False conservatives

apple pieMany ideas said to be conservative are not conservative at all. Conservatives seek to return to the traditional ways of the past–the good old days. Thus conservatives ought to favor a traditional interpretation of the Constitution–the First Amendment guarantees freedom of and from religion; the Second Amendment applies to an organized militia; the Fifth Amendment protects everyone from being required to testify against themselves. Today, some falsely masquerading as conservatives more correctly should be labeled radicals. Here are some examples:

    • Small Government
    • Drill baby drill
    • False ideas about Constitutional government
    • Low Minimum Wage
    • No immigration reform
    • Tax Cuts for the wealthy
    • Privatize education

The above ideas are reckless, ill-considered concepts, which don’t reflect conservatism at all.

Small Government — conservatives ought to be concerned with the effectiveness of government–is government doing what needs to be done cost-effectively? When false conservatives rail against big government, they are disingenuous–it isn’t really the size of government that they object to but only certain programs they don’t like.

Drill baby drill–conservatives ought to be concerned about threats to the environment. When false conservatives deny all threats they only serve the interests of energy companies. Denying the possibility of climate change and minimizing the danger of pollution reflects reckless optimism–there is nothing conservative in that.

Constitutional Government — sounds good, but is neither liberal or conservative. Those who say they would follow the Constitution often seek to give the Constitution a an unprecedented interpretation and to ignore what parts they disapprove.

Low minimum wage–a low minimum wage is sought by small business to maximize profit. The idea isn’t conservative–conservatives might better support living wages that allow workers to achieve the American Dream.

Immigration reform–conservatives ought to support the principle “one nation, indivisible” rather than seek to maintain an underclass of under privileged Americans. As in the past, conservatives ought to welcome immigrants to citizenship

Tax cuts for the wealthy–that America would be an oligarchy is a new idea. Conservatives support traditional values, thus conservatives should oppose the creation of a class of privileged Americans.

Free public education–a cultural value that predates our Constitution. Those acting to undermine and destroy it are not conservatives, but overreaching radicals.

Many claiming to be conservatives today are not conservatives but radical Republicans flying false colors. When a politician claims to be conservative, one should ask if the views expressed are really conservative or not. The NYS Conservative Party isn’t conservative at all. It invariably supports the Republican candidate whatever that person’s ideas might be. Real Conservatives would insist on a party and candidates who hold honest conservative views. It is easy to form a party in NYS; real conservatives should do that.

© William Hungerford – May 2014



About whungerford

* Contributor at NewNY23rd.com where we discuss the politics, economics, and events of the New New York 23rd Congressional District (Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, (Eastern) Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben,Tioga, Tompkins, and Yates Counties) Please visit and comment on whatever strikes your fancy.
This entry was posted in Congress, Constitution, Economics, Education, Environmental, Gun Violence, Health Care, Hydrofracking/Gas& Oil Industry, Political, Reed's Views, Rights. Bookmark the permalink.

97 Responses to False conservatives

  1. phadde2 says:

    Not avoiding, its really really simple. Here’s you answer, there is no qualifier on two accounts, #1 It’s a present participle that amplifies “right”. #2 Commas separate independent clauses, if it was connected there would be a semi-colon.


  2. phadde2 says:

    I’m not avoiding the issue, stop using the circular logic…fallacy after fallacy. it’s good as most will not understand what you’re doing but I have clearly refuted and stated that you can believe what Jefferson wrote, I know it, as it was used to create this pseudo clause; but it has no meaning in regard to the Constitution of the United States because he wasn’t part of the body that debated the document. How is that avoiding the issue? Madison’s view in 1821 was the the body that debated the document, and the state conventions is what gives the constitution. This was a refutation to his writings as on religion prior to 1821!!! Why is this hard to read and comprehend? Again how is this avoiding, I stated it!?!? Do you just not see? Instead you’re using circular logic to attempt to get me argue the same points, please tackle these points so we can actually debate in linear fashion. You never tackle these refutations because they do happened to make the debate irrefutable. You will literally have to say I don’t think the 2nd amendment should exist, or that Separation of Church and State was created by the Brown v. Board of Education case.

    Like I said before, It’s fair to have these beliefs like Jefferson, but have them with integrity, and be honest about it, and how they came to be in existence.


  3. phadde2 says:

    I’ve also refuted you’re point that you’ve heard no argument as the founder’s establishing a religious one, because I never argued one. This is a red herring fallacy because I argued that they established a nation that was open to be able to worship to any religion. Again look up at the feed, more circular logic, how many times do I have to reexamine and restate my words?


  4. phadde2 says:

    You challenge me to find words from the Founders that support by claim, simply because you believe to have monopoly on the matter as they expressed by Madison and Jefferson, yet those aren’t the only two men that founded this nation. So here if you want founders support of my position, let us beat this dead horse!

    “We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

    John Adams 1798, Address to the militia of Massachusetts

    “I have lived, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”

    Benjamin Franklin July 28, 1787, Address at the Constitutional Convention

    “In my opinion, the present constitution is the standard to which we are to cling…. Let an association be formed to be denominated ‘The Christian Constitutional Society,’ its object to be first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”

    Alexander Hamilton Apr. 16-21, 1802, Letter to James Bayard

    “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

    John Jay, First Supreme Court Justice Feb. 28, 1797, Letter to clergyman Jedidiah Morse

    “The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth.”

    George Mason, The Father of the Bill of Rights
    1772, Robin v. Hardaway,
    General Court of Virginia

    “[W]hile just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support.”

    George Washington Oct. 1789, Letter to the Synod of the Reformed Dutch Church of North America


  5. josephurban says:

    The Madison letter of 1821 (if you are referring to the Ritchie correspondence) does not contradict his essay of the id 1780s. As he states, the text is all-important. And the text of the Constitution is clear. No religious test. What could be clearer? Consistent with his views in the 1780s. What’s the problem?


  6. phadde2 says:

    Did you miss the phrase about state conventions, was that smudged out?


  7. josephurban says:

    You seem to be emphasizing that Jefferson was not involved in the verbal debates. But you fail to mention that he was very much involved in writing letters to the delegates. He corresponded with many of them, expressing his strong support for the addition of a Bill of Rights and a free press. to suggest that his ideas were (moot) because he was not present in body understimates his influence. His views and writings were well known and respected and his opinions sought. To suggest otherwise is historical revisionism.


  8. josephurban says:

    The “original sense ” of the Constitution? While the neoconservative movement tries to claim” original sense” the court decisions demonstrate otherwise. Did the founders consider corporations to be “persons”? Didn’t the founders count some human beings as 3/5 of a person for census purposes? Didn’t the founders deny the franchise to the overwhelming majority of adults? The so-called “originalists” are actually very aggressive activists. Good example was the 2000 election when the 5 “originalists” overrode the state of Florida law and courts which demanded it count it’s own votes. Let’s not pretend that the “originalists” are anything more than political appointees with a political agenda. (By the way, I would say the same for the liberal judges).


  9. phadde2 says:

    Again with the fallacies, as I am explaining the origination of court’s Judicial review powers, all the examples provided are red herrings, as they have nothing to do with Judicial review or the Marbury v. Madison case.


  10. phadde2 says:

    You’re grasping at straws, with these red herrings The Slave articles actually were written as a pragmatic approach to unify already established pro slave states, and free states. The Slave trade clause gave Jefferson the power to abolish the slave trade within his presidency. Attempting to bring several varying factors to discredit the constitution and the need of the living constitution, which in accordance to the rule of law it appears as focused with 21st century lens is laughable. Your attempt to take a stab at the GOP being in bed with corporations is as well, as I have being Constitutionalist have no allegiance to them.

    The Founder’s were very weary of Corporations, so actually that is detriment to your pro argument for the Constitutionality of Judicial Review. The Patriot Act is a gross violation of the Constitution, articulated and instituted by Bush era, I say throw them all in jail as well. Read some of my post on my blog, I think it will astonish you my viewpoints. I think in current news Bundy ranch, he’s in violation of the law, wow a shock? Maybe so since the attempt here is to paint me as an extremist because I’ve read and comprehend the document for myself. You’ll find that I am very susceptible to compromise with partisans because my only allegiance is with that of the constitution, which the slave articles were amended by the 13th and 14th amendment. This is in faith with originality of the document since the document gives the people the ability to amend it, not needing a living constitution.


  11. josephurban says:

    I usually don’t respond to rude comments, as it just encourages them. But I will make an exception. You have correctly stated that the phrase…”well -regulated militia….etc.” ..refers to or “modifies” the “right” to possess arms. Exactly my point. The right to possess arms is a “right” for the purpose of being available to participate in a “well-regulated militia”. It is not a constitutional right (at least not in the words of the 2nd Amendment) APART from participation in a “well-regulated militia”. Is it really that difficult to understand?


  12. josephurban says:

    Actually whungerford did not call conservatives extremists. Contrary. His original post discusses those who are “masquerading” as conservatives. Quite a difference…. Also, I normally would not point this out, since it is kind of rude. But since you have given a lesson on “present participles” and made derogatory remarks about the current educational system, I thought you might like to learn one of the more fundamental aspects of English. When you use the term “your” it is possessive, meaning “belonging to”. While the term “you’re” is a contraction meaning “you are”.


  13. phadde2 says:

    You’re not refuting my point about a present participle, but I don’t blame you for this, I blame the remedial English and grammar most get with their education. I didn’t understand participles until my Classics classes in college either, as such your assessment on the construction of a present participle with a comma is followed my the main clause, this simple grammar, so it is easy to understand. The issue at hand is that your failure to be able to understand the construction of the participle phrase with the punctuation ahead of the main clause has led you into a straw man as you have attempted to minimize my refutation of the participle phrase with again circular logic.


  14. phadde2 says:

    Oh and now an ad hominem filled with fallacies aren’t we? You’ve used that one, slippery slope, red herring, perhaps you are teaching others how not to debate within the rules of logic?


  15. josephurban says:

    You are very good at setting up straw men. But no one has made those comments or assumptions. Stockholm Syndrome refers to people who have been held captive as hostages. Not sure how this applies.


  16. phadde2 says:

    Well I was applying blindly following a nation that oppressive would only be connected with Stockholm, this would be a red herring if anything as it has nothing to do with the debate, but nice attempt, many confuse the two. Also anytime that I’ve pointed out a fallacy I’ve explained how it was used, rules of logical debate. Nice attempt again.


  17. josephurban says:

    Well, phadde.I apologize. I was under the impression that since you could dish it out (with comments like “your failure to understand” and “how absurd” and “I blame remedial English and grammar”) that you might to able to accept a gentle jibe. Guess not. Won’t happen again. And perhaps, instead of accusing others of logical fallacies and listing them from Logic 101 we can actual discuss the issues. Language should be used to clarify, not cloud. Don’t you agree?


  18. phadde2 says:

    As my degree is in classics, no. As with graduate level logic classes? Again your assessment of my logic 101 background, which is again a ad hominem, I am simply waiting through the BS of circular logic to clarify the already plain classical thought that the founders would have used to create any government. Which I have stated over and over with evidence for the refutation but is simply ignored, again the qualms with the logical approach is only a way to use circular argument to attempt to gain the hog ground.


  19. phadde2 says:

    I literally illustrated participles for a 3rd grader, what more clarity do you wish? Ignored, and again argued with the rehashing of past arguments.


  20. josephurban says:

    And yet, with all of that you have not been able to give a response to one of the clearest, most basic questions asked. While the Constitution could have simply stated that all persons have a right to possess a weapon, it does not do so. It adds the provision that the purpose for allowing weaponry is for people to participate in a militia. That is the key question. My answer: That particular right, as expressed in the 2nd Amendment, was intended to be limited and regulated. Otherwise, there is not need to add that provision.


  21. Anne says:

    Actually, that was accurate–you misused the word “you’re.” I could help you with some of those comma splices, too.


  22. Anne says:

    For someone who is so smug about his grasp of basic grammar, you’re actually a pretty bad writer. Joseph Urban may feel it’s rude to point out those kind of shortcomings but, what the hell, I make part of my living as an editor.


  23. phadde2 says:

    That’s why I would hire
    You as my editor, and as I am fully aware of the rules. I’m not going to take the time proofread, wisenheimer. How about actually refuting my points instead of proofreading the comment section of a blog …


  24. phadde2 says:

    One feature I wish wordpress would add, and maybe this would depend on the “theme” is the ability to edit your own comments. I can see after post a comment where the errors are made, but at the point there’s little I can do to change them. However, within the rules of debate, even if I have a point that refutes how the grammar makes the meaning of clause interpret or how commas and semi-colons change the meaning, then make errors. It doesn’t make my refutations, any less correct, and to think so is a fallacy, pure and simple. But atlas, I don’t need your help at the time, I’ll just continue to use this website when I use to actually take them time to proofread. https://owl.english.purdue.edu/engagement/2/1/34/


  25. phadde2 says:

    Well, I’ll make it simple, but in doing so you have to answer my question at the end.

    I have all ready stated the answer to your key question, several times. However; here it is again:

    A Well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security a free state, The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    So I am going to attempt to break it down simpler, The first part being present participle and not the main clause would be as if the amendment read as, “Because a Militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to have arms must not be taken away.”

    Meaning that for the militia to exist to secure a free state, the people must have arms for the militia to exist to protect the free state.

    As I know you’ll all ready disagree with this…

    My question, as I have explained this several times, how is this not circular logic, when I am in need of repeating myself again, and again?


  26. phadde2 says:

    Let me ask you for this hint, as I am typing on a phone, how is it easier to be able to proofread, edit, and prevent misspellings such as above ? The phone auto-corrects incorrectly as I type, and as it never registers precisely where I want it to change things. I just go ahead and post. Anyway to make this easier?


  27. phadde2 says:

    To Illustrate further the right is assumed, not stated. Many didn’t want the Bill of Rights because they were assumed rights, today is evident that they are not.


  28. phadde2 says:

    After a comment is posted, can you edit it ? So if mistype a “your” for a “you’re” a contraction for ” you are” or vice versa, Is it possible for me to correct the mistake?


  29. ChrisR says:

    I agree with PHADDE2 so someone makes a few typing mistakes big deal……. does it take from their point? Heck no.. the bigger issue here is ya’ll blind and just fail to see his reason.


  30. pystew says:

    Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act—one of the few noble things he did.


  31. josephurban says:

    phadde….Your question: “Meaning that for the militia to exist to secure a free state, the people must have arms for the militia to exist to protect the free state.

    As I know you’ll all ready disagree with this…

    My question, as I have explained this several times, how is this not circular logic, when I am in need of repeating myself again, and again?”

    My answer: For the militia to exist, the people must have access to arms (according to the 2nd Amendment). I agree, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to be able to provide a militia. The reason the people have arms is not, then , an individual right in and of itself (as the 1st Amendment lists very specific individual rights). Rather, it is a right tied very specifically to participation in a militia. In other words, in modern English. You can have a weapon, but the reason we are letting you have a weapon is because the government may need you to participate in a militia.
    We will have to agree to disagree. I don’t see that as circular reasoning. You have a right based on the governmental need.
    That does not mean that an individual may not also have the right to a personal weapon, unrelated to a militia. You can appeal to the 9th and 10th amendments to secure that individual right. I just don’t see how the 2nd Amendment grants it.


  32. phadde2 says:

    This is actually the clearest response I’ve read from you today. Although I disagree because my interpretation of the defense of the free state is different. Perhaps we’ve found truly where then our disagreement arises, as such we will have to as you say agree to disagree.


  33. solodm says:

    I sense a driven, somewhat narcissistic attitude floating through out your comments, phadde2.
    There is room for interpretation in the Constitution by all citizens. As we attempt to discuss what keeps real scholars up at night, it might help for you to remember – no one interpretation will necessarily be agreed on politely, let alone by trying browbeat those who disagree.


  34. phadde2 says:

    Interesting…I model my objections and refutations on the manner of how Hamilton and Jefferson modeled their refutations with each other, so yes your senses most likely do not fail you. However, I find this style of debate refreshing because it stripes away the political correctness or even politeness that in my opinion that hold what people really feel.
    So Joseph Urban or yourself may find it rude for me to make objections in such away by saying absurd or etc, but what I like about the style is that why attempt to sugar coat what I truly feel, but the language I feel is still civil? Why can’t I say that’s absurd, and then refute as to why? It’s not like I am saying “You’re an %^&*ing moron for thinking this way.”


  35. Deb Meeker says:

    I find your “style of debate” quite off-putting not refreshing. Not because of name calling or the self-righteous indignation shown when disagreed with, but merely because those who firmly believe they have the “only” real or factual answers are usually those with none. For example, just reading and absorbing information, does not make said material true. I seriously doubt that one person commenting here could be the only one with the inside track on truth or fact.


  36. josephurban says:

    I think one can be direct without being impolite. Politeness and civility are the glues that hold society together. One of the things I have noticed about our political discourse over the past 40 years or so is the increasing verbal hostility on both sides of the aisle. The “loyal opposition”, at least in my memory, tended to be more civil in the past. There were, of course, exceptions. The problem tends to be that when one’s tone becomes hostile ( the last 3 presidents all faced this) one’s arguments become lost in the process. Nothing wrong with criticism and disagreements. Both are to be welcomed. Perhaps the difference is that while “debate” attempts to win points, “discussion” tries to reach understanding. Just my thoughts.


  37. phadde2 says:

    If one, or even yourself, believes something to be true, why bend on your principles? Why not wear it proudly as a chip on your shoulder? Even though I think Josh is wrong I can tell you after this debate he has great admirable conviction! Even if I find it misplaced.


  38. phadde2 says:

    I will say this, I don’t find the style
    Impolite, I find it useful. All though I disagree with you whole heartily you a man of conviction, and that is admirable make no mistake. Through my direct style everyone saw this, as such my own principles were firm and bot compromised even if you find them to be wrong.


  39. Deb Meeker says:

    Why not start your own party as the blogger suggests can be done easily in New York? While I personally find a difference between having conviction and having an egocentric mind, perhaps the chip on your shoulder would find a few followers to revel with you in your obsolete views.


  40. solodm says:

    Also it would appear that to the point of your joining this discussion, you were mostly arguing against your own ideas…..you wrote this piece, correct?


  41. phadde2 says:

    I did write, obviously you didn’t read it as I did no such things,again reading comprehension. It appears to be no such things. For if you had actually read it, or possessed the skills of reading comprehension you would have notice no mention of criticism on proponents of the 2nd amendment, In my view , which is obvious at this point, the conservative stance that the 2nd amendment was created to fight tyrannical government is not extreme. Here’s a quote from that shows even support for the 2nd amendment in this essay:

    “Let me ask you this, Can a Gay person be pro-gun, an NRA member, could they be pro-life, be a supporter of religious rights, or be fiscally conservative with government spending? The answer to all of the questions is yes they can; however, they will never choose to vote for an ideology or a party who views them to be second-class.”

    Also another example how you didn’t read is that you missed quote in support of my views that the Separation of Church and State is pseudo clause,

    ” I have publicly rejected the notion that Christianity must be purged from the government, as with it from American society, not because I believe thoroughly that Christianity walks hand to hand with our government but instead that the constitution declares that there must be a secularization of government is baseless.”

    Now if you’re referring to my comments with the founders speaking about Christianity, that was merely to illustrate that the founders did speak about religion. Again if you read my comments I explained that in my belief is that if you elect a catholic, mormon, muslim, or even atheist( which I already said this, circular argument again?) don’t be shocked when they act as such. This brought on the quote from Kagan from the past ruling by Wutherford I believe.

    After all of that it is EXTREMELY apparent you didn’t bother to read it, and assumed what it said, or skimmed it. Reading comprehension is important here.

    The extremes that I was talking about was social stances on gay marriage, and immigration, nowhere my comments on here I took a negative stance on.

    I would argue that if you believe that with my pro- marriage, pro-immigraton, my pro-2nd amendment, and recognizing the founders wanted religion as a whole to be able to exist within government as extreme, as this would actually but me closer to the middle than a lot of conservatives, than that would make you an extremist on the other side, which I would say most around here are is apparent.


  42. phadde2 says:

    See there you go, “obsolete views”, I suppose those who propose Americanism are inherently dangerous to your viewpoint, such as in the believe in Constitutional government, and logical thought. As in your mind they are obsolete, and so by rejecting such thought is progressive? The constitution was created by those who were master classicists, and therefore masters of logical prose, therefore it’s not shocking the need to abandon it if one wishes to reject constitutional government.

    If that’s the case, my question that I pose is that are my views anymore obsolete than yours? As you cannot possibly predict the future than your “progressive” ideas can’t truly move forward into the future as you do not have the ability to predict future civilization. Unless you are in fact a wizard… … …

    I’lll be a bit extreme here, But let’s examine your own progressiveness, So a “living constitution” is progressive right? Okay Awesome! So you are a sub-human piece of meat that can and should be enslaved and the “living constitution” says so. After all, “living” means that it says whatever I want it to say (which is how everyone here is using it), so we need our guns so we can enforce OUR version of what the Constitution says and if you disagree, it is only because you are racist, bigoted, intolerant heterophobes. Sounds like a bit of Hyperbole?, yet every time you speak of a living constituon, how keeping to what is actually proposed on the document is obsolete this is the exact absurd reality you’re promoting.

    Also note for all of the political correct crowd, I don’t really think that way, I am illustrating a point of the absurdity that one viewpoint is advanced, and the other is obsolete.


  43. whungerford says:

    Extreme or not, the idea that the Second Amendment was created to fight tyrannical government is not conservative–conservative is the antithesis of revolution, insurrection, vigilantism, and anarchy. A stereotype for conservative is Swiss bankers.


  44. phadde2 says:

    Well conservative are simply holding on to the values of the past, I think you even stated the definition. So your point here is asinine. as the past is massive, so it’s apparent it doesn’t cover the entirety of it. This appears to be another grasp of straws.


  45. whungerford says:

    No, I wrote: “Conservatives seek to return to the traditional ways of the past–the good old days.” Conservatives would hardly wish to return to the days of the French Revolution even though that did occur in the past. Even though there were firebrand radicals at the time of the American Revolution, they were not conservatives. Some conservatives were Tories, many of whom fled the country. Some conservatives, like John Adams who had no use for mobs or rabble, were patriots but not radicals.


  46. whungerford says:

    Phillip, your penchant for declaring yourself the champ is bemusing; much like James Eichinger declaring “And with 0% of precincts reporting in, we are ready to call the race. Gov. Cuomo has won reelection!”


  47. josephurban says:

    A key idea, in think, in any discussion of the “living constitution” that there is always an historical context for political thought. It does not exist in the abstract. Any political ideas are reflections of the time. What I appreciate most about the US Constitution is that the very ordinary men who debated and wrote it were aware of that. When you see the amendatory process and the inclusion of the 9th and 10th amendments it seems to me that they were saying something like this. “We have created an outline and framework for a government. Times change. Society changes. Technology changes. What we write here is NOT for all time. It should be amended . It is not a divinely inspired text, it is a bitterly debated political document” (Not an actual transcript!) From my perspective, an “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution recognizes that flexibility is the key component, intentionally included by the original authors.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s