A genuine conservative is, basically, somebody who believes that people do not need regulation. Regulation takes away the individual right to do the right thing. If left alone an individual will always do the right thing. I know, many will think this is crazy but, a conservative will not. The obvious problem with this is that anybody who has ever raised a child know that 'regulation' is necessary for the safety of the child. To deny a child regulation can actually end the child but the extreme conservative will claim, in that instance (regulating the child), that regulation denied the child the learning experience in "doing the right thing". Same thing with retirement. SS takes away the right to do the right thing. Those who did not save will serve as an example to others to do the right thing.
A social conservative is not a conservative in the general sense of the word. The reason is that a social conservative wants to regulate the activity of somebody else based on some kind of moral, or social, imperative. Basically a social conservative wants to control what you do, and think, because they know best. Their justifications are legion. Some would be; the Lord told them what is right, their preacher told them what is right, they decided what was right, etc. While a plain conservative believes that 'right' is intrinsic to every sane human, the social conservative believes that 'right' is defined by outside forces of one kind or another.
A libertarian believes that any project, undertaking, or service paid for by community, for community is wrong. Those using any service or undertaking should be paid for by those that use, or take advantage of such should be the ones that pay for that, otherwise they have no right to do that. An extreme example, tried, I think, in South Carolina was a fire department. They actually passed a law that said if you didn't pay for fire protection, individually, you would not have the use of the fire department. The problems made the law go away. For instance, if they allowed a house to burn down because the owner didn't pay, the house next door also burned down, etc. They got rid of the law but it actually happened! Privatization, believed to be a conservative thing, is not - it is part of the Libertarian deal. Highways, for instance, should not be a government undertaking but rather a highway produced, by private industry, for the use of them that will use said highway. That is, in a nutshell what libertarianism is all about. One of the reasons, for instance, we can't get our infrastructure fixed is because of Libertarians. They think the solution is to have private industry take over our entire infrastructure and then charge those that use it. This is, of course, simply wrong. China, for instance, uses their infrastructure improvements and fixes to maintain their economy. They learned long ago that infrastructure will pay for itself, over time, every time. We, on the other hand, obviously ignores this simple fact.
Then there are the Evangelicals and Christian fundamentalists. One interesting point is that many of them tend towards the old, rather than the new testament whilst mouthing stuff about 'Jesus' those have more in common with the Muslims (who also revere the old testament). Anyway, they fall into the camp of "Social Conservatives" and the difference is that they use their 'God' to tell others how to are to behave. A possibly interesting story. I had a friend who had given 20,000.00 to a pro-life organization. He was invited to attend one of their get togethers. He didn't know anybody and was standing by a way just watching listening. There were three of the mighty movers and shakers talking in front of him and he listened whilst they were talking about how successful they were and, when they had won this one they wanted to move on the "them damned Catholic papists". He said he listened, for about 5 minutes, left and never gave them another dime. He was a Catholic. (this one always amused me). Anyway, Much of the misery, wars, and all the rest of it are the result of organized religions of one sort or another. We, the United States, has chosen, for instance, to support the Sunnis against the Shia in their thousand year war. The current mess in that war is the current problems in Yemen. We support the Sunni & Saudi Arabia. It should also be noted that Isis (actually uses Saudi textbooks to educate with), Al Qaida, and Al Shabob are all Sunni operations. So The United States, in its infinite wisdom has chosen to be involved in a thousand year Muslim war - one can only wonder.
So, basically, the above tries to explain just who, and what, makes up the Republican party. I would submit that the plain old, classic, conservative has little or nothing to do with the current Republican party. What is also interesting is that the Republican party used to be the Whig party. I would suggest, if you don't know about the Whigs you can google them. What happened is that the Whigs, basically, embraced slavery and a number of other like groups when the split occured. Abraham Lincoln used to be a Whig! The interesting thing is that the Republicans, right now, are facing the same basic stuff they faced before they split in 1852 and, I suspect, they are about to do it all over again. (they tend to embrace this kind of stuff as well as overspending (fiscally irresponsiblity) and racism).
I think the difference, between the Republicans and Democrats are pretty basic. the Democrats, whether they like it or not, are all, basically on the same page. They just gotta understand that, stop infighting over the little stuff and stick to the point. The Republicans, on the other hand, has a serious problem as their basic parts, even if they haven't come to terms with it, are just not compatible in the long term. I think the Democrats, to win, only have to point out the parts of the Republican party and ask the question - do you really believe this crap?
The problem, with both sides, is that they tend to go too far! The problem is, naturally, who defines how far. For instance, I think that its been proven that a for profit healthcare system is not the best way to go for several reason. It costs between 2 to 4 times as much and is simply not as good. The truth is that we have a for profit system, we spend up to 2 to 4 times more than those with a not for profit system and our expected life span is going down whilst the others are living longer. Anyway, many would say I am going to far but, I think, logic is on my side (I think). (for profit healthcare is a Libertarian thing). There are lots of other examples, on both sides. The trick is in each side deciding what is too far and stating it, right out loud so everybody know where they stand. Neither side has done this to any real degree so who knows what either side is for and against? Neither side seems to be able to sit down and deal with this stuff!
I have, incidentally, chosen to not add a bunch of internet links. There is enough information here for anybody to do their own searches.
Edited by jgw (07/09/18 10:38 PM)