Why Do Conservatives Hate Freedom?
Why Do Conservatives Hate Freedom?
Why do conservatives hate freedom? The question may be startling. After all, don’t conservatives claim they are protecting liberty in America against liberal statism, which they compare to communism or fascism? But the conservative idea of “freedom” is a very peculiar one, which excludes virtually every kind of liberty that ordinary Americans take for granted.
I distinguish conservatives from libertarians, who, on issues of personal liberty, tend to side with liberals. Since World War II, mainstream conservatives have opposed every expansion of personal liberty in the United States.
During the civil rights era, the leading conservative politician, Barry Goldwater, and the leading conservative intellectual, William F. Buckley Jr., along with most of their followers opposed federal laws banning racial discrimination. To their credit, they later admitted they had been mistaken; indeed, both Buckley and Goldwater supported gay rights late in their careers. But at the time that conservative support for a color-blind society might have made a difference, the leaders of American conservatism sided with the Southern segregationists. They claimed they did so, not because of racial prejudice, but because they feared federal tyranny — a weaselly stance that, in practice, made them side with white supremacist tyranny at the state level. If they had truly believed in their own propaganda about federalism, conservatives could have opposed federal civil rights legislation while campaigning for civil rights laws at the state level. They didn’t.
The civil rights revolution was followed by the sexual revolution. Here again, conservatives, as distinct from libertarians, were on the side of government repression. The mainstream conservative movement opposed the legalization of contraceptives and abortion. In this case, unlike in the case of civil rights, the American right did not even pretend to have constitutional reasons for opposing Supreme Court decisions like Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 (which struck down state bans on the use of contraception, including by married couples) or Roe v. Wade in 1973 (which struck down state bans on most abortion). The mainstream right simply argued that conservative Christian beliefs about sexual morality should be incorporated into law. In other words, the very conservatives warning us about the dangers of “mobocracy” when it came to the welfare state had no objection to using the power of government to force their fellow citizens to live their private lives according to the teachings of Thomas Aquinas or the Book of Leviticus, as interpreted by semi-literate Southern Protestant preachers.
The conservative campaign against gay rights is equally impossible to justify, in terms of America’s Founding philosophy of natural rights. Unable to come up with any Lockean liberal reason why citizens of a democratic republic should be discriminated against, on the basis of their sexual orientations, conservatives are forced to cite the Bible or thousands of years of tradition. The whole point of the American Founding, however, was to establish a regime that was not based, like the pre-modern monarchies of Europe, on revealed religion or ancient custom. In the words of Gen. George Washington in his circular to the states, shortly after victory in the American war of independence:
The foundation of our Empire was not laid in the gloomy age of Ignorance and Superstition, but at an Epocha when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined, than at any former period, the researches of the human mind, after social happiness, have been carried to a great extent, the Treasures of knowledge, acquired by the labours of Philosophers, Sages and Legislatures, through a long succession of years, are laid open for our use, and their collected wisdom may be happily applied in the Establishment of our forms of Government…” A theocratic or tribalist Right that argues for public policies by invoking divine revelation to some ancient prophet or immemorial custom dating back to “the gloomy age of Ignorance and Superstition,” is profoundly, radically un-American.
In the cases of freedom from racial discrimination and freedom from sexual repression, American conservatives have been solidly on the side of government repression of the powerless and unprivileged. The same is true with respect to workers’ rights, debtors’ rights and criminal rights.
To listen to their Jacksonian rhetoric, American conservatives are the champions of the little guy against the “elites.” But not, it appears, in the workplace or the bank. The American right is opposed to anything — minimum wage laws, unions, workplace regulations — that would increase the bargaining power of workers relative to their bosses.
And what about debtors? Genuine Jeffersonians and Jacksonians have usually sided with working-class debtors against upper-class creditors. Not American conservatives. They supported laws making it harder for families crippled by medical bills to declare bankruptcy. The Tea Party was mobilized in part by opposition to proposals to restructure the debt of homeowners who are “underwater” with their mortgages. And — best of all — the very same American right that wants to impose Catholic or Old Testament sexual morals in the bedroom opposes Catholic and Old Testament teachings about the need to limit usury.
Last but not least is the appallingly authoritarian conservative record in the realm of criminal rights. If American conservatives really believed their talk about the threat of government tyranny and government incompetence, they would unanimously oppose the death penalty. Nothing could illustrate arbitrary, despotic government power more than the possibility that execution might depend on the vagaries of jury selection or the incompetence of state-appointed legal counsel. And yet when it comes to the death penalty, American conservatives abruptly forget their qualms about state power in its most lethal form. The same conservative movement that claims that government cannot be trusted to run the postal system or administer Social Security insists that wise and flawless government never applies the death penalty to the guilty inconsistently and never executes an innocent person by mistake.
What would America look like, if conservatives had won their battles against American liberty in the last half-century? Formal racial segregation might still exist at the state and local level in the South. In some states, it would be illegal to obtain abortions or even for married couples to use contraception. In much of the United States, gays and lesbians would still be treated as criminals. Government would dictate to Americans with whom and how they can have sex. Unions would have been completely annihilated in the public as well as the private sector. Wages and hours laws would be abolished, so that employers could pay third-world wages to Americans working seven days a week, 12 hours a day, as many did before the New Deal. There would be far more executions and far fewer procedural safeguards to ensure that the lives of innocent Americans are not ended mistakenly by the state.
That is the America that the American right for the last few generations has fought for. Freedom has nothing to do with it.
https://www.alternet.org/story/155443/why_do_conservatives_hate_freedom
Tags
Who is online
100 visitors
The entire country should unify around the idea that conservatives hate freedom. Jesus was a liberal, socialist, possibly gay, so he likely thought conservatives hate freedom too.
Pray on this my friends, in Jesus name.
If you aren't aware of it already you should read The Authoritarians. It's by a research psychologist and psychology professor who has made an in-depth analysis of the right-wing authoritarian mindset. It explains a lot about the T-baggers and their ilk.
Altemeyer has updated it to help explain the support for our fearless orange leader:
Tex you ain't been around a while, Tea-Baggers is non compus publicus here.
You can't use it. considered a CoC violation.
Well then I guess it is ok to call people tea baggers and libtards now...
JW has ruled...
Immediately after he posted his exception, I asked Perrie about it, she told me that it wasn't allowed and that she would have a discussion about it with him after reading it, he has it wrong....
I think Perrie is overwhelmed right now so some of this is going to start weeping through.....
But then the moderation and rules are changing, little bit by little bit with every little thing that gets left behind as the site grows bigger.....
The other issue I have is those times when I see them turn your name into an insult, (Hypocrite of Cos?) That's a hard CoC violation. I flag it and come back a little bit later and see that the flag has been reset, leaving the insult intact....
Collecting the evidence of this behavior at the moment cause it usually happens when Perrie isn't on the site.
But that is what happens when moderation becomes unbalanced. Bruce unfortunately is overloaded also...
There is more going on than most realize....
But then again it will be interesting in what happens on this. JW is one of those that thinks insults and insulting people is "speaking your mind" like many of the newer members.....
Besides the OCT. Site Meta is coming up, I fully expect some rule changes, and the atmosphere will be changing also...
I'm not sure we are allowed to say any longer that there are any conservatives on this forum, but if you are out there, the seed refers to you.
What conservatives fight against
Gay Rights
Civil Rights
Good Wages For Workers
Unions
The Little Guy
Jesus
What They Fight For
Racial Segregation
The Banking Elites
Death Penalty
Inequality
Conservatives are obviously un-American, and we should all pray that they see the error of their ways and come to Jesus, so we can have unity in our land.
I'd argue it depends on which side of a "right" you fall one. Liberals have been trying to limit the constitutional right and freedom to bear arms, the right to keep your income, the right to have a sovereign border and an orderly immigration process, and recently they've attacked the right to free speech.
The left is very segregationist minded in dividing people into groups along racial lines and making assumptions on skin color.
Where do you get the idea that there can be no limits on gun ownership?
No right is absolute and there already some limitations. There are many on the left who make no secret of wanting no private ownership of any firearms.
Gun control is a political issue. If there was political support , for example, to ban "assault rifles" for private ownership, there is no reason to believe such a ban wouldnt be held up by the Supreme Court, especially if it were a "liberal" court.
The Supreme Court tilted far enough to the left or the right would uphold or strike down anything on partisan lines. The reason this hasn't happened yet is the back and forth victories of each party. That's also why things like the Brady Bill expire and aren't renewed.
The Court does allow states to have different rules over what's legal and what isn't- to a certain degree.
when did the Brady Bill expire?
The point is that there is no established absolute right to own guns of any type and yet we never see this acknowledged by the gun crowd.
The Brady Bill expired under Bush. Or at least he didn't renew it. It all amounted to the same thing.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with:
the Brady handgun violence prevention act, AKA the "Brady Bill" that mandates background checks for retail purchases of firearms.
and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban AKA the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act that sought to ban certain firearms, features and accessories for a period of 10 years beginning 1994
The SCOTUS had NOTHING to do with the Brady Bill expiring. It was all about the gun lobby and the Congress. Period, full stop.
There are many on the right that make no secret of wanting NO limitations whatsoever. The proof of that are the lax regulations in GOP controlled states like Nevada.
Why we will never acknowledge what your claiming John?
Because you are absolutely WRONG!
There is this pesky thing called the Second Amendment. You part of the Constitution? That document which spells out what is a right guaranteed to the citizens.
Now I could explain why, but pretty much everyone knows you will reject the truth of why that is out of hand.
The Brady Bill has not expired. The Federal Assault Weapons ban has.
When did the SC affirm that the second amendment preserves a right to any sort of weapon you want?
ie. the Brady Bill hasn't expired and doesn't contain a sunset....
I guess that is the more thrifty response
where are are people getting this? I see it regularly these days.
Thank you so much for inserting FACTS into the debate. My bad, I was thinking of the Federal Assault Weapons ban.
Again, thanks...
The NRA got that tingle going down your leg I see. Are you disappointed that President Obama didn't try to take them away like they convinced you that he would?
BTW, my wife and I can't afford to own more than the 10 weapons that we do. You must be flush...
BTW, you got a 20/22 over under you want to sell? My birthday is coming up...
They didn't and with specificity. They have directly stated what weapons are allowable for a citizen to possess under the second amendment, but that is not what you stated is it.
This is what you stated........
The Supreme Court stated directly way back in Miller that the citizen has the right to any firearm that is in normal use by the common soldier in the military. That precedent has been upheld on numerous occasions.
Cases:
Presser v. Illinois , 116 U.S. 252 (1886) The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need. In essence, it declared, although individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, a state law prohibiting common citizens from forming personal military organizations, and drilling or parading, is still constitutional because prohibiting such personal military formations and parades does not limit a personal right to keep and bear arms:
"We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
United States v. Miller , 307 U.S. 174 (1939) The Court stated in part:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."'
(ie. military grade personal weapons)
District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U.S. 570 (2008) The Court ruled the Second Amendment to reference an individual right, holding:
"The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
(ergo sum, in a case of first impression, the court ruled the Second Amendment confirms an absolute right)
McDonald v. City of Chicago , 561 U.S. 742 (2010) The Court ruled that the Second Amendment was incorporated against state and local governments, through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . In the decision, the Court said:
In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.
(ergo sum, it is a right that REQUIRES due process in a court of law to remove)
Caetano v. Massachusetts , 577 U.S. ___ (2016) The Court ruled that the Second Amendment extends to all forms of bearable arms :
The Court has held that
....the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,
and that this
Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you can easily see following the cases, reading of miller was that the second amendment applies to all firearms in normal military use by the individual soldier. AND since then, coming all the way through to last year they have upheld that interpretation and spelled it out in vivid exquisite simplicity.
So yeah you are absolutely plain flat wrong.
The US Supreme Court for all time has answered your deflection question about nuclear weapons, tanks, and fighter planes. Bearable Arms....
The Caetano decision didn't get a lot of press did it? cause the media didn't want it known that the court ruled on what was a firearm covered and allowed by the second amendment.
But of course, the election was taking up all their time wasn't it....
ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Maryland's ban on 45 kinds of assault weapons and its 10-round limit on gun magazines were upheld Tuesday by a federal appeals court in a decision that met with a strongly worded dissent.
In a 10-4 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the guns banned under Maryland's law aren't protected by the Second Amendment.
"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.
“Heller recognized that dangerous or unusual weapons may be and have historically been heavily regulated or banned,” Tribe’s testimony runs. “It is not inconceivable – indeed, it seems quite likely – that the court‘s pause to distinguish unusually dangerous weapons from widely possessed handguns had precisely the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which included a prohibition on high-capacity magazines, in mind. At the very least, the Heller majority recognized that the government could keep machine guns —M-16 rifles and the like—out of the hands of civilians. The Supreme Court thus emphatically rejected the extravagant, or as Justice Scalia characterized it, startling notion, still promoted by some, that the Second Amendment could fulfill its original purposes only if citizens were guaranteed a right to arm themselves to the teeth, matching in their private armories essentially the full array of weapons possessed by the United States Military.”
Tribe continues:
Very true John, the Government can keep automatic weapons out of the hands of civilians. that is not in conflict with their holdings on the second amendment at all.
No one is denying that. But owning an AR-15 is an absolute right, its military counterpart the M-16 or A-4 carbine is not.....
Also, the 4th circuit is a court filled primarily with Clinton and Obama appointees almost 3-1 over Reagan and Bush appointees. So such a ruling covering such an extensive list of weapons is to be expected. I imagine that it will be eventually challenged at some point.
You know you can have any opinion you want, as we all can. There are constitutional scholars such as Tribe that do not agree with you or your experts, which is precisely why a shift in the makeup of the court could shift the meaning of "constitutional".
That could very well be, a shift in the court could very well serve to spark conflict....
We already know this.
That's what I meant- my mistake.
I knew some gun bill signed by Clinton expired when Bush was president. Thanks for pointing it out.
I dont believe conservative hate freedom.
Most conservatives I know love the freedoms they enjoy and would fight to the death to protect them. Sometimes though the problem comes when we are talking freedoms of others not like the conservative themselfs.
We have the same in reverse with some liberals as well.
Different people's right and freedoms ...... Not as important as our own.
That's life.
I don't think I've seen liberals try to deny conservatives the civil rights which those liberals enjoy, but I have seen conservatives and the GOP itself seek to deny basic civil rights to LGBT folks, Muslims and blacks.
In fact that's one of the key differences between liberals and conservatives......liberals believe in equal rights for all, while conservatives believe in special rights and privileged status for straight white Christian men. That's why a sociopath and total incompetent like Trump is our Fuhrer today.....white rage.
Ummmm......you might want to find a more specific citation since some of those results weren't from the US, and the other results were about college campuses where administrators quite properly canceled events due to safety concerns.
Moreover your response was a deflection since none were examples of liberals trying to pass laws to deny conservatives the civil rights which those liberals enjoy. In contrast conservatives have always tried to pass laws to deny civil rights to disfavored minorities like LGBT folks, Muslims and blacks.
It wasn't intended to be. You stated"I don't think I've seen liberals try to deny conservatives the civil rights which those liberals enjoy"
My first quick response was about denying rights not about passing laws to deny anyone's rights, but neither was your first reply to me either. Now If we're talking about drafting, and creating laws that are DENYING rights for everyone then that's something a little different.
IMO, Denying someone a right and passing a law that denies everyone's rights isn't the same nto me. No deflection, different subject though.
In response to your assertion that conservatives pass laws to deny civil rights , I agree.
BUT, When it comes to trying to DENYING rights (including civil rights) It seems to me Both ideologies are guilty of trying to and actually denying some others rights and have been for a very long time in one way or another.
Its natural... more people, more problems, more laws, more government. Unfortunately not fair and he who has the gold has always made the rules and probably always will.
DENYING rights of others by those in charge is nothing new. And it usually isn't done for lack of love of country or lack of love of freedom either. It's done to maintain power and control the masses in a country.
Not hate, power !
Conservatives love power ! BUt, I dont think they hate freedom.
Who doesn't love power ? Isn't that what freedom is all about ? The power to do what you want. freedom.
.........................................................................................
But, yeah cons pass laws to deny rights. I agree Cons Hate freedom, I disagree.
Some conservatives hating Freedom for others rights... yeah even that I'll give ya. But I dont know anyone who actually hates freedom including any of the conservatives I know.
Given that it's only the state which can deny civil rights to persons, I guess I assumed everyone understood that I was talking about the laws which conservatives pass to deny civil rights to certain groups of people. I've never seen any liberals do that.