waking up, realizing that they've been sold snake oil by the GOP. You'll see in November, in case the midterms weren't enough proof for you.

And undercover restroom police.

Also in 2002, as I recall.

There are fundamental flaws in our government, IMO. We need honesty and integrity more than partisan corruption, but the current system encourages the latter.

We need someone who can RUN government, run it honestly, and not someone talking divisive nonsense about being 'anti-government.'

We need an efficient administrator who appoints good, capable, honest people.

Where's THAT candidate?

Bush and Cheney have been disastrous for almost all of America, except a couple of segments of America have benefited from the "election" of an oilman and a defense contractor.

I'll give you a hint: it's actually not the Jews.

They're too wedded to cronyism and incompetence.

But even among the Democrats, nobody is going to talk about an issue as important, yet mind-numbingly boring, as appointing bureaucrats with expertise to government posts. Honestly, if they did even the moderators would doze off.

"Because the hypothetical conservative ideal is just that, hypothetical, and I try to avoid hypothetical arguments."

No need to respond, then, but I see our current crop of pseudo-cons, beginning with Free Lunch Reagan, as a continuation of LBJ's policies, which were broadly adopted by Nixon, briefly repressed by Ford, fought by Carter, and surrendered to by Reagan.

Today a conservative attitude could be useful in slowing the rush to "Gimmie Gimme" economics, but conservatism brings the negative of being unable to accept that some ideas don't work and to try something new.

Unfortunately, I can't see a candidate with any conservative credentials and I can't any conservative ideas even being offered outside this board.

You're reasonable and largely grounded in reality, I was more directing that towards some others who haunt this site.

But my statement stands, until these "real" conservatives appear at least. I don't see any of them either.

Excellent analysis, I saved this one as a favorite. I have made the same points over and over again throughout the years. You summed it up very well. The problem is that an ideology will always fail, it cannot accept changes or modifications without losing its identity.

Chum, cha chum chum chuuuuuum!!!!!