A simple, sincere appeal for your opinion... Why should Conservatives stay in the Republican Party?

I am a progressive who boycotts the DNC. Makes election night about as exciting as watching Kenya vs. Sri Lanka in the International Deaf & Blind Athletes Cricket Tournament or something but otherwise I sleep well at night.

 

Generally speaking, any self-respecting member of the GOP (be they labeled Conservative or Moderate) should leave the GOP (so they aren't permanently stained with the STENCH of Trump's actions and policies).

 

For once we disagree, Mike. Rahl's explanation is a steaming pile of "progressive" bullshit.

The notion that conservatives have only one function - "to prevent too much progress too quickly" - is ridiculous in itself, and it belies a complete lack of understanding of the roles - yes, that's plural - conservatives play in government and politics. I think you and most conservatives - including libertarians - would agree with me that our primary concerns are individual freedom, limited government and free enterprise, and our function is to promote and defend them. It's the Republicans who have strayed from those things who have strayed from conservatism.

On the other hand, the totalitarian socialist reactionaries in this country (i.e., the Leftists who laughably refer to themselves as "progressives") are all about collectivism, unlimited government and socialism. They're not about progress at all - they haven't had an original thought enter their heads since the godfather of socialism, François-Noël Babeuf , declared "Nature has given to every man the right to the enjoyment of an equal share in all property" in 1796. Their dedication to the hierarchal systems of centralized dictatorial government that plagued the entire human race for eons prior to the American Revolution is the primary evidence of their reactionary nature, ideology and politics.

Indeed, societies do change and move forward, but the "progressivism" of the anti-individualist authoritarian Left is not inevitable - it is a relic of the authoritarian past. The American Revolution and the dedication to individual sovereignty and freedom is the break from that past - not the socialist revolutions in France, Russia and elsewhere that revived the dark ages of Man's past.

Contrary to rahl's absurd claim, conservatism is not a monolith, and it is not confined to social conservatism as so many ignorant "progressives" believe.

Finally, I could also launch into a long-winded dissertation on the conservatism that was promoted by the Founder who might be considered the father of conservatism in America, John Dickinson, but to make a long story short, looking to the lessons of History and observing what worked and didn't work isn't resistance to change and progress. Dickinson's conservatism is nothing more than the prudence to learn from History and not repeat the mistakes that were made in the past.

 

Weirdly yes!

 

Why would they? They are getting much of their way as Democrats. If they formed their own party they would be marginalized like the Green Party.

 

Maybe you think so because the right-wing has spent the past few decades attempting to vilify "liberal" and anything associated with it wile the term "progressive".

 

Have an example?

 

Are there political and social policies that are over a decade old that "Conservatives" don't support? I can only think of one: abortion. Everything else, from Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights are all defended by conservatives. Now, conservatives are defending Obamacare and gay marriage.

 

I feel I have a pretty good idea of what progressives are about. The issue with progressives is that they have to be a bit lost in order to be progressive. The central theme in progressivism is central authority. I don't include intentions into my analysis of political ideologies.

 

The CINOs who defend ObamaCare aren't conservatives, are they?

Not in my book.

That law and the unconstitutional manner in which it was passed defies everything conservatives stand for.

 

I don't really adhere to the established ring for debate which is limited to right wing vs left wing talking points. For one, I don't put everything in a single linear plane. I read a fair amount of books with a wide variety of view points. I read Hayek and Krugman, Napalitano, Albright, Gore, Clintons, and Obama. I learn a little from each. Central theme of neo- progressives and neo - conservatives is centralization of authority.

 

They just did. Middle America middle class soundly rejected progressive policies.

 

no they didn't. the progressive candidate received 3 million more votes than her opponent

 

this is a perfect example of what my post referenced.

 

Valid point, but you will not get the same treatment as the person that has insurance. It will be enough to get you through whatever it is, but within limits.

 

Please note that he stated

. If you review the map of the election this statement is 100% correct. There are a few blue counties between the coasts, but even the blue counties in coastal states are the minority and not the majority.

 

Yes, healthcare isn't a choice and when you have a serious conditions and need care that isn't a choice either. When you do get sick without healthcare then it is everyone else who has to pay and it is you who gets financially ruined. Also if the young and healthy opt out then that raises the average healthcare cost for everyone else. A good healthcare system has everyone, young and healthy, old and sick paying in to keep the average cost down and ensure care for those who need it to most. A mandate ensures everyone is on board and their costs are covered and should help the poor pay their bills.

That would be absolutely ruinous to our healthcare system. Already the sick can be charged three times higher in premiums and have to use their premiums and out of pocket. Health insurance only works when the healthy help pay for the sick and you want them to contribute even less which means the sick get stuck with a lot more. In addition catastrophic only doesn't encourage preventative care like much cheaper European systems do which helps them cut costs by fixing medical problems before they get expensive.

 

Well that goes back to arguing what a "real conservative" is.

 

and my statement is still correct. Middle class americans didn't reject progressivism.

 

If you have a sudden, major illness (stroke, heart attach) or severe accident (car accident) you are getting the same exact treatment, regardless of ability to pay. When you are uninsured, and can't pay, that cost gets spread out to the insured, so the hospital doesn't eat the loss.

This is why single payer is superior to our system.

 

Agreed,

If you do not have insurance, and wind up in the er.... and do not pay the bill.... that bill is paid by someone other than you... so your decisions about medical insurance DO IMPACTother people that in the same way that not having auto liability insurance impacts other people

Except that it is not your choice... if you get seriously ill and wind up in the er... you WILL BE treated regardless of your insurance. If you get in a serious auto accident an ambulance will come take you away regardless of your insurance

Possibly it is your opinion that sick people should be rolled into the gutter unless and until they can prove insurance? So far, I have not heard one single politician advocate such an enlightening view

 

i do not think true conservative principles allow for living wage jobs to be stolen by the rich, which is why most Americans can't afford to buy their own health care and are dependent on obama care.

republicans couldn't pass the border tax to help bring manufacturing back, the chamber of commerce supports illegal immigration for cheap labor to the rich, and tariffs were a pipe dream to appeal to the hearts and minds of idealists.

the republican as well as democrat parties have been hijacked for the interests of the rich, there really is no reason for a real conservative or liberal to stay in either political party.

 

Not saying they did as a whole, but he is saying and he is correct in it , is that Middle America Middle Class citizens did, based up the red color of the state. If you have evidence that indicates otherwise please share, but last I saw that did not list each voters "class" ranking for you to know that.

 

Personally, I don't think there's any room for argument on this particular issue, but let me ask you this, Mike - do conservatives have core values?

I submit that we do.

 

Ummm.....no. If you do not have insurance the medication can be less quality and the tests can be not as many. This likely depends on the hospital the person is at also.