Thanks for reminding everyone that neither Bush was a conservative - especially W. I don't appreciate you disparaging Ronald Reagan however. He knew that America had to fight communism wherever we could - especially in this Hemisphere - hence liberating Grenada and helping the Contras in Nicaragua. That's conservatism 101 - the anticommunist philosophy- individual rights /limited government. Is communism not the ultimate "big government"?
There is a good reason to be optimistic- the Supreme Court. We've come a long way from the Warren Court. The new sheriff John Roberts may be the savior of Conservatism. The days of the ACLU being the 4th branch of government are nearly over thanks to Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas

Take it easy Dave. With common sense like you're proposing liberalism might lose its appeal! On second thought, what you're proposing will never happen so why should we worry?

This "conservatives will always be better than liberals" is nothing more than mindless drivel.

And incredibly childish as well.

Dave, you are absolutely correct.
VOTE OBAMA!

I agree 100%, Dave. Every time I hear someone refer to GWB as conservative I cringe. He only pays lip service to conservatism, but in practice is far from it. I wish all those preaching but not practicing conservatism would start calling their political philosophy something different, so the general public would make the distinction. Pipe dream? Yes, but I still have small hope in my country. It would be nice to try out conservative principles - limited government, free market, low taxes, etc. - and then we can make a real judgment call.

Boy, now there's a thinking response, Anonymous 6:59. Thanks.

The truth of the matter is we have a messy representative democracy here. The checks and balances pretty much ensure that very little changes over time. Even a sitting president has little power to effect what happens in our country without the people and the other branches and functionaries behind him. If you doubt that, just think of Nixon or the term "lame duck president."

As a result, this nation as a whole tends to get just what the nation as a whole asks for. In that the framers of the constitution have proven to be very effective. The fact that individuals within the nation are all over the political spectrum doesn't much matter.

In other words, as a general rule what is screwed up in the government is just a reflection of what is screwed up with the nation. And to make big changes, you have to start from the ground up and get a lot of people on board.

Just what do conservatives actually conserve?

Seems to me there are those who are merely paranoid about maintaining the status quo and that's about it.

In an interdependent and ever-changing world (and universe) this simply doesn't happen.

To Joe Moe -

I calls 'em the way I sees 'em, Joe.
I never rely on what Limbaugh says.

Try it sometime.

This mindset is spreading by the way. Look at the polls and the record-breaking number of people registering as Democrats. (Or liberals, or commies, or socialists, as Limbaugh and his right-wingers would call them)

Thank God.

Just what is this conservativism that you propose? As I understand it conservatism is opposed to change. Change cannot be held back, it's what happens without any help from us.

As I understand it.

The main attribute of a conservative is Greed. His main thrust is life is to attain and retain money and wealth.

The concept of "my" and "mine" to describe personal ownership is key to his personality. It seems like the grabbing and holding on of money and property is a comandment of God. Even after death.

The most terrible and horrendous thing that can happen to a conservative is to have "government" take some of his money and give it to those who are "undeserving". It is OK if the governement gives the money to wealthy people because they are considered as "deserving" because God has granted them great wealth.

To the conservative taxes, regulation and social help for the undeserving are evil and must be opposed. The proper way for people to interface is through the law of the jungle.

Get with it Joe Moe.

Change is most definitely in the wind.

Nothing to be afraid of.

Reagan spent money like a drunken sailor. We did not need to "fight communism wherever we could". Communism falls under its own weight. The idea that Reagan was responsible for the end of the USSR may be popular among many but I dont buy it. Reagan was a barrow and spend conservative.

To the uneducated liberals out there- Conservatives conserve YOUR money in YOUR pocket, YOUR freedoms, YOUR ability to make it on your own.

Also, President Bush is not a true conservative. He has some conservative ideas, but IS NOT a conservative in all things. He did get the prescription drug plan, which is NOT a conservative plan.

True conservatives to not take money only to give it to somebody else. They may lower taxes so that people/businesses can keep more of THEIR money, but money is not given. That is a liberal thing, they call it redistribution of wealth.

The writer put it pretty well. Real conservatives wouldn't support warrantless wiretaps, make destabilizing threats against Iran, conduct secret torture or hire other nations to do it, or fight a war on a tax cut. They wouldn't support plans to take over the reproductive systems of women, either. What you're left with is NEOCONS, best defined as - whatever Rush said yesterday.

Goldwater revival! Reagan sign abortion in to law as governor of California. Reagan, stated: it was cheaper to pay for an abortion than to pay to rise the child. I guess this is "true conservatism.

Reagan cut and ran from Beirut showing terrorist that bombing works. Under Reagan Ben Laden was trained and armed. America's debt climbed. And the trickle down economics that have stripped the middle class of earning started. Reagan sold arms to Iran.

Funny. You bring up the Contras. Danial Ortega, the lender of the Contras is now the president of Nicaragua. Russia is a global success economically. Russia is the world's second largest supplier of oil. Oil how sells for $123 a barrel. As America plunges deeper in debt, Russia becomes wealthier.

Under Reagan there were 61 indictments of various Reagan administration officials.

Reagan is a success story?

Barry Goldwater was the last conservative with morals. Maybe, it was a blessing that Goldwater didn't see what happened to his GOP after Nixon.

Since '61? Thank heaven we've been spared. Conservatism = unregulated capitalism (slave labor, rotten food, worthless medicines, filthy environment, eternal warfare to get control of other people's assets, no civil rights). Conservatism = your life for my wallet.

@Anonymous. I haven't heard a word out of Rush Limbaugh in....let's see....fifteen years. That was when my boss turned up the radio while I was digging ditches. So I know nothing more about him that what you guys regurgitate here. You, apparently, listen to him much more than I. I have actually listened to Chris Matthews more than Rush (about 20 minutes worth).

So please try talking about the issues instead of just referring to him all the time. It leaves me out of the conversation. Very annoying.

@Change is good. Well, good change is good. Bad change is bad. Change for the sake of change is a roll of the dice. If you're a "glass is half full" kind of person, you'll probably say it's not worth rolling the dice. If you're a "glass is half empty" kind of person, you'll probably want to go for it.

That said, change is indeed in the wind. Fortunately we get a new president every four or eight years. That's a good thing. But a new face is a far cry from the institutional changes I was talking about.

Joe Moe is obviously one of those wacky Limbaughites who refuses to see the damage the lying Bloated Bigot has done to their party and in a sad way, themselves.

Meanwhile Joe should examine this:
"Methinks thou protest too much" and see if this means anything to these neo-red types.

And through it all, since 1961 and a brief recent period, Congress was democratic, big time.

Congress makes the laws. Congress writes the checks, Congress is responsible for the mess we are in. Those of you who blame one man in the white house, and have nothing to say about the 500+ lawyers in Congress are woefully uneducated about how America works

Where will you spit your vitriole when a liberal in in the white house, and things continue to fall apart because the liberals run the Congress?

I am anxious to see what happens next year. I am sure it will be a year filled with blame on the predecessor, even tho Congress has had the helm for two years so far, and we are still in Iraq, and gas prices are out of sight. Those are TWO big points that the liberal liars used in their campaign to retake Congress.

So far, all Nancy and company have done, is rename a whole bunch of public buildings and post offices.

Liberals killed this country, slowly, and painfully. Get rid of everyone in Congress, and start over. Byrd, Hatch, Kennedy, Kerry, et all, have overseen the death of the US

For what it's worth, I think conservatism lost its moorings after Sen. Robert Taft passed away in the early 50's. William F. Buckley and William Rusher hijacked the movement with the publication of The National Review, focusing on the "red menace" at any and all costs. Buckley made it clear:

"…we have to accept Big Government for the duration – for neither an offensive nor defensive war can be waged given our present government skills, except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores…

"And if they deem Soviet power a menace to our freedom (as I happen to), they will have to support large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards, and the attendant of centralization of power in Washington – Even with Truman at the reins of it all."

With that, conservatism veered away and embraced big government, particularly the military and espionage agencies. Never before was conservatism so allied with government power. That is what conservatism has become.

I am hoping for a President from one party, and Congress to be controlled by the other. My stocks have been doing great the more they fight. I encourage the public to help get this set in motion. I would rather see the President fight Congress for funding, than me fighting to keep more of my money.

BTW, I am only middleclass.

I guess the mystery of just what the country wants will be solved in November, won't it?

Hint: People are turning out in droves to cast their votes in the primaries and caucuses throughout the entire country. Mostly young people.
It's THEIR future afterall.

Thank God!

*** "People are turning out in droves to cast their votes in the primaries and caucuses throughout the entire country. Mostly young people." ***

Yeah, I suppose the same could be said for the Bolshevik Revolution. "Young people" deciding their future.

1) It's been a long time since the nominee from at least one party wasn't an annointed heir, an incumbent president or VP or whatever.

2) Not in a long time has the race been so close and gone on for so long. That attracts lots of press attention, which also get speople to the polls. People wouldn't have bothered voting in NC and IN yetserday if Obama or Clinton were already the delcared winner.

Uh-oh!

Sounds like Anonymous 1:03 is not exactly what you might call - a young person. And most likely forgot what it's like to be - a young person.

Nevertheless the future belongs to these young persons and those same young people are always on the front line (in war too) as advocates for change.

It's the way it always is and has been forever.

Thank God!

*** "Sounds like Anonymous 1:03 is not exactly what you might call - a young person. And most likely forgot what it's like to be - a young person." ***

Uh-oh - sounds like you are what might be called A PREJUDICED PERSON, making random silly assumptions about my age based on who knows what.

Dear anonymous 1:30 -
You know the type - you know the individual.

What do you suppose it is that neo-reds are most frightened of?

Change?
Loss of status quo?
Something different?
Something unfamiliar?
Something out of the ordinary?

These types certainly are a puzzlement.

The writer is correct. We need to bring back the conservative economic policies of 1959, which brought about an era of unprecedented prosperity.

It was also a time when income over $100,000 per year was taxed at at 90% marginal rate.

I say, bring back that kind of conservatism! It's been a long time since the wealthy have had to pay their share ... and our economy is in the tank.

The thing about young people is that they always get older and wiser.

RangerGordon,

I think the only thing that's being conserved by our so-called conservatives in power today, are political ploys to maintain the status quo. Nameley the mega-wealthy obtaining even more buying power while the rest of we little people struggle or go under completely.

Greater Depression here we come!

RangerGordon, the conservatives were definitely not in control in 1959. The Democrats controlled both houses, and President Eisenhower was an eastern establishment Republican, no conservative at all.

I get a kick out of the many uses of the word conservativism that are bandied about.

The truth is, there is no definitive explanation other than "we hate liberals"

Which is quite humerous, actually as the liberals I know and know of are quite interesting and cool people. Not at all wooden or plastic and very much alive and enjoying life. Conservatives on the other hand ... er, ... um, ... never mind.

Why do you suppose so many people in Utah are hung up on "conservative this" and "conservative that", when they can't even come to any agreement as to what is being conserved?

Historically, conservatives have never been in control of the political process. They have had some influence, but the power has almost always been in the hands of the moderate to liberal wings of either party, that is to say, the political center has had the power. That being said, the political center has had a leftward drift from the beginning, as governments tend to do. Conservatives of today resemble the liberals of yesterday, and liberals of today resemble, well, liberals of yesterday. Real conservatives are a vanishing breed.

I think there may have actually been a time when there was such a thing as "conservative values."

For me personally, I find that I am conservative in some areas (like our ailing environment) and liberal in other areas (like a live-and-let-live life philosophy)

If I live to be a hundred, I will never understand extremists from either end of the political spectrum who, for example, will scream, "That is too liberal!" and that is the only thing they have to contribute and this seems enough for this type.

To "what's up with the neocons? | 3:10", in one of my previous posts, I came up with a good basic listing of some of the conservative ideas.

To YouGoFirst -
A thousand pardons, but I think your opinion of conservative ideas is pure mythology.

Take no offense.

I DO understand the type so I also understand the individual.

Time to look towards the future understanding how interdependent the world is and work towards harmony and mutual satisfaction.

Isolationism is a thing of the past.

Earl and Anonymous 2:45,

Whether or not Democrats or Republicans were in office at that time, the writer said that conservatism was lost in 1961. Prior to that time, conservatism must have been OK.

The 1950s are broadly accepted by conservatives as an ideal moment in American history, where conservative policies resulted in unprecedented prosperity for all.

Yet throughout the 1950s from 1951 on, even when Republicans controlled Congress, the marginal tax rate for income over $400,000 remained at 91 percent. (I got the figures wrong in the original comment.)

So it does actually seem that prosperity can come even with what I consider to be shockingly confiscatory tax rates for the extremely wealthy. But today the very rich pay little to no taxes because of trickle-down economic theories--which obviously don't work as well as 1950s models.

So, why is it such a terrible thing to suggest, say, a marginal rate of 50% for income over $1 million?

It worked for Ward and June Cleaver.