What Does it Mean to be a Conservative Democrat?

[RainDog]

I asked someone what this meant, when the person assumed I was making a comment about the President when I wasn't. (fwiw, I was talking about the machinery of money in politics, ala the Koch Bros. as the real power in this nation - they don't run for office, they buy political parties, etc.)

Anyway, so this is the reply I got:

As far as your question goes, I'm a rural democrat on the conservative end of the Democratic spectrum. There are a number of issues in which I disagree with the DU-hive-mind. You're not going to get people who have to shoot prairie dogs (not out of sadism, but simply to keep cattle and horses from breaking their legs in their holes) on board with gun control. My environmentalism mostly extends to things like non-lead ammunition.

I'm also a lot more pro-America than many outspoken DUers.

So, conservative Democrats

1. Are pro-gun (to some degree never specified)
2. Think those more liberal than them are worth disparaging
3. Don't care about the environment unless it relates to their selfish concern
4. Think pro-America means not criticizing this nation

Is that how conservative Democrats define themselves? I would never define myself as a conservative Democrat, tho I held my nose and voted for one in 2012 - an anti-woman (religious-opposed anti-abortion) candidate who recently blocked an appt. by Obama. I detest the man's politics and, if I had a better choice, would gladly not vote for any candidate who is not pro-choice.

Anyway, that's how I've always thought of conservative democrats - anti-choice, religious affiliated with one of the large organizations that are sexist and homophobic to some degree or another, and, sure, pro-gun (though, as someone who has experience with rural life, I find handguns out of place in such a setting, but not shotguns),

but I never really thought of conservative democrats as the type that didn't care about the environment or others who are impacted by such issues.

Are there others here who would call themselves conservative democrats, or who agree with those things - and if so - how would you define conservatism within the democratic party big tent?

[Loudly]

1. Haven't such persons migrated over to the other side by now?

What would keep them self-identifying as Democrats at all?

Support of Social Security and Medicare?

Agricultural subsidies?

[RainDog]

6. As I said, I voted for one

because my only option was a teabagger.

But I couldn't bring myself to canvas for the guy to GOTV because he's anti-choice. If I had had a candidate whose positions were in line with the party as a whole, I could've.

[amandabeech]

11. Perhaps intense dislike of Wall Street and bankers in general.

Although there are plenty of liberal dems who seem to like both.

[RainDog]

12. I think a majority of Americans dislike Wall Street and big banks in general

and I think there's good reason for this, considering the conservatives who got so many deregulatory bills passed over so many years.

The S&L crisis from Bush Sr., the Too Big to Fail crisis under Bush Jr., all were possible because of legislation that rolled back protection for American citizens.

For them to get bailed out while people lost their homes - well, frankly, that was just wrong. That demonstrated the class divide in this nation, and if you weren't bailed out, or those in your income level weren't - then you are not part of the elite in this nation.

We're not supposed to have tiers of justice in this nation based upon economic class.

But, obviously, we do.

The move to MBA and then finance careers is all about deregulating these industries. Most of the people make money in this way produce nothing of value. All they are doing is betting, basically. They don't deserve to make more money than a high school teacher, imo.

[amandabeech]

21. I couldn't agree with you more! n/t

[CreekDog]

51. Yes, they've migrated to the other party

But that doesn't mean they've migrated from DU.

[PowerToThePeople]

2. A Republican who does not like to be on the losing team. eom

[quinnox]

3. They tend to be black and white thinkers

They tend to be authoritarian in nature. They tend to hate gays and other minorities.

They tend to think of using military options as a first resort.

They are usually nationalists, as the person stated - USA! USA! USA!

They tend to like to insult progressives and liberals as "hopeless dreamers" or "too principled, idealists"

[Pretzel_Warrior]

13. That is not true

[Scootaloo]

31. You're right

They don't hate gays and minorities - they in fact find these people to be very useful, exploiting them to engender hatred against others.

[Niceguy1]

43. bot true

We have a lot of people on the left left side who are bAck and white, all or nothing.

I think generalizing about any groupn is silly and prejudicial

[Autumn]

53. I agree with that.

That just about covers the ones I have encountered.

[RobertEarl]

4. Cons defined

Cons don't want change. Change scares them. If something is good enough for them, everyone else should be happy with it too.

As for the environment, it is the changes in the environment that they just don't want to have to consider. Goes back to they can't deal with change.

Cons love the religion stuff because it is 2000 years old and hasn't changed.

[1000words]

5. It means we need more than two parties.

[RainDog]

8. I'm with you on that

and we need proportionate representation and an open general election for the President so that the state you live in doesn't hold you hostage and negate your vote if it's full of teabaggering rush fans (the man, not the band, tho....)

[Scootaloo]

34. Then we need a new system of government

The current electoral system - wherein the winner takes all - by its nature necessitates binary options - two candidates, two parties, to "bases", etc. Small parties are either absorbed or swept aside. A small party that "makes it" generally ends up becoming the second party, replacing the weaker of hte two that existed before.

if you want multiple viable parties, you need a strong parliamentary system where the government is formed based on vote percentages earned, rahter than by "this party got 50.01%, so they're in charge now"

[1000words]

71. Sounds good to me

Not holding my breath, though.

[Scootaloo]

72. THat would necessitate a constitutional overhaul

An amendment wouldn't work to change the structure of our government - and would never pass anyway, owing to the investment both parties have in the system. You'd need a full-on citizen-operated constitutional convention - which is to say a civil revolution.

Yeah. Don't hold your breath.

[1000words]

73. I wouldn't rule out revolution, in the end ...

Just don't think it'll happen in my (our?) lifetime. I'm 47.

[JJChambers]

7. I've been called conservative before

I vote Democrat; does that make me a conservative democrat?

I'm pro:

Civil rights
Women's rights
Voting rights
Gay rights
Equality for all, in all aspects of life
Living wage
Choice
Marihuana legalization
Union / Labor

I'm anti:

Military industrial complex
Corporate excess
1% exploitation of the 99%
Intolerance
Racism
Homophobia



But I'm also pro:

RKBA
Fiscal conservatism / responsibility
Small government
Police
Death penalty (with some major reforms to the process)
States rights, as long as they don't violate civil or human rights

I could expand these lists indefinitely, but you get the idea.

[RainDog]

10. So, on most social issues you're liberal

and, pardon me for having to ask, but I've long wondered what RKBA means. I assume its somethingsomething bear arms.

As far as the death penalty - I can't really go with it because our justice system is so racist. But I understand why someone would support the death penalty - even tho I don't. I think it's better to save the life of one innocent person than put 2 guilty people to death. Also, doctors have talked about the ways they could study things like psychopathy in cases where some people were put to death - but the prison system has its own moral code so that might not happen in any case.

states rights - this is an interesting one for me. I have long associated states rights with the south and its segregationist past, but since then I have seen places like WA and CO, along with 20 or so other states, who have reformed their mj laws to the good, and saw Vermont create health care in that state... so I am no longer as "knee jerk" against the words "states rights" as I was.

What has also changed my opinion is noting that our legislative branch at the federal level is gerrymandered in such a way that it doesn't represent the majority opinion in the U.S. So, states may be the only way to keep the ultra-right extremists in Congress from destroying lives.

Fiscal conservatism/responsibility

How would you define this? I can't support private industry to do jobs that should be overseen by a power looking after the will of the people - to me, all utilities should be owned by the people of this nation and administered for them by the govt. The basics of life. Education.

If fiscal conservatism means less govt. - I'm all for shutting down the office of the drug czar completely - because America does not need to fund a bureaucracy whose mandate is to churn out propaganda. I find that office offensive. I don't think we need any faith-based anything offices in govt. and those are sops to religious voters and prejudicial because of their existence.

But I also support a basic living income for all - which is something fiscal conservatives find some value in as well, for reasons different than mine.

So, how do you define fiscal conservative?

[JJChambers]

18. Continuing

Firstly, Right to Keep and Bear Arms (2nd amendment supporter).

Continuing, you're spot on with why states' rights can be a progressive, liberal platform. The federal government, at this point, has become unwieldily and extremely corrupt because there is so much money in politics. We have an incredibly modern democratic president who, up until recently, was incredibly pro-war on marijuana. Finally that's relaxing, but ONLY because several states with educated progressives took the legalization ball and ran with it. States rights. As long as states don't enact bigoted legislation, then states rights issues can be incredibly progressive.

Fiscal conservatism, to me, would be a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. From there, I would suggest gutting our military industrial complex. Cut the military budget by 75% by gutting wasteful spending on Cold War era programs. We do not need billion dollar fighter jets.

We need to reform the prison system by eliminating for-profit incarceration; redirecting non-violent drug offenders into treatment programs; and save the jails and prisons for violent offenders and thieves, including the white collar variety. This will be big savings.

We need a single payer healthcare system -- Medicare for all -- and we need to get rid of the ACA and the for profit healthcare industry.

We also need to eliminate tax shelters for corporations and the ultra rich.

I proposed this in another thread, with the caveat that this rate is set and there are no deductions or loop holes. What you see is what you get.

Someone making 50k would pay 0 in taxes.

Someone making 75k would pay 0 on the first 50, and 15% of the 25k over 50.

Someone making 1m would pay:

First 50k @0%= 0
50k-100k @15%= $7,500
100k-200k @30% = $30,000
200k - 1m @50% = $400k
1m+@75%

Total tax bill for someone making 1m even would be $437,500

Someone making 2m even would pay 75% on the second million, raising their tax bill on 2m to $1,187,500.

In general, I think there is an incredible amount of government spending waste; pork projects that benefit no one except lobbyists and the rich; and there is too much money in politics. I would bet we could reduce the federal budget by half, simply by streamlining, fixing the tax system and eliminating wasteful military and pork project spending.

[RainDog]

25. Thanks for your reply!

Why do you think a balanced budget is so necessary? Isn't the govt. more like a business than an individual? Businesses cannot function without the capital to develop in ways necessary to meet the current market.

Not that I don't think there's a lot of wasteful spending. I do. But when spending cuts are mentioned - it's always the poor who seem to bear the brunt of them, while no one that I know wants this nation to abandon the plight of the poor. Conservatives argue that families should help one another - well, they do. But poverty is also clustered because of where someone starts out on the economic food chain...

anyway, I absolutely agree on prison reform - and, just as important - sentencing reform. Conservatives tried to turn the courts into mini inquisitions, imo, and their targets are racially biased.

As far as the tax system - good luck with that... tho I do think most people would be in favor of a simplified tax system - and I agree that the working poor should not pay taxes, other than FICA - and I think FICA should lose the cap because it's crazy for people to suddenly stop paying into soc sec. after a certain level of income, to me.

What do you see within the govt. that addresses any of these issues in ways that you find workable?

[RainDog]

39. oh yeah...

a couple of things I wanted to mention in your post. fwiw - I don't think Obama has ever been pro drug war, per se.

I think he is in office and the bureaucracies that deal with this issue have long fossilized their positions, to the point that they cannot respond to scientific evidence in a rational manner and work to obstruct any progress toward ending the absurd "war on drugs." It has not been an issue that Democrats could address at the national level because the entire edifice created by prior administrations makes it one of those issues that would not get attention until, as we both noted, states made changes that are more liberal than federal law.

Prior to becoming the poster boy for the angry American, Reagan did not care about the war on drugs so much - his position was more libertarian, like a lot of western Republicans. But his administration is the one that really amped up the persecution of people who chose to use marijuana.

The reason was because Carter was in support of decriminalization.

Bush Sr. moved to cancel the federal medical marijuana program because, like Reagan, he despised the "liberal homosexuals" who were dealing with the AIDS crisis, and so, he was afraid that all the people dealing with AIDS were going to request that they be included in the federal medical marijuana program. Bush Sr. was in his Willie Horton tough guy phase. He wanted to get tough on drugs and crime (which meant, probably, he wanted to use the DEA to funnel money to military contractors for dirty ops in Latin America... I keeed. sort of.)

Anyway, the origin of the state medical marijuana movement arose directly out of Reagan and Bush's stances. When CA passed the first mmj laws, tho, Clinton worked with the DEA to toughen restrictions and to go after mmj providers...even tho the Federal govt. has no authority to override state law.

By the time Bush Jr. came long, the horse was out of the barn, so to speak, with mmj, tho they did a few photo-op raids and arrests. But mostly they seemed to be too busy trying to justify all the laws they were breaking to worry too much about cancer patients getting some pain relief.

So, considering that history - I think Obama has done a good job of moving away from much of the history of the drug war in this nation - along with sentencing reform. At the same time, I see our jobs, as citizens, is to advocate for the legislative branch to deal with the current federal/state discrepancy. If they don't, I hope Obama will have Holder take action before he leaves office. Who knows if he will or not, however.

BUT - that whole story makes me think of govs. denying medicare expansion in some states - and how states' rights are hurting people in the here and now. Combined with a federal legislative conservative bent - sometimes I wonder if people are not going to "sort themselves" even more by moving to states whose political views more closely match theirs. That's something I have been thinking about a lot lately.

[proudretiredvet]

27. I'm in there someplace with a few qualifications.

I consider myself a moderate democrat.
I get called a lot of name. More so on this site than anywhere else I post.
I am a strong supporter of the RKBA, the right to carry, and the second amendment. I strongly support background checks for all firearms sales and mandatory safe storage for all firearms you do not have in your hands.
I know and understand the 2A laws and the make, fit, uses, and function (read that gunsmith and life long comp shooter) of firearms and the science of ballistics. It drives me nuts when anti gun people want to argue but do not take the time to know what they are talking about.
I'm a realist with many years living overseas in many different countries.
I have no time and no patience for the stupidity and ignorance of Racism, Sexism, or Homophobia.
My family is multi racial and been that way since before I was born.
I have been stereotyped and discriminated against, belittled and looked down upon because of my ancestry.
I learned to get even with bigots by being successful in what ever it is that I do.
And even though I have a very good education I can't spell worth a damn.

[RainDog]

38. I'm a rotten speller too n/t

[Drunken Irishman]

33. Sounds like you're a typical American.

[AverageJoe90]

75. You might be a left-libertarian, possibly. This was me about 5 years ago.....

.....just with anti-Zionism and not so much pro fiscal conservatism.....I was largely a left-anarchist more than anything.

[bluestate10]

9. Rural electrification and the advent of farm support (Ag Extension service initially) brought

a lot of rural people and families into the Democratic party. Differences have developed between rural Democrats and suburban/urban Democrats over time, though very core values between the groups are close.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

15. Do you understand history of Dems in the south?

They were Dems before Roosevelt, rural electrification, etc.

[TransitJohn]

14. Anybody who says that they're more 'pro-America' than other Americans

is un-American.

[RainDog]

16. That one made me laugh

because it conjured up that jingoism of gawd, apple pie and chevrolet trucks. The propaganda fabric of our lives.

In the context, I was talking about how corrupt politics in general is because of money. If you can't criticize something like that, how can you change it?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

17. That is logically just not true

[Jenoch]

19. I know some guys who identify as conservative Democrats,

mostly because they are extremely pro-union and would probably kick the shit out of anyone who called them Republicans.

[CAG]

20. I wouldn't generalize so much from just one person's response

[RainDog]

22. I agree. That's why I asked what it meant to others here

and, again, noted my understanding was that a conservative Democrat was generally someone who identified with one of the big religions that are sexist and homophobic, and, therefore, conservative Democrats are more likely to oppose equal rights.

Along with that is economic conservatism, currently defined as not spending money on things that benefit the poor while spending money on things that benefit the rich - like military contractors - and, along with that, more willingness to be the "policeman of the world" as a first reaction to something (tho, in the past, conservatives were non-interventionists until, say, Nixon, but after Teddy invaded the Philippines.

So it gets confusing.

That's why I asked others here to define conservative democrat for themselves.

I just call myself a person who votes for Democrats - as I have all my life. But if I had to claim a political party that represented me, if would probably be Social Democrats - a mix of public and private, with the well being of citizens as the first priority - and a belief that war is not, usually, for the well being of citizens (until, as Gen. Smedley Butler suggested, we take the profit out of war.)

iow, I knew we would invade Afghanistan, tho I thought it was dumb. But I knew it would happen anyway because of what happened and who was prez at the time (tho Gore might have done the same, who knows.) I entirely rejected the invasion of Iraq because I thought it was an oil grab by the neo-cons - who, imo, were and are delusional. They, of course, came from some formerly on the left who were in Scoop Jackson's camp, plus some conservatives who wanted to play at empire, ala Dickless Cheney - he, really, embodies the crass opportunism of men who have never had to actually fight a war who want to start one at every chance, to me.

So, anyway, how would you define conservative democrat?

[pipoman]

23. If you envision a continuum

The far right being the far right, and the far left being the far left. Most people are bunched around the center, about an equal number left and right of center. Elections are decided by slight movements of the masses in the center, to the left or right. Candidates can't win without appealing to the vast center.

[RainDog]

24. Yet polls continue to indicate Americans are more liberal than either political party

while, at the same time, both political parties ASSUME the nation is more conservative than it is.

So, that "middle" is much farther to the left than our national political conversation would have someone believe. Also, people i.d. more readily as conservative since the republican assault on liberal politics - but when questioned about actual positions, they, too, are more liberal than the govt. that is supposed to represent them.

for reference - here's that article about Americans being more liberal

http://www.democracyjournal.org/arguments/2013/09/politicians-think-american-voters-are-more-conservative-than-they-really-are.php

When we compare what legislators believe their constituents want to their constituents’ actual views, we discover that politicians hold remarkably inaccurate perceptions. Pick an American state legislator at random, and chances are that he or she will have massive misperceptions about district views on big-ticket issues, typically missing the mark by 15 percentage points.

What is more, the mistakes legislators make tend to fall in one direction, giving U.S. politics a rightward tilt compared to what most voters say they want. As the following figures show, legislators usually believe their constituents are more conservative than they actually are. Our attitude measurements are most accurate on the questions about same sex marriage and universal health insurance – and in both instances the legislators’ guesses about their constituents’ views were 15-20 percent more conservative, on average, than the true public support for same-sex marriage or universal health care present in their districts.

Our study also found that politicians don’t learn in the normal course of events. After November 2012, we posed the same questions again to some candidates. Even after conducting campaigns and seeing the results, politicians did not arrive at more accurate perceptions of constituent views—not even those who had spent more time talking to voters. Much remains to be learned about why U.S. legislators think constituents are more conservative than they truly are, but researchers have found that politically active citizens tend to be wealthier and more conservative than others. Politicians who want to represent all the people in their districts need to keep this in mind.

What this reality really demonstrates, to me, is that we don't have candidates and, therefore, office holders who represent the will of the voters - I know I didn't, nor anyone I know in my state who considers him or herself liberal, when we had to vote for a sexist and homophobic and, seemingly, racist now guy who was the nominee (in a regressive state).

The political conservation, iow, is limited to the views of those in power - economic, military, etc. and not the views of those this nation is supposed to represent in, say, the legislature.

The marijuana issue is another one that demonstrates the HUGE GAP between what citizens and the govt. want.

[proudretiredvet]

29. Yes

I agree with every word of that statement. But when I say that in here they call me names.

[Eleanors38]

57. To many on DU, "conservative" means pro-RKBA. Pure & simple.

[HughBeaumont]

26. I asked this in terms of economics.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002426928

Interesting responses.

[RainDog]

28. thanks for the link!

I think some responses get to my confusion about what, exactly, the definition of a conservative democrat would mean. Since both parties have gone along with various deregulatory schemes sometimes - I think my definition tends more towards recognizing the term as something like social conservative. That would cover issues related to culture war things... maybe they have reservations but know, ultimately, their private lives are not the ones impacted, so they step back on those because they have more populist economic positions.

Since you mentioned economics - what do you think about a basic minimum income?

I ask this b/c the nature of work is changing so fast, b/c unions have lost so much power, b/c of things in the past that should be acknowledged (like the history of sexism and racism), and because it would fall, for me, in line with the idea of basic human rights - and the idea that the nation wants to invest in its citizens, both adult and child.

[proudretiredvet]

30. I support minimum income with some qualifications

Of course all the standards and exemptions apply. If you are disabled or have ten kids or are taking care of sick mom and dad ect.

If there is no other work in your area the minimum income has to be tied to some sort of community service, even working with your church, red cross, or somehow contributing to your community. The second option would be going to college or a job skills program.

There has to be some reality built into this in that the options are going to have to be limited to real working world. You can't be after a degree in underwater basket weaving if you do not live close to water and no one is using baskets.

[RainDog]

36. A basic minimum goes to everyone

Last edited Sat Mar 8, 2014, 04:59 AM - Edit history (1)

It's not means tested. If you have a job that pays very well, you could choose to invest that money, or give it to charity, or whatever - but the purpose of it is to insure everyone meets a basic standard of living. And, of course, if you make a lot of money at a job, you may end up just paying it back via taxes because you don't need it.

The reason it's good for workers is that it becomes a sort of civil union that allows some negotiating power for the sorts of jobs that are sometimes necessary but not often rewarding in ways other than a paycheck. If someone is a musician, tho, that income would allow them to practice their art - because, believe me, a lot of good and even great musicians are not rock stars or pop stars, etc. - but their work is worthwhile, beyond the marketplace at the moment.

If someone needs to take time out of the workplace to help care for relatives, this sort of income makes that possible for those who are also the most likely to be the ones doing the caring for relatives anyway - women in the middle and lower classes.

If someone has a disorder or other medical issue themselves, such a system would mean they are not impoverished because of this.

That's the impetus for me.

I think most people regard work as something important and useful to their lives. I don't think most people want to take advantage of a system (tho sure, everyone wants to find the loopholes for taxes, etc.) I wouldn't tie a basic minimum to any sort of community work because it would apply to everyone. I could just see a banker, say, paying someone for his community service stint... on the other hand... hmm.

Some fiscal conservatives argue for this because it would eliminate many govt. agencies that deal with various social issues - it would streamline govt. But I don't think they are willing to really address what would be an adequate income.

Of course, maybe this could be a way to address wages in general and funds for the basic minimum could come from a penalty businesses paid if they didn't pay a living wage for jobs in the area where they are located. It would make sense, I would hope, to simply pay the wage up front.

[HughBeaumont]

55. Even that bastard Milton Friedman toyed with the idea.

When you got arch-right assholes like . . . well, insert pretty much ANY modern CEO in here . . . investing and running America's businesses, I guarantee you that "job creation" is the furthest thing from their train of thought. It's THEIR caste that CHOSE to devalue labor for their pursuit of profit above all. It was THEIR caste that LIED to the American people about "potential non-survival" if layoffs and stagnant wages weren't part of their plan. It was THEIR caste that INDEBTED an entire generation because they commoditized education and health care to the point that only the highest bidders can afford it.

America's brand of scorch-the-earth Crapitalism is going to leave swaths of millions of people with no paycheck for their efforts coming in. I fail to see how that Crapitalism continues when money and income stop flowing. You have no pay, you have no demand and in turn, you have no business. I know these businesses and corporations don't want to HEAR that, but as Galileo once said . . . "Still, it is so".

Here's an example: How does a student loan-strapped millennial buy a house? Between their existing debt and a tragically weak job market to try and pay that debt off, where does living space come into play? Where do necessities, which are never going down in cost, come into play? I'm not seeing how it happens in 2014 and beyond.

[RainDog]

62. I was reading one of the "respectable" business sites

After the latest financial mess, and some guys were arguing that American wages would have to fall to third world levels before our job market could improve.

When CEO pay in this nation is greater, in ratio, to worker pay than any other nation.

That's when you realize that free market capitalists treat their dogs better than they treat their fellow human.

[Nye Bevan]

32. I'm pro free-trade and capitalism but 100% anti-gun.

I think pot should be legal everywhere and the death penalty abolished.

So I guess I'm a "conservative Democrat" on economic issues but a raging liberal on others.

[hollysmom]

35. I thought it meant that one dressed in suits

and spent money carefully. When I say I am fiscally conservative, I meant I spend money carefully but was not afraid to invest in the future, my future in particular - I spent a lot of money on courses to keep up my skills and learn new ones to stay employable. Live on a budget, but know when to spurge on house maintenance or for a mental health vacation. Buy good clothes because they lasted longer and were cheaper in the long run.

I.e. Fiscally conservative = not wasteful, but know when to borrow for infrastructure maintenance and to make good investments in the future.
or in other words not like the foolish wasteful republicans who claim to be fiscally conservative, but in truth are truly ignorant of what that means.

[RainDog]

37. What's wasteful govt spending?

I understand your personal examples - but how does that translate to the greater world of political economics?

[hollysmom]

44. wasteful

I get bids on my contracts before I sign them, not like oh, say, having no bid contracts. Say like hiring Haliburton open ended no bid contract in Iraq.
Cost overruns are not just rubber stamped but negotiated.
I find it cheaper to pay for maintenance as needed rather than let something fall into disrepair so that repairs are not as expensive - see the dentist every year, paint the house every 8 years, replace roof every 20 years. Do not have to tear down and rebuild like some bridges. My house is almost 80 years old and still beautiful. (powder room over due for painting, but I am going to wall paper myself. just taking a bit longer to sand the walls)

Do not make false equivalencies ie. try and save money by starving my dog or providing non-nutritious food. Even treats , which could be considered luxury food for the dog are worth it as they make training and controlling her easier, as well as giving her joy which is like giving me joy as well. Yes, I allow her to spend her doggie stamps on treats.

I recycle or reuse things all the time. Kept my clothes from when I was a teen, now my nieces are fighting over who gets them. I was going to sell them at the vintage store, but the kids really like the bright polyester colors.

I plan for the future and consider more than just then ext few years
Is this enough examples?

[RainDog]

49. Thanks for taking the time to reply!

I think your examples are things we all pretty much agree on - and are also issues of corruption (which, let's face it, is a big attraction to politics for some because there's a lot of money being transferred for this or that.)

And I REALLY agree with you on the value of "preventive" action on the part of govt. That's what confuses me so about this nation with its history of innovation). In the area of energy, for instance. When other western democracies are setting and reaching goals for more varieties of renewable energy sources - this nation has spent the last forty years trying to destroy any forward-thinking environmental policy.

I can't help but think that has a lot to do with big money concerns in gas and oil and coal.

And then we see what's going on with this horrid practices that are destroying communities via the water supply and more...

You know, there's a show on the BBC called "Filthy Cities: The French Revolution." The guy talks about the filth that was part of Parisian life - with tanners tossing fat from calf skin used to make leather right into the unfiltered water supply. The royals and aristocrats dealt with this by moving out of the city. The situation came to a crisis when those in the upper middle classes were treated as peasants left to choke on human waste in drinking water.

The king said... okay, tell me what you want. People wrote reams about the horrid conditions - and from this statement that they deserved to be noticed by the king, that their lives were worth living with some dignity - from that situation (simplified greatly, because there was a climate disaster that caused famine, debt from financing the Americans to weaken France's rival, Britain... anyway, from this misery - came the declaration of the rights of man (sic) that proposed a basic level of human decency toward others no matter their station in life.

There's a lesson in history for the current robber barons like the Koch's with their fouling of cities for coal, and fracking, and so much more.

Like the French aristocrats who removed themselves from the lives of working people, our modern-day aristocrats seem to think they can heap abuse upon Americans with impunity. I think they're wrong, but I don't want to have to be proved right.

[hollysmom]

68. Always delighted to converse with someone who is pleasant and intelligent. curious

do you agree this is fiscally conservative in the true sense rather than in the sense that republicans use it - where I consider most of their plans wasteful and not conservative (as in the definition "to conserve&quot at all. I guess I don't like people to appropriate words that do not reflect their true actions. I don't think we should allow then to do that or to name bills that do not reflect their contents - like the so called Patriot Act or Leave no Child Behind. If people had to name bills for their real contents we would have fewer wrong headed bills.

[RainDog]

83. I'm just asking others to see where we differ

I think everyone who isn't part of the political/business/military etc. inner circle thinks our politics should be cleaned up.

Bills - There's pork and then there's pork - some things are needed and useful for states, and that's why they have representation, to bring projects to their areas that will increase employment or build up particular sectors of the economy... I guess my issue is that I see how far down on the food chain the average American is within all this structure and I think DC culture is too insulated to see what's happening in people's lives.

Oh, the Patriot Act. Since 9-11 the intel agencies have had a field day trying to make up for that moment - all of that stuff is alarming to me because I value my privacy, even tho I'm not doing anything particularly wrong. It's part of our culture - and the reason I have that frame of mind - because I grew up thinking the govt was supposed to work to improve quality of life for all, not monitor our every move.

No Child Left Behind - I'm not religious and, often, hostile toward a lot of religious issues because I grew up in a very, to me, negative religious environment. I really, really, really think it's terrible for the govt to provide vouchers to allow religious schooling to flourish, esp. after all we've seen coming out of Falwell's sort of schools. Teaching to a test is ridiculous to me - obviously we have common core educational issues, but the best educators I ever had let students explore subjects of interest to them, rather than doing some sort of rote repetition - I find this sort of thinking is more like propaganda. I think the Republicans want to create mini-me's who don't question the world - and that's bad for us all - it's soul killing, to me.

But, again, I do appreciate your take on things.

I wonder if "conservative" is applied in relation to what is often viewed as the more left wing within the Democratic Party, and it's not so much about differences on most issues as it is about an interior view of oneself as less aligned with a sort of "counter culture" that has long been associated with the left in politics.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

40. Most of those I have encountered were basically evangelical christian union members

who may or may not have also been racist. I never really noticed a prevailing trend where guns were concerned.

[Douglas Carpenter]

41. "Conservative Democrat" like the phrase "enlightened conservative" is a non sequitur

the correct phrase would be "pompous ass"

[MFM008]

42. i dont like conservatism

its philosophy, its appliction. I have a gun and im not a conservative. To believe in conservatism is support going backwards in time and thought.

[Jasana]

45. I consider myself a liberal democrat...

so I assume a conservative democrat and I may overlap some but with significant differences.

1- I want a strong federal government with strong regulatory arms...
2- Except in military. I want both it and the black budget reigned in... especially NSA
3- I don't want "kill lists."
4- I want more transparency especially when it comes to the drone program.
5 - I'm not a fan of states rights since they only seem to use them to discriminate be it against women or against minority voting rights.
6- I want single payer healthcare.
7 - I want to expand social security both for myself and those upcoming boomers with no retirement income.
8- I want to regulate the hell out of Wall Street. Many should go to jail.
9- I expect the FDA and the EPA and other protective government agencies to do their jobs.
10 - I want a progressive tax structure and closed loopholes for big business.
11 - I want a minimum wage of at least $15.00 per hour.
12 - I want to concentrate on strengthening our unions again.
13 - I want to overturn citizen's united.
14 - I want to make lobbying illegal or at the very least regulate the hell out of it.
15 - I want a tax hikes on anyone making over $250,000 and a Wall Street transaction tax.
16- I want free education from K to 12 and huge debt relief for college students.
17 - I want our police force demilitarized.
18 - I want strong gun rights protection but with background checks.
19 - I want our government healthcare system to be able to negotiate with pharma.

I'm sure I could think of more but 5AM where I am and I'm groggy.

[old guy]

63. Can't say I disagree with any of these,

but then I've been labeled a "bleeding heart liberal" all my life.

[MellowDem]

46. The Democratic Party as a whole...

is moderately conservative on the political spectrum.

[Token Republican]

47. This thread is very useful to me

as I'm at a period were I'm questioning my own views and labels.

One observation I can add is the term conservative and progressive have morphed over the years, and what some define as conservative values are completely opposite of what others define them as.

I've always viewed conservative values as simply being someone who wants to conserve things. To that end, i'm
- pro conservation of natural resources, ie pro environmental protection is a conservative value.

- pro conservation of human resources, which means protecting our citizens

- conservative foreign policy, meaning far less intervention, far less aggressive approach and being extremely cautious

- conservative as to the role of government in people's personal lives. Best example I can give here is that under my definition, a conservative should be a strong advocate for gay rights and gay marriage, since limited application of government restrictions is best for our country as a whole. For gay rights, there is absolutely no reason why such a fundamental right as marriage should be denied to a portion of our population.

These are just a handful of examples, but I'm finding these views do not mesh with what many consider to be conservative, which means I need to make sure I'm wearing the right label too. Hence DU has their token republican

[RainDog]

48. Thanks for your reply!

I don't really understand a lot of the distinctions either.

I think a lot of us are really in the same place, as far as wanting to ramp down corruption via lobbyists and the sorts of quid pro quos that create a place to land in a job - that's not why someone is elected, whether it matters to the movers and shakers - for them, of course, it's part of the social universe.

and it's so unfair when so many have suffered from policies meant to make working class lives harder, meaner and more limited.

it seems that what some view as fiscal conservative would be what others view as just general graft, etc.

according to your definition, I share conservative values too.

In the movie, The Corporation, one CEO had a major epiphany when he realized the environmental costs of production were creating a horrid future for his grandchildren. So he changed production methods and has tried to bring this idea of longer-term and community-oriented thinking to industry.

For something like that to really take hold, however, entire charters would have to change - in terms of what would be considered an investors' benefit - i.e. not the quarterly statement alone, but a longer term profit to those who come after those who are here are gone.

That's also "conservative" in that it's a view that can postpone immediate gains for future ones - or maybe that's just maturity, who knows.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. Conservationists and Conservatives are not the same thing.

Conservative: : believing in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society

Conservationist: someone who works to protect animals, plants, and natural resources or to prevent the loss or waste of natural resources

So 'preserving natural resources' is not a conservative act but a conservationist act. That's why so many conservatives pillage those resources. That's why they call liberals 'tree huggers'. Liberals are conservationists.

Conservatism seeks to maintain the status quo, traditions, methods, and most of all status relationships. Those in power remain in power, those with advantages retain those advantages. 'We have always strip mined without regulation and we always must strip mine without regulation'. Conservatives are not conservationists.

[billh58]

67. +100

Well said...

[Drahthaardogs]

52. I grew up in coal country with conservative Democrats

I know these people well. Most in my family are/were conservative Democrats. In my experiences, most were blue collar types working in coal mines, foundaries, ship yards, etc. Rural people tend to be republicans.

Anyway, I would say (from my own town and neighboring towns)

1) Most were pro-labor and worker's rights

2) Most were not bonafide gun nuts, but generally did believe the 2nd Amendment is a personal right. Also, if you have ever been in a real blue union town, you realize that the "right to bear arms" sometimes meant arming yourself against the company. Modern Democrats might want to think about that one a little bit. I know growing up like I did certainly left me with a different perspective on guns than many here.

3) Most I know were Catholic or Lutheran. Some were pro-choice, some were pro-life. I don't think they really voted on THAT issue one way or another. They were more inclined to vote on social justice type issues.

4) I would not say they did not care about the environment, but many of these guys lived off of coal, steel, and asbestos coating ships. Environmental regulations hurt them right in the wallet. Still, I would never say they thought dumping waste in a river was a good idea.

5) Homophobic - I don't know. Just watch an old Eddie Murphy routine from the eighties. Most everyone was pretty homophobic back then. The ones I know now generally speaking do not give a damn for the most part, although I do suspect two men kissing publically would not viewed positively. On the other hand, being a bit prudish, a man and a woman making out in public is not viewed in a positive light either. Regardless, it is not a "voting" issue for this crowd.

6) More liberal = disparaging. Beh, I don't know about that. I am pretty pro-union. DU is NOT a bastion for labor. In fact, anti-labor comments are not uncommon here. Personally, I don't think you can be a Democrat and be anti-union. I guess what I am saying is that there is a real genre here about what a "real" Democrat is, and I am pretty sure I do not agree.

7) Pro-America = not criticizing Yeah, to some degree. To them, it is about respect. My grandfather ( a coal miner) HATED Reagan with a passion. However, he was mortified when he was shot. As he said "He is still MY president". There is something about that idea that I find comforting. Not that I liked Reagan, but that even though we can disagree, even vehemently, at the end of the day, we are AMERICANS. Pretty important concept for us 1st and 2nd generation citizens. My grandparents left their home countries as children to start a new life here.

[RainDog]

61. When 9-11 happened

even tho I detested Bush with a white hot... detester...lol...

I hoped and wished for the best outcome in the situation because of its impact on this nation - and the entire world. I doubted Bush had the capacity to do the right thing, but I wanted to be proved wrong because some things are more important than politics.

Personally, I think Republicans have degraded American politics - and this started with the Clinton presidency and Rush, etc. creating a toxic anti-American hate speech spewed into people's cars and homes and workplaces.

Frankly, after I saw the way those hypocritical asses went after Clinton for something they were, in many cases, doing themselves - I said, okay, assholes. No more cold war. But even then, I was too naive to think the Republicans were such scumbags that they would steal the presidential election.

That's the problem with Republicans, to me.

Just when you think they can't sink any lower into a cesspool of politically-motivated racism, sexism, homophobia, science denial - I mean, these people some of us are sending to DC are an embarrassment to this nation - what they say about this nation in terms of how small minded voters are who put them in office...

They are now making statements that slavery was a positive experience for some.

That's when you get to the point that you say...I'm taking every one of these stupid hateful things Republicans are saying as a serious belief and, as such, the Republican Party does not deserve to be a part of the political conversation in this nation.

When you hear them, over and over, saying these things... I cannot understand why anyone would vote for that party - they are holding back the future - and it hurts all of us, them included.

[Drahthaardogs]

66. Right Wing Talk Radio should be outlawed as hate speech.

They have a sneaky way of inciting people. Republicans have no scruples. They are mean men with an agenda and God have mercy on anyway who they perceive standing in their way.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

54. The anti-Americanism charge is entirely fair, I'm afraid.

There are a significant number of DUers who clearly go beyond criticising America to taking any opportunity to find fault with its actions, up to and including distortions and misrepresentations that can't credibly be explained by honest mistakes, and can only really be seen as a desire to think and speak the worst of the USA.

[Eleanors38]

56. I favor guaranteed health care, strong envioronmental

protection, guaranteed housing and food, and readily criticize U.S. policies & culture. And I have plenty of guns.

But I never vote for an anti-choice politician.

[RainDog]

59. there's a first time for everything...

I said I would vote for him and if he made any effort to restrict access to abortion beyond RvW - I would just not vote for a democrat for that spot if he were on the ticket, and I would make sure my state democratic party knew it.

It was actually a strategic vote because it prevented a virulently idiotic anti-choice guy from winning the seat who had made one of those comments like... if a woman gets pregnant when she's raped she wasn't really raped, or something like that.

The Democrat, I was assured, would keep his religion in his own pants.

I find it repulsive that this has to be part of my reason for voting, but here we are.

[Eleanors38]

65. No blame cast...

I drew the line because I had to aid a woman "in trouble" by loaning my car for a trip to the border, some 44 yrs. ago. In 1972, I worked to get Sarah Weddington elected to the Texas House. She argued Roe v. Wade.

Yet, I'm a RW gun humper, gun nut, coward & far worse by the reckoning of some self-appointed keepers-of-progressive purity on DU.

[TheKentuckian]

58. I think it largely is shorthand for agree with Reagan but not the southern strategy.

Moderate Democrat means "I generally agree with Reagan, though I may differ here and there but I'm not only not dog whistle racist but think gay folks are fine too".

Now liberal Democrat is being rebranded as "Reagan wasn't always right but overall he pretty good except the poorest of the poor could use a bit more help and everyone else can take a cut though his appeals to bigotry and doing nothing about aids was terrible. I might also think pot is okay".

I don't think gun control is really about conservative versus liberal though the more right wing party depends much more heavily on folks that are more likely to want or even need guns and the less conservative party depends much more heavily on folks that get much more of the downside and much less use other than home defense (which is balanced by much more plausible police response) so it has become a political totem.

It is also interesting that some of the most otherwise conservative folks in the party are some of the most fervent about gun control.
Hell, I think gun control is conservative. Anytime you limit the rights of the many, it is conservative. Speech control is conservative, voting control is conservative, controlling the bodies of others is conservative, controlling access to council is conservative.

I just think it is an overrated measuring stick, something Hawks and Corporatist can hang their hat on to feign being liberal while they figure out the next front while they plot to steal our Social Security whole they work to export jobs and reduce wages even if some support raising the minimum wage a little.

[WhiteTara]

60. Where I live, it means you are a racist.

You pretend to be a democrat but are secretly a republican.

[billh58]

64. Oxymoron

"Conservative Democrat" = right-wing Libertarian.

[markpkessinger]

74. Historical note . . .

. . . both jimmy Carter and George McGovern were regarded as conservative Democrats.

[billh58]

78. Both of those Democrats

were way before the Tea Party or the advent of Newt Gingrich neoconservative "conservatism." I stand by my claim -- Conservative Democrat = right-wing Libertarian.

[TNLib]

69. I would say most conservative Dems

Are Pro-labor pro-union and then could be a conservative on social issues and possibly more hawkish when it come to foreign policy.

I think what makes them vote dem is they vote their self interest as union workers or being pro-union. Which to me is a good thing.

[DireStrike]

70. Can anyone speak to the logistics of prarie-dog shooting?

Is is necessary to have a semi-automatic weapon, handgun, or large-magazine weapon to kill prairie dogs efficiently? And are the equipment and training cheaper than prairie-dog removal services?

If so, are the jobs given to the gun industry also better than the ones in the prairie dog removal industry?

[markpkessinger]

76. It is worth remembering . . .

. . . that both Jimmy Carter and George McGovern were considered to be conservative Democrats. Just sayin'.

[villager]

77. If that person's hive-mind keeps them from even questioning why things like cattle should be farmed/

raised on prairie lands (and often "public" lands, to boot) where they didn't evolve to be, they're not going to do much in terms of offering serious questions about status quos, how things are and how they might be, etc.

[Captain Stern]

79. Not everyone that self-identifies as 'liberal' or 'conservative' has the exact same beliefs.

I think it tends to be relative. A good example is our President. There are plenty of liberals that would say he's practically a republican, but the teabaggers will tell you he's the second coming of Marx. They're both talking about the exact same guy.

I think we also tend to prioritize issues, and define other people's political philosophy based on where they stand on the issues that we think are most important. A good example of that would be my stance on gun control. It's just not one of the issues I'm most concerned about. I don't own any guns, but I know plenty of people that do, and it doesn't bother me. I don't feel scared around them, and I don't care if somebody carries a gun legally. Some folks would say my opinion isn't liberal. However, I'm perfectly fine with tracking all gun sales (even creating a national registry). I don't have a problem with people having to get a license to own a gun or guns....with mandatory safety training and background checks. Some folks would call me a 'gun-grabber' because of that.

[RainDog]

84. Yeah.

Obama himself said he was more like a modern Republican circa 1980 - but that's a long way from today's Republican Party - or what's going on now was peripheral then.

I'm about where you are regarding guns. I don't like handguns. I feel uncomfortable about open carry because it seems like intimidation to me, and we're in an era where we no longer have gunslingers so... give up the fantasy is how I see that.

I also know people who have died from self-inflicted gunshots, so a big part of my aversion comes from that.

I shot a rifle when I was younger - I have family members who grew up and continue to live in farm settings, so I understand the need in a situation where an animal might kill other animals, and someone trying to protect a herd, etc.

I'm not too concerned about where someone else places my view - like you, it isn't one of my big issues, but I would definitely vote and be happy for sensible gun policy. There are responsible and irresponsible people related to any issue, and both have to be taken into account when possible.

[Phlem]

80. Hmmm.

Still smells like a Republican to me. From your description I would call that a straight Conservative.



-p

[butterfly77]

81. A republiCON

who is there to block and defend republiCON bullshit..

[dionysus]

82. my guess would be jesus-y gun folks from rural areas.