NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/fan/rushlim/10812

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 13.3 KB

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10812 talk.politics.misc:65556
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!watson!fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com!mjones
From: [e-mail] (Mike Jones)
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum)
Sender: @watson.ibm.com
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 18:34:32 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Lines: 238

[e-mail] (mike myke schwartz) writes:
: Russ Anderson ([e-mail]) wrote:
: : In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (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  |  [e-mail]

More young men have lost their lives to AIDS than died in the entire Vietnam
War.
    - Andew Sullivan, The New Republic 12/17/1990