Can someone explain to me why they are called conservatives?

And why any working class American in their right mind would vote for one.

White House sees record budget gap in 2009. This coming from 8 years of not only a balanced budget, but a surplus of funds when Bill Clinton was in office. And he had inherited 12 years of Republican debt from Ronald Reagan and Bush Sr.

citation

There was even a time during the Clinton administration when a gallon of gas was under $1.

Because asshats was unavailable?

Sounds better than earth raping, poverty inducing, heartless, greedy pricks.

I always thought it was because they wanted to go back in time to the 1950's mentality, when cars were big, wives stayed home, gay people "didn't exist", and being a white male automatically put someone at the top of the food chain.

yeah, kinda. i figured that they were "conservative" about inducing change.

they sure don't live up to the monkier when talking about using federal money or power. (following the second two definitions)

Sounds about right to me; a lot like Thatcher's "Victorian Values".

I seem to remember something about a job surplus back then . . .

Oh, and hope of getting the job I wanted.

Both are reliant on the same misrepresentation, of course: the idea that the voter would be part of the select few who actually did have the lifestyle which we are shown. The vast majority were, um, "not so well off".

Well, the Victorian Age, certainly, although there really was a mellowing of class barriers back during the 1950s; that is, of course, assuming one was white. Burgeoning Middle Class, and all that stuff. Generally, not a horrible time to be alive. Not that it was perfect, of course, but there was a more even distribution of wealth during the era than we see now or, for that matter, than throughout a vast majority of our history. You might want to check out the book "Consumer Republic" which goes into quiet a bit of detail about it.
The problem, of course, is that Republicans are very selective about the things they want to take from the 1950s. More conservative moral values? check! 90 percent income tax on upper bracket? not so much. Stable Middle Class? Certainly! Putting together any sort of plan to actually ensure the continued existence of the Middle Class? Nope! You get the picture.

I always thought they weren't conservative enough, as they only want to go back to the 50s. I say if they really want to practice traditional white, Anglo-Saxon traditions, they need to start worshiping Woden again. Make the occasional human sacrifice.

Maybe have the president have intercourse with a white mare at his inauguration. No...that was the Irish. Nevermind. Heaven forbid!

Damned double-post.

You should have conserved the second one for later.

The sad thing is, is that I KNEW that, and was going to call you out on it, if you'd claimed that had been an Anglo-Saxon tradition God, I'm such a horrible geek, its pitiful!

Good points. Thank you.

They'd have to fight the largest empire in the known world, as well. Oh, wait...

I think that attitude is one of the things killing this country.

Both sides have turned the issue of "liberal vs. conservative" into the biggest smoke & mirror show this country has ever seen. While the two extremes fight it out in a modified version of "my dad can beat up your dad"...the politicians giggle like school girls as they help each other rob us blind.

Instead of taking our elected officials to task for their failures or misdeeds without regard to their political affiliation...people end up cherry picking the good things their side has done.....and lambaste the other side for their failures.

Politicians know this...and they love it. Their careers depend upon it. Can you imagine how short their careers would be if we'd stop getting into mini-debates with each other based on the bumper sticker on your car...and actually focused on their voting record...and the bills they back and/or introduce?

In case you forgot..the last couple of presidential elections have been kinda close, no? That tells me that there is a large part of this country's citizenship that does not agree with you.

Now...I tend to not identify with Middle America...but dismissing them as a joke...or even worse...a failure to at least empathize with them....is borderline criminal...politically speaking.

I remember there was a time when i couldn't go into work without customers offering me jobs.

So let's say you are correct. That because of the status quo in the way people discuss and vote on policy very few things about politicians will change. How do you expect to change the hearts and minds of the millions of people that think this way? You may not identify with middle America, but the reality is middle America is making decisions that are very much effecting you. It's simply naive to say that because the prevailing attitude is hurting the country to not work within the system as it exists, notice the trends on a broad scale, and then vote your conscience accordingly. You have to admit getting the average American to vote is a challenge enough. Expecting them to research each candidates voting record before going to the polls is simply not going to happen.

A look at things in a broad sense sometimes gives a clearer picture than honing in on minute details. Hate to say it, but that's all the average working American has time to focus on.

You see, when I read something like that I can't help but view things in more simplistic terms. Right or wrong, in your opinion, that, I believe is also how the average American thinks as well.

Personally, it looks to me as if it's a little more complicated. It is not really possible, nowadays, to take the Truman course and admit to being wrong; because if you do, you're crucified, possibly by your own party and definitely by the opposition, and definitely by the media (which must take a very large share of the blame).
It's no longer seen as statesmanlike to admit to making an error; it's seen as weak.

It is more complicated than that. Raising interest rates in the 80's was necessary and Reagan and Carter both wisely supported it.

Paul Volcker, a Democrat[3], was appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve in August 1979 by President Jimmy Carter and reappointed in 1983 by President Ronald Reagan.[4] Volcker's Fed is widely credited with ending the United States' stagflation crisis of the 1970s by limiting the growth of the money supply, abandoning the previous policy of targeting interest rates. Inflation, which peaked at 13.5% in 1981, was successfully lowered to 3.2% by 1983. [1]

However, the change in policy contributed to the significant recession the U.S. economy experienced in the early 1980s, which included the highest unemployment levels since the Great Depression, and Volcker's Fed also elicited the strongest political attacks and most wide-spread protests in the history of the Federal Reserve (unlike any protests experienced since 1922), due to the effects of the high interest rates on the construction and farming sectors, culminating in indebted farmers driving their tractors onto C Street and blockading the Eccles Building.[5]

inflation in the early 80's

Right...but I don't see how being dismissive and arrogant towards them helps anything.

The opening line in our thread says "I am right...my way is the only way...and you're either crazy or stupid if you disagree."

I happen to work with a Republican, homosexual, union employee. I'm sorry, but there are things about that that leave me bewildered. And why a party that has consistently show itself to be fiscally irresponsible and yet gets called conservative is a mystery to me as well.

Since when did asking a question become dismissive and arrogant? Admittedly, I forgot to add the proper punctuation to the first sentence, but if there was arrogance in any shape or form in my comment then why would I so readily say, "So, let's say you are correct." to your statement. You really like to interpret things however you see fit, don't you? I used to think you were actually intelligent. Talk about arrogant, Mr. Kettle.

It's only in the last 8 years that the Republican party has been hijacked to the point of being absurd. I can see being suspicious of Neo-Cons...but can you actually expect lifelong Republicans to switch teams because of the lst 8 years?

Yeah, my lesbian aunt & her partner are hardline republicans and ardent Bush supporters. I don't know why...but they have their reasons. They are both college educated & have good jobs. Instead of wondering why...I just assume they have come to their conclusions for reasons that make sense to them.

It's not dismissive & arrogant to simply ask a question......unless the question itself is dismissive & arrogant. Your willingness to explore other aspects of my post doesn't negate the fact that your opening line was dismissive & arrogant...regardless of punctuation. The message remains clear.

You're saying that someone who'd vote republican & identify as a conservative...while being working class...isn't in their right mind. If my realization of that makes you think I'm stupid...well...I don't know what else to tell you. I don't see how that's me interpreting it how I see fit...I had no ulterior motive...just making an observation. Maybe I hurt your widdle feewings?

Heh, I think that assuming democratic candidates are 100% for the interests of the little guy is far-fetched. Most politicians are corrupt, that's how politics works. The two-party system is inherently broken because two political parties cannot realistically represent the best interests of 300 million disenfranchised voters. The politicians become disenfranchised because the voters don't want to donate money, and money is (a big part of) how elections are won. So the politicians turn to special interest groups and corporate fundraisers for campaign financing and in exchange pass laws that screw those disenfranchised voters, and the voters don't really care because they're worried about things like gay marriage (for and against) and abortion laws (again, for and against) and not things like NAFTA and the Taft-Hartley Act. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions on abortion, gay marriage, and the war in Iraq but in my opinion those things should be weighed with other problems that legislators need to address. What I'm really trying to get at is that people should vote for real opinions and not political talking points. A party's platform is not going to cover all your bases.