"Hitler did a lot of good things"- Donald Trump, to his Chief of Staff

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
29,983
13,644
113
I’m not talking about Fascism in general. I’m Talking about Hitler’s politics.
Uhm, Hitler was a fascist. Hitler had a huge concern about the social order and defeating communism. He wanted a country that was the great bulwark against communism. He didn't think in terms of left and right that I've ever seen.

Hitler shared the belief in social darwnism. Conservatives focus far more on how do we get the elites to shine brighter, not how do we help those who fall behind. Heck, we had several conservatives come here during COVID just to brag about their workout routines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cosmickid

MyTeamIsOnTheFloor

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 5, 2001
48,210
22,115
113
Duckburg
Conservative wing of Nazi party huh. That’s like saying the liberal wing of the KKK. I don’t care whether you want to use criteria from Burke’s, Hayek’s or Buckley’s time, Hitler was no conservative by any measure.

What does people who defend Hitler have to do with anything? Those who condemn Hitler by saying he was a right leaning conservative is my beef. That is just more liberal vacuous conservative bashing that has gone on since Goldwater’s days. It’s what you do instead of arguing ideas.
It’s important to our Lefty Lumpers to keep hope alive for the coming of the long-awaited The Benevolent Dictator - but very uncomfortable to compare They to the not-so-benevolent ones history inconveniently contains (at least until Winston and The Ministry of Truth can complete their good works).

Watching They run from the most notorious Nanny State on the modern books is always interesting. A good national government that is in charge of War AND Wet Puppy Relief AND Pot Hole Eradication and Dis-History Correction is the goal. “The Leftssiah is coming!” “Next year in Washington.”
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
57,994
31,170
113
Margaritaville
Conservative wing of Nazi party huh. That’s like saying the liberal wing of the KKK. I don’t care whether you want to use criteria from Burke’s, Hayek’s or Buckley’s time, Hitler was no conservative by any measure.

What does people who defend Hitler have to do with anything? Those who condemn Hitler by saying he was a right leaning conservative is my beef. That is just more liberal vacuous conservative bashing that has gone on since Goldwater’s days. It’s what you do instead of arguing ideas.
Hitler was no liberal, either. Classical or otherwise.

Your beef is with people denouncing Hitler as a conservative? Where are they? This discussion is a direct result of your continued insistence that Hitler was a leftist. You're the villain in this little play.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
57,994
31,170
113
Margaritaville
It’s important to our Lefty Lumpers to keep hope alive for the coming of the long-awaited The Benevolent Dictator - but very uncomfortable to compare They to the not-so-benevolent ones history inconveniently contains (at least until Winston and The Ministry of Truth can complete their good works).

Watching They run from the most notorious Nanny State on the modern books is always interesting. A good national government that is in charge of War AND Wet Puppy Relief AND Pot Hole Eradication and Dis-History Correction is the goal. “The Leftssiah is coming!” “Next year in Washington.”
You lasted a day, huh? I am no longer obliged to denounce anyone who calls you a Nazi.
 

IU_Hickory

All-Big Ten
Aug 29, 2017
3,286
2,907
113
It’s important to our Lefty Lumpers to keep hope alive for the coming of the long-awaited The Benevolent Dictator - but very uncomfortable to compare They to the not-so-benevolent ones history inconveniently contains (at least until Winston and The Ministry of Truth can complete their good works).

Watching They run from the most notorious Nanny State on the modern books is always interesting. A good national government that is in charge of War AND Wet Puppy Relief AND Pot Hole Eradication and Dis-History Correction is the goal. “The Leftssiah is coming!” “Next year in Washington.”

yea ok dumbo
 

outside shooter

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Oct 23, 2001
20,962
8,390
113
What reminds people of Hitler when listening to Donald Trump is neither liberalism nor conservatism, it is populism. Moreover, it is populism driven by overt derision of groups of people that allegedly "hate us", combined with a dictatorial lust for power, combined with extreme paranoia and strong condemnation of any lukewarm supporters (people that are not 100% "loyal" to the cause).

You'd have to be blind to not see some of those similarities.

Having said that, the description is inappropriate, since Trump is not a genocidal maniac.
 

cosmickid

All-American
Oct 23, 2009
9,281
4,862
113
Zi Jiping and Kim Jong-un for openers.

That’s conventional wisdom, but it’s BS. Hitler was much closer to Stalin than Roosevelt. Nazis we’re all about concentration of power which is the opposite of one of the more important tenets of conservatism which is the division of power.

I have no clue what your point is about Fuentes. I don’t deny that conservatives are more nationalistic than Democrats, but I don’t see why that is bad. This whole “white nationalism” thing is just another way of saying conservatives or Republicans are racist, which dems have been saying for 60 years.
You labeling people like Stalin and Kim as "leftists" does not make it so. Stalin actively purged the left from the time he took power. That's why the initial purge in 1936 was named the trial of "Trotskyite-Kamenevite-Zinovievite-Leftist-Counter-Revolutionary Bloc.

Stalin was an authoritarian just like Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco, but calling him leftist is not supported by History. And Kim is even more of an authoritarian and to the Right of Stalin...

"I have no clue what your point is about Fuentes. I don’t deny that conservatives are more nationalistic than Democrats, but I don’t see why that is bad"

Fuentes is a self-avowed White Nationalist, racist, and anti-Semite. Did you not listen to the video before choosing to comment on him?

I gave CPAC credit for not allowing him to attend, but he undoubtedly has "friends" among the attendees. We already know Paul Gosar has engaged in joint fundraising with him, and I can't imagine Gosar not attending CPAC...
 

Crayfish57

Junior
Sep 18, 2013
1,344
1,416
113
You labeling people like Stalin and Kim as "leftists" does not make it so. Stalin actively purged the left from the time he took power. That's why the initial purge in 1936 was named the trial of "Trotskyite-Kamenevite-Zinovievite-Leftist-Counter-Revolutionary Bloc.

Stalin was an authoritarian just like Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco, but calling him leftist is not supported by History. And Kim is even more of an authoritarian and to the Right of Stalin...

"I have no clue what your point is about Fuentes. I don’t deny that conservatives are more nationalistic than Democrats, but I don’t see why that is bad"

Fuentes is a self-avowed White Nationalist, racist, and anti-Semite. Did you not listen to the video before choosing to comment on him?

I gave CPAC credit for not allowing him to attend, but he undoubtedly has "friends" among the attendees. We already know Paul Gosar has engaged in joint fundraising with him, and I can't imagine Gosar not attending CPAC...
When was the last time you got laid?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC

cosmickid

All-American
Oct 23, 2009
9,281
4,862
113
It’s important to our Lefty Lumpers to keep hope alive for the coming of the long-awaited The Benevolent Dictator - but very uncomfortable to compare They to the not-so-benevolent ones history inconveniently contains (at least until Winston and The Ministry of Truth can complete their good works).

Watching They run from the most notorious Nanny State on the modern books is always interesting. A good national government that is in charge of War AND Wet Puppy Relief AND Pot Hole Eradication and Dis-History Correction is the goal. “The Leftssiah is coming!” “Next year in Washington.”
Watching They run from the most notorious Nanny State on the modern books is always interesting. A good national government that is in charge of War AND Wet Puppy Relief AND Pot Hole Eradication and Dis-History Correction is the goal. “The Leftssiah is coming!” “Next year in Washington.”
Who exactly is "they"? JK... So I'm not sure what particular country "nanny state" refers to?

Outside of members of the Communist Party USA, the "socialists" in this country, esp those within the Dem party base their model on the Scandanavian Dem Socialist parties, and the Govts they have established...

If you want to tar American socialists with your arbitrary designation of allegiance to the country of YOUR choosing, then you have to accept that we choose to align you with Brasil/Bolansaro and Hungary/Orban. Those are probably the most right-wing authoritarian countries on the planet right now, and fit in with your ideals since both were "freely elected"...

Man, I hate to generalize but the GOP right-wing is full of some mighty STUPID people. I guess Marsha Blackburn was feeling forgotten when people gravitated towards MTG and Boebert being the stupidest GOP women in Congress? Is she trying to tell Taylor Swift that female entertainers in Sweden are persecuted?


 

IUCrazy2

Hall of Famer
Mar 7, 2004
14,084
5,275
113
You labeling people like Stalin and Kim as "leftists" does not make it so. Stalin actively purged the left from the time he took power. That's why the initial purge in 1936 was named the trial of "Trotskyite-Kamenevite-Zinovievite-Leftist-Counter-Revolutionary Bloc.

Stalin was an authoritarian just like Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco, but calling him leftist is not supported by History. And Kim is even more of an authoritarian and to the Right of Stalin...

"I have no clue what your point is about Fuentes. I don’t deny that conservatives are more nationalistic than Democrats, but I don’t see why that is bad"

Fuentes is a self-avowed White Nationalist, racist, and anti-Semite. Did you not listen to the video before choosing to comment on him?

I gave CPAC credit for not allowing him to attend, but he undoubtedly has "friends" among the attendees. We already know Paul Gosar has engaged in joint fundraising with him, and I can't imagine Gosar not attending CPAC...
So Communists are not leftists now either? In your mind, who are leftists? Or is this the argument that people like Stalin, Kim, Mao, Pol Pot, etc are not true communists because to admit that they are would be an admission of the utter failure of that doctrine, both economically and in its political implementation?
 

Hoopsdoc1978

All-Big Ten
Apr 13, 2016
3,204
2,668
113
43
Epsom Indiana
You labeling people like Stalin and Kim as "leftists" does not make it so. Stalin actively purged the left from the time he took power. That's why the initial purge in 1936 was named the trial of "Trotskyite-Kamenevite-Zinovievite-Leftist-Counter-Revolutionary Bloc.

Stalin was an authoritarian just like Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco, but calling him leftist is not supported by History. And Kim is even more of an authoritarian and to the Right of Stalin...

"I have no clue what your point is about Fuentes. I don’t deny that conservatives are more nationalistic than Democrats, but I don’t see why that is bad"

Fuentes is a self-avowed White Nationalist, racist, and anti-Semite. Did you not listen to the video before choosing to comment on him?

I gave CPAC credit for not allowing him to attend, but he undoubtedly has "friends" among the attendees. We already know Paul Gosar has engaged in joint fundraising with him, and I can't imagine Gosar not attending CPAC...
Well, now I’ve seen it all. Stalin wasn’t a leftist. Bahahahahaa.
 

Hoopsdoc1978

All-Big Ten
Apr 13, 2016
3,204
2,668
113
43
Epsom Indiana
So Communists are not leftists now either? In your mind, who are leftists? Or is this the argument that people like Stalin, Kim, Mao, Pol Pot, etc are not true communists because to admit that they are would be an admission of the utter failure of that doctrine, both economically and in its political implementation?
If Stalin’s bastardization of Marxism/Leninism isn’t left wing ideology, than there IS no left wing ideology.

Or, if there is, it’s such a narrow definition as to be totally useless.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: IU_Hickory

Bowlmania

All-Big Ten
Sep 23, 2016
4,284
9,486
113
Fuentes is a self-avowed White Nationalist, racist, and anti-Semite. Did you not listen to the video before choosing to comment on him?

I gave CPAC credit for not allowing him to attend
I wouldn't give CPAC credit for anything. They gave Trump another opportunity to take a wrecking ball to American democracy by providing a platform for his continuation of the Big Lie. To Fox News' credit, they ran this disclaimer during his speech - - "Voting system companies have denied the various allegations made by President Trump and his counsel regarding the 2020 election." It would have been nice if they had added "courts, including judges appointed by Trump, Republican election officials and Trump's former AG William Barr" as among those who have also denied his claims of election fraud, but it was better than nothing.

Then there's this wacko, Lauren Boebert, who was also allowed to speak. Boebert, just a few days earlier, tweeted that BIden had "deployed his needle Nazis to Mesa County (CO)." In her CPAC speech, she denounced all government benefits. There's little doubt Dems will be using that soundbite come 2022 midterm elections time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cosmickid

Mas-sa-suta

All-American
Oct 23, 2003
7,842
1,231
113
Wait. Now you're trying to link your hateful bigotry to Christian values? You effing disgust me.
As one of the dimmer bulbs on this board, you are obviously challenged.

I'll help you understand the perversion The Nationalists in Germany 'hated'.

July 6th, 1919

Communist jews Magnus Hershfeld and Arthur Kronfeld founded the 'Institut for Sozialforshung',
(Institute for Sexual Research), in Berlin.

A multitude of services were offered here, including the first surgical sex changes, lectures and sex counseling, room rentals, a pornography library featuring bestiality/pedophilia literature, dildos and masturbation machines.

The 'Institute' hosted thousands of visitors each year, to include field trips from school children.

The 'Institute' later becomes The Frankfort School, responsible for the decay in morals in German marriage and family life via Cultural Marxism.
 

Bulk VanderHuge

All-American
Dec 20, 2017
8,377
9,652
113
The Southern Sun
To Fox News' credit, they ran this disclaimer during his speech - - "Voting system companies have denied the various allegations made by President Trump and his counsel regarding the 2020 election." It would have been nice if they had added "courts, including judges appointed by Trump, Republican election officials and Trump's former AG William Barr" as among those who have also denied his claims of election fraud, but it was better than nothing.
The only credit Fox gets is knowing they don't want to be named in a lawsuit by the voting. system companies.
 

Bowlmania

All-Big Ten
Sep 23, 2016
4,284
9,486
113
As one of the dimmer bulbs on this board, you are obviously challenged.

I'll help you understand the perversion The Nationalists in Germany 'hated'.

July 6th, 1919

Communist jews Magnus Hershfeld and Arthur Kronfeld founded the 'Institut for Sozialforshung',
(Institute for Sexual Research), in Berlin.

A multitude of services were offered here, including the first surgical sex changes, lectures and sex counseling, room rentals, a pornography library featuring bestiality/pedophilia literature, dildos and masturbation machines.

The 'Institute' hosted thousands of visitors each year, to include field trips from school children.

The 'Institute' later becomes The Frankfort School, responsible for the decay in morals in German marriage and family life via Cultural Marxism.
Hatred of others is wholly incompatible with the teachings of Christ. And the dim bulb issue is clearly yours, not mine.
 

bawlmer

All-American
Gold Member
Dec 12, 2010
6,234
4,533
113
As one of the dimmer bulbs on this board, you are obviously challenged.

I'll help you understand the perversion The Nationalists in Germany 'hated'.

July 6th, 1919

Communist jews Magnus Hershfeld and Arthur Kronfeld founded the 'Institut for Sozialforshung',
(Institute for Sexual Research), in Berlin.

A multitude of services were offered here, including the first surgical sex changes, lectures and sex counseling, room rentals, a pornography library featuring bestiality/pedophilia literature, dildos and masturbation machines.

The 'Institute' hosted thousands of visitors each year, to include field trips from school children.

The 'Institute' later becomes The Frankfort School, responsible for the decay in morals in German marriage and family life via Cultural Marxism.
and..?

Then the Holocaust?
 

DANC

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
12,656
17,113
113
What reminds people of Hitler when listening to Donald Trump is neither liberalism nor conservatism, it is populism. Moreover, it is populism driven by overt derision of groups of people that allegedly "hate us", combined with a dictatorial lust for power, combined with extreme paranoia and strong condemnation of any lukewarm supporters (people that are not 100% "loyal" to the cause).

You'd have to be blind to not see some of those similarities.

Having said that, the description is inappropriate, since Trump is not a genocidal maniac.
Your problem - well, one of many - is that you think every strong leader is like a Hitler.

That's because Democrats have no leader - and Republicans have damn few. It's why so many pseudo-conservatives are never-Trumpers.

You don't recognize leadership because you've seen precious little of it in your lifetime. When a real leader arrives, you automatically label them a Hitler because a) they don't share your politics and b) CNN and MSNBC told you to think that way.

Anyone who Trump reminds of Hitler is immature, uninformed, partisan, or stupid. Or all four. Congratulations, you hit all 4.
 

Bulk VanderHuge

All-American
Dec 20, 2017
8,377
9,652
113
The Southern Sun
Your problem - well, one of many - is that you think every strong leader is like a Hitler.

That's because Democrats have no leader - and Republicans have damn few. It's why so many pseudo-conservatives are never-Trumpers.

You don't recognize leadership because you've seen precious little of it in your lifetime. When a real leader arrives, you automatically label them a Hitler because a) they don't share your politics and b) CNN and MSNBC told you to think that way.

Anyone who Trump reminds of Hitler is immature, uninformed, partisan, or stupid. Or all four. Congratulations, you hit all 4.
So, are we to infer that you consider Trump a "real leader"?

tenor.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: cosmickid

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
37,719
8,989
113
Conservatives focus far more on how do we get the elites to shine brighter, not how do we help those who fall behind. Heck, we had several conservatives come here during COVID just to brag about their workout routines.
Where does that view of conservatism even come from? If anything, it’s the liberals who encourage and support the authority and power of elites.

This 1976 Hayek quote showed up on another blog today. It’s spot on 45 years later.

It might indeed be said that the main difference between the order of society at which classical liberalism aimed and the sort of society into which it is now being transformed is that the former was governed by principles of just individual conduct while the new society is to satisfy the demands for ‘social justice’ – or, in other words, that the former demanded just action by the individuals while the latter more and more places the duty of justice on authorities with power to command people what to do.
 

DANC

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
12,656
17,113
113
Where does that view of conservatism even come from? If anything, it’s the liberals who encourage and support the authority and power of elites.

This 1976 Hayek quote showed up on another blog today. It’s spot on 45 years later.

It might indeed be said that the main difference between the order of society at which classical liberalism aimed and the sort of society into which it is now being transformed is that the former was governed by principles of just individual conduct while the new society is to satisfy the demands for ‘social justice’ – or, in other words, that the former demanded just action by the individuals while the latter more and more places the duty of justice on authorities with power to command people what to do.
Could have been written today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
57,994
31,170
113
Margaritaville
As one of the dimmer bulbs on this board, you are obviously challenged.

I'll help you understand the perversion The Nationalists in Germany 'hated'.

July 6th, 1919

Communist jews Magnus Hershfeld and Arthur Kronfeld founded the 'Institut for Sozialforshung',
(Institute for Sexual Research), in Berlin.

A multitude of services were offered here, including the first surgical sex changes, lectures and sex counseling, room rentals, a pornography library featuring bestiality/pedophilia literature, dildos and masturbation machines.

The 'Institute' hosted thousands of visitors each year, to include field trips from school children.

The 'Institute' later becomes The Frankfort School, responsible for the decay in morals in German marriage and family life via Cultural Marxism.
Literally none of that is true. Not even the translation or spelling. Where do you get this nonsense?
 

MyTeamIsOnTheFloor

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 5, 2001
48,210
22,115
113
Duckburg
Who exactly is "they"? JK... So I'm not sure what particular country "nanny state" refers to?

Outside of members of the Communist Party USA, the "socialists" in this country, esp those within the Dem party base their model on the Scandanavian Dem Socialist parties, and the Govts they have established...

If you want to tar American socialists with your arbitrary designation of allegiance to the country of YOUR choosing, then you have to accept that we choose to align you with Brasil/Bolansaro and Hungary/Orban. Those are probably the most right-wing authoritarian countries on the planet right now, and fit in with your ideals since both were "freely elected"...

Man, I hate to generalize but the GOP right-wing is full of some mighty STUPID people. I guess Marsha Blackburn was feeling forgotten when people gravitated towards MTG and Boebert being the stupidest GOP women in Congress? Is she trying to tell Taylor Swift that female entertainers in Sweden are persecuted?


Well, at least you did better than goat, who somehow read my post as an accusation of Nazism against somebody. Shakespeare thinks he doth protest too much.

They was a brilliant skewer of singularities using plural pronouns. Yay me.

Nanny State? I’d give 1933 Germany a Nanny State award. If they Nazis wouldn’t control it from The Berlin Rike, it wasn’t worth fixing. And damn sure the neo-Left wants a Nanny State hereabout.

Don’t really care about Scando-Socialists or Right Wing euros or southies. Nothing really compares to the Good Old USA.

Stupid is as stupid does. So be careful.

Taylor Swift needs to come out of her closet - it’s ok to be gay - really, nobody who matters cares.

Don’t know that other chica.
 

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
29,983
13,644
113
Where does that view of conservatism even come from? If anything, it’s the liberals who encourage and support the authority and power of elites.

This 1976 Hayek quote showed up on another blog today. It’s spot on 45 years later.

It might indeed be said that the main difference between the order of society at which classical liberalism aimed and the sort of society into which it is now being transformed is that the former was governed by principles of just individual conduct while the new society is to satisfy the demands for ‘social justice’ – or, in other words, that the former demanded just action by the individuals while the latter more and more places the duty of justice on authorities with power to command people what to do.
It is how conservatives answer polling. From CATO:

Libertarians and conservatives think about change and the importance of social order differently. Fully 88% of conservatives agree that “radical change should be viewed with suspicion, particularly in a time of radical change.” About half that—43%—of libertarian attendees agree with that statement while nearly as many (42%) disagree. Instead, nearly two-thirds (65%) of libertarians agree that “social change and disruption, even if they’re chaotic, are necessary to improve human happiness.” Only a quarter (24%) of conservative attendees agree that sometimes disruption and chaos are necessary for human flourishing.​
https://www.cato.org/blog/results-2018-libertarianism-vs-conservatism-post-debate-survey

When millions of tweets are analyzed, conservatives mention social order far more than liberals:

whereas conservatives were more likely to mention religion, social order, business, capitalism, national symbols, immigration, and terrorism, as well as individual authorities and news organizations.​

Here is from the Heritage Foundation:

The Conservative looks upon politics as the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.​


Edmund Burke was a conservative philosopher:

Social order. With this prudential approach to politics Burke offered a new theoretical synthesis of the Whig principle of freedom and the Tory principle of order. There were important occasions when Burke spoke of order in instrumental terms as the condition of freedom and prosperity. On these occasions he was prepared to urge that the existing order be redefined to make it more compatible with freedom. But order, especially social order, was also an intrinsic good, to be defined and valued in its own terms, as it was in Tory theory. Four principles recur and are elaborated in Burke’s theory of order:​
(1) Social order is a part of the natural order that God has created in the universe, and it exists prior to the individuals who are born into it. Obedience and tranquillity in society rest ultimately on man’s reverence for God, on the religious obligation to restrain his selfish desires and passions, on the faith that gives “dignity to life and consolation in death.” Social order must hence be built on a religious establishment, because it is in itself divinely ordained, quite apart from the human advances and benefits it makes possible.​
(2) Man is a social animal. Therefore, the family, not the individual, is the proper unit of social order. Families are organized into classes that reflect social functions and into regional communities that reflect geographic conditions. The pre-eminently effective community is the nation; the nation is the vehicle that expresses the unique character of a people in history, that integrates classes and localities in space and links them in time to generations both past and unborn.​
(3) A nation must have rules of behavior to bring unity of purpose out of the mutual adaptation of conflicting interests and emotions. In time these unifying rules become prescriptive traditions that assign rights and privileges and transmit them to the next generation through the principle of family inheritance. The more ancient the tradition, the more profound the respect it evokes, because it embraces the accumulated collective wisdom of the ages. Such ancient traditions must therefore be examined only with great caution and veneration.​
(4) Inequality is inescapable in society. But social leadership is most properly founded on the natural sense of dependence, subordination, and affection, which respond to ability, virtue, age, and graciousness. These qualities of leadership are best institutionalized in a hereditary aristocracy, because aristocracy combines training in expert knowledge and self-discipline with a gracious, humane code of social behavior and with the ancient, hallowed institution of nobility. Since aristocracy offers its members the highest social honors for public service, the aristocrat develops the strong sensitivity to reputation and personal honor that leads him to identify the public interest with his own.​
Burke’s emphasis on the emotional responses that social order evokes and his view of the nation as a unit of historical time were original ideas. But established religion, hereditary aristocracy, reverence for ancient traditions, and a familistic basis for social organization were conceptions of social order that derived from old Tory principles and, beyond them, from medieval social theory.​
To build his Whig superstructure Burke modified the old Tory principles of order with liberal attitudes more appropriate to his own age: (1) religious establishment should respect the conscience of the dissenter; (2) aristocracy should leave some limited room for the upward mobility of new talent; (3) tradition must be adjusted, however cautiously, to the new circumstances and problems for which there is no solution in precedent; (4) an imperial nation can maintain order only by respecting the distinctive character and traditions of its colonies.​


National Affairs Magazine:

What makes up the conservative temperament? First and foremost is humility. Conservatism starts with the premise that social practices, habits, and institutions embody the accumulated wisdom of trial-and-error experience. Conservatives thus doubt the ability of fallible people to overhaul this evolved social order according to their vision of how it should be.​
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-conservative-governing-disposition

Russell Kirk was a conservative thinker:

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.
This word order signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. Twenty-five centuries ago, Plato taught this doctrine, but even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since conservative became a term of politics.​
Our twentieth-century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the fifth century before Christ, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which fall societies that mistake clever self-interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an oldfangled moral order.​
It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.​
Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless. When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions—why, presently they discover the necessity of establishing fresh customs, conventions, and continuity; but that process is painful and slow; and the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly Paradise.​
Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know. Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice. Thus the body social is a kind of spiritual corporation, comparable to the church; it may even be called a community of souls. Human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically. The continuity, the life-blood, of a society must not be interrupted. Burke’s reminder of the necessity for prudent change is in the mind of the conservative. But necessary change, conservatives argue, ought to be gradual and discriminatory, never unfixing old interests at once.​


 
  • Like
Reactions: outside shooter

DANC

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
12,656
17,113
113
It is how conservatives answer polling. From CATO:

Libertarians and conservatives think about change and the importance of social order differently. Fully 88% of conservatives agree that “radical change should be viewed with suspicion, particularly in a time of radical change.” About half that—43%—of libertarian attendees agree with that statement while nearly as many (42%) disagree. Instead, nearly two-thirds (65%) of libertarians agree that “social change and disruption, even if they’re chaotic, are necessary to improve human happiness.” Only a quarter (24%) of conservative attendees agree that sometimes disruption and chaos are necessary for human flourishing.​
https://www.cato.org/blog/results-2018-libertarianism-vs-conservatism-post-debate-survey

When millions of tweets are analyzed, conservatives mention social order far more than liberals:

whereas conservatives were more likely to mention religion, social order, business, capitalism, national symbols, immigration, and terrorism, as well as individual authorities and news organizations.​

Here is from the Heritage Foundation:

The Conservative looks upon politics as the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.​


Edmund Burke was a conservative philosopher:

Social order. With this prudential approach to politics Burke offered a new theoretical synthesis of the Whig principle of freedom and the Tory principle of order. There were important occasions when Burke spoke of order in instrumental terms as the condition of freedom and prosperity. On these occasions he was prepared to urge that the existing order be redefined to make it more compatible with freedom. But order, especially social order, was also an intrinsic good, to be defined and valued in its own terms, as it was in Tory theory. Four principles recur and are elaborated in Burke’s theory of order:​
(1) Social order is a part of the natural order that God has created in the universe, and it exists prior to the individuals who are born into it. Obedience and tranquillity in society rest ultimately on man’s reverence for God, on the religious obligation to restrain his selfish desires and passions, on the faith that gives “dignity to life and consolation in death.” Social order must hence be built on a religious establishment, because it is in itself divinely ordained, quite apart from the human advances and benefits it makes possible.​
(2) Man is a social animal. Therefore, the family, not the individual, is the proper unit of social order. Families are organized into classes that reflect social functions and into regional communities that reflect geographic conditions. The pre-eminently effective community is the nation; the nation is the vehicle that expresses the unique character of a people in history, that integrates classes and localities in space and links them in time to generations both past and unborn.​
(3) A nation must have rules of behavior to bring unity of purpose out of the mutual adaptation of conflicting interests and emotions. In time these unifying rules become prescriptive traditions that assign rights and privileges and transmit them to the next generation through the principle of family inheritance. The more ancient the tradition, the more profound the respect it evokes, because it embraces the accumulated collective wisdom of the ages. Such ancient traditions must therefore be examined only with great caution and veneration.​
(4) Inequality is inescapable in society. But social leadership is most properly founded on the natural sense of dependence, subordination, and affection, which respond to ability, virtue, age, and graciousness. These qualities of leadership are best institutionalized in a hereditary aristocracy, because aristocracy combines training in expert knowledge and self-discipline with a gracious, humane code of social behavior and with the ancient, hallowed institution of nobility. Since aristocracy offers its members the highest social honors for public service, the aristocrat develops the strong sensitivity to reputation and personal honor that leads him to identify the public interest with his own.​
Burke’s emphasis on the emotional responses that social order evokes and his view of the nation as a unit of historical time were original ideas. But established religion, hereditary aristocracy, reverence for ancient traditions, and a familistic basis for social organization were conceptions of social order that derived from old Tory principles and, beyond them, from medieval social theory.​
To build his Whig superstructure Burke modified the old Tory principles of order with liberal attitudes more appropriate to his own age: (1) religious establishment should respect the conscience of the dissenter; (2) aristocracy should leave some limited room for the upward mobility of new talent; (3) tradition must be adjusted, however cautiously, to the new circumstances and problems for which there is no solution in precedent; (4) an imperial nation can maintain order only by respecting the distinctive character and traditions of its colonies.​


National Affairs Magazine:

What makes up the conservative temperament? First and foremost is humility. Conservatism starts with the premise that social practices, habits, and institutions embody the accumulated wisdom of trial-and-error experience. Conservatives thus doubt the ability of fallible people to overhaul this evolved social order according to their vision of how it should be.​
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-conservative-governing-disposition

Russell Kirk was a conservative thinker:

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.
This word order signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. Twenty-five centuries ago, Plato taught this doctrine, but even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since conservative became a term of politics.​
Our twentieth-century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the fifth century before Christ, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which fall societies that mistake clever self-interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an oldfangled moral order.​
It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.​
Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless. When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions—why, presently they discover the necessity of establishing fresh customs, conventions, and continuity; but that process is painful and slow; and the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly Paradise.​
Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know. Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice. Thus the body social is a kind of spiritual corporation, comparable to the church; it may even be called a community of souls. Human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically. The continuity, the life-blood, of a society must not be interrupted. Burke’s reminder of the necessity for prudent change is in the mind of the conservative. But necessary change, conservatives argue, ought to be gradual and discriminatory, never unfixing old interests at once.​


You and Cosmic are the same person, right?
 

Stuffshot

All-American
Feb 20, 2008
9,011
4,023
113
It is how conservatives answer polling. From CATO:

Libertarians and conservatives think about change and the importance of social order differently. Fully 88% of conservatives agree that “radical change should be viewed with suspicion, particularly in a time of radical change.” About half that—43%—of libertarian attendees agree with that statement while nearly as many (42%) disagree. Instead, nearly two-thirds (65%) of libertarians agree that “social change and disruption, even if they’re chaotic, are necessary to improve human happiness.” Only a quarter (24%) of conservative attendees agree that sometimes disruption and chaos are necessary for human flourishing.​
https://www.cato.org/blog/results-2018-libertarianism-vs-conservatism-post-debate-survey

When millions of tweets are analyzed, conservatives mention social order far more than liberals:

whereas conservatives were more likely to mention religion, social order, business, capitalism, national symbols, immigration, and terrorism, as well as individual authorities and news organizations.​

Here is from the Heritage Foundation:

The Conservative looks upon politics as the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.​


Edmund Burke was a conservative philosopher:

Social order. With this prudential approach to politics Burke offered a new theoretical synthesis of the Whig principle of freedom and the Tory principle of order. There were important occasions when Burke spoke of order in instrumental terms as the condition of freedom and prosperity. On these occasions he was prepared to urge that the existing order be redefined to make it more compatible with freedom. But order, especially social order, was also an intrinsic good, to be defined and valued in its own terms, as it was in Tory theory. Four principles recur and are elaborated in Burke’s theory of order:​
(1) Social order is a part of the natural order that God has created in the universe, and it exists prior to the individuals who are born into it. Obedience and tranquillity in society rest ultimately on man’s reverence for God, on the religious obligation to restrain his selfish desires and passions, on the faith that gives “dignity to life and consolation in death.” Social order must hence be built on a religious establishment, because it is in itself divinely ordained, quite apart from the human advances and benefits it makes possible.​
(2) Man is a social animal. Therefore, the family, not the individual, is the proper unit of social order. Families are organized into classes that reflect social functions and into regional communities that reflect geographic conditions. The pre-eminently effective community is the nation; the nation is the vehicle that expresses the unique character of a people in history, that integrates classes and localities in space and links them in time to generations both past and unborn.​
(3) A nation must have rules of behavior to bring unity of purpose out of the mutual adaptation of conflicting interests and emotions. In time these unifying rules become prescriptive traditions that assign rights and privileges and transmit them to the next generation through the principle of family inheritance. The more ancient the tradition, the more profound the respect it evokes, because it embraces the accumulated collective wisdom of the ages. Such ancient traditions must therefore be examined only with great caution and veneration.​
(4) Inequality is inescapable in society. But social leadership is most properly founded on the natural sense of dependence, subordination, and affection, which respond to ability, virtue, age, and graciousness. These qualities of leadership are best institutionalized in a hereditary aristocracy, because aristocracy combines training in expert knowledge and self-discipline with a gracious, humane code of social behavior and with the ancient, hallowed institution of nobility. Since aristocracy offers its members the highest social honors for public service, the aristocrat develops the strong sensitivity to reputation and personal honor that leads him to identify the public interest with his own.​
Burke’s emphasis on the emotional responses that social order evokes and his view of the nation as a unit of historical time were original ideas. But established religion, hereditary aristocracy, reverence for ancient traditions, and a familistic basis for social organization were conceptions of social order that derived from old Tory principles and, beyond them, from medieval social theory.​
To build his Whig superstructure Burke modified the old Tory principles of order with liberal attitudes more appropriate to his own age: (1) religious establishment should respect the conscience of the dissenter; (2) aristocracy should leave some limited room for the upward mobility of new talent; (3) tradition must be adjusted, however cautiously, to the new circumstances and problems for which there is no solution in precedent; (4) an imperial nation can maintain order only by respecting the distinctive character and traditions of its colonies.​


National Affairs Magazine:

What makes up the conservative temperament? First and foremost is humility. Conservatism starts with the premise that social practices, habits, and institutions embody the accumulated wisdom of trial-and-error experience. Conservatives thus doubt the ability of fallible people to overhaul this evolved social order according to their vision of how it should be.​
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-conservative-governing-disposition

Russell Kirk was a conservative thinker:

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.
This word order signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. Twenty-five centuries ago, Plato taught this doctrine, but even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since conservative became a term of politics.​
Our twentieth-century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the fifth century before Christ, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which fall societies that mistake clever self-interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an oldfangled moral order.​
It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.​
Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless. When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions—why, presently they discover the necessity of establishing fresh customs, conventions, and continuity; but that process is painful and slow; and the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly Paradise.​
Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know. Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice. Thus the body social is a kind of spiritual corporation, comparable to the church; it may even be called a community of souls. Human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically. The continuity, the life-blood, of a society must not be interrupted. Burke’s reminder of the necessity for prudent change is in the mind of the conservative. But necessary change, conservatives argue, ought to be gradual and discriminatory, never unfixing old interests at once.​


Sorry, I'm not going to read all that unless I get at least enough credits to satisfy the poly sci. requirement and exemption from having to attend the discussion group at 7:30 am on Saturday morning.
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
37,719
8,989
113
It is how conservatives answer polling. From CATO:

Libertarians and conservatives think about change and the importance of social order differently. Fully 88% of conservatives agree that “radical change should be viewed with suspicion, particularly in a time of radical change.” About half that—43%—of libertarian attendees agree with that statement while nearly as many (42%) disagree. Instead, nearly two-thirds (65%) of libertarians agree that “social change and disruption, even if they’re chaotic, are necessary to improve human happiness.” Only a quarter (24%) of conservative attendees agree that sometimes disruption and chaos are necessary for human flourishing.​
https://www.cato.org/blog/results-2018-libertarianism-vs-conservatism-post-debate-survey

When millions of tweets are analyzed, conservatives mention social order far more than liberals:

whereas conservatives were more likely to mention religion, social order, business, capitalism, national symbols, immigration, and terrorism, as well as individual authorities and news organizations.​

Here is from the Heritage Foundation:

The Conservative looks upon politics as the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.​


Edmund Burke was a conservative philosopher:

Social order. With this prudential approach to politics Burke offered a new theoretical synthesis of the Whig principle of freedom and the Tory principle of order. There were important occasions when Burke spoke of order in instrumental terms as the condition of freedom and prosperity. On these occasions he was prepared to urge that the existing order be redefined to make it more compatible with freedom. But order, especially social order, was also an intrinsic good, to be defined and valued in its own terms, as it was in Tory theory. Four principles recur and are elaborated in Burke’s theory of order:​
(1) Social order is a part of the natural order that God has created in the universe, and it exists prior to the individuals who are born into it. Obedience and tranquillity in society rest ultimately on man’s reverence for God, on the religious obligation to restrain his selfish desires and passions, on the faith that gives “dignity to life and consolation in death.” Social order must hence be built on a religious establishment, because it is in itself divinely ordained, quite apart from the human advances and benefits it makes possible.​
(2) Man is a social animal. Therefore, the family, not the individual, is the proper unit of social order. Families are organized into classes that reflect social functions and into regional communities that reflect geographic conditions. The pre-eminently effective community is the nation; the nation is the vehicle that expresses the unique character of a people in history, that integrates classes and localities in space and links them in time to generations both past and unborn.​
(3) A nation must have rules of behavior to bring unity of purpose out of the mutual adaptation of conflicting interests and emotions. In time these unifying rules become prescriptive traditions that assign rights and privileges and transmit them to the next generation through the principle of family inheritance. The more ancient the tradition, the more profound the respect it evokes, because it embraces the accumulated collective wisdom of the ages. Such ancient traditions must therefore be examined only with great caution and veneration.​
(4) Inequality is inescapable in society. But social leadership is most properly founded on the natural sense of dependence, subordination, and affection, which respond to ability, virtue, age, and graciousness. These qualities of leadership are best institutionalized in a hereditary aristocracy, because aristocracy combines training in expert knowledge and self-discipline with a gracious, humane code of social behavior and with the ancient, hallowed institution of nobility. Since aristocracy offers its members the highest social honors for public service, the aristocrat develops the strong sensitivity to reputation and personal honor that leads him to identify the public interest with his own.​
Burke’s emphasis on the emotional responses that social order evokes and his view of the nation as a unit of historical time were original ideas. But established religion, hereditary aristocracy, reverence for ancient traditions, and a familistic basis for social organization were conceptions of social order that derived from old Tory principles and, beyond them, from medieval social theory.​
To build his Whig superstructure Burke modified the old Tory principles of order with liberal attitudes more appropriate to his own age: (1) religious establishment should respect the conscience of the dissenter; (2) aristocracy should leave some limited room for the upward mobility of new talent; (3) tradition must be adjusted, however cautiously, to the new circumstances and problems for which there is no solution in precedent; (4) an imperial nation can maintain order only by respecting the distinctive character and traditions of its colonies.​


National Affairs Magazine:

What makes up the conservative temperament? First and foremost is humility. Conservatism starts with the premise that social practices, habits, and institutions embody the accumulated wisdom of trial-and-error experience. Conservatives thus doubt the ability of fallible people to overhaul this evolved social order according to their vision of how it should be.​
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-conservative-governing-disposition

Russell Kirk was a conservative thinker:

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.
This word order signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. Twenty-five centuries ago, Plato taught this doctrine, but even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since conservative became a term of politics.​
Our twentieth-century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the fifth century before Christ, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which fall societies that mistake clever self-interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an oldfangled moral order.​
It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.​
Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless. When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions—why, presently they discover the necessity of establishing fresh customs, conventions, and continuity; but that process is painful and slow; and the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly Paradise.​
Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know. Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice. Thus the body social is a kind of spiritual corporation, comparable to the church; it may even be called a community of souls. Human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically. The continuity, the life-blood, of a society must not be interrupted. Burke’s reminder of the necessity for prudent change is in the mind of the conservative. But necessary change, conservatives argue, ought to be gradual and discriminatory, never unfixing old interests at once.​


Thanks for this. I don’t see how this supports the proposition that Hitler was a righty in any sense. We can agree that both a liberal and conservative believe in a stable moral order even with the knowledge that a liberal is more comfortable with sudden radical change than a conservative. The significant difference is that a conservative finds unity of purpose and morality in the common history and tradition, and as Burke noted, changes are with deliberation and caution. OTOH, liberals see moral and social unity imposed by a sovereign entity. Thie latter is right up Hitler’s alley.
 

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
29,983
13,644
113
OTOH, liberals see moral and social unity imposed by a sovereign entity. Thie latter is right up Hitler’s alley.
So opposition to gay marriage didn't come from conservatives? Opposition to pot decriminalization? Who added "Under God" to the Pledge? Demands for prayer in school? I'm simply suggesting that only libertarians are pure on this thought (and even then some libertarians aren't).
 

DANC

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
12,656
17,113
113
So opposition to gay marriage didn't come from conservatives? Opposition to pot decriminalization? Who added "Under God" to the Pledge? Demands for prayer in school? I'm simply suggesting that only libertarians are pure on this thought (and even then some libertarians aren't).
"under God" was added in 1954. In a law passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by Eisenhower.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...dded-to-the-pledge-of-allegiance-on-flag-day/

But, oh yeah - I forgot Democrats have canceled their history after they discovered Biden got the 1994 crime law passed.

"Biden reveled in the politics of the 1994 law, bragging after it passed that “the liberal wing of the Democratic Party” was now for “60 new death penalties,” “70 enhanced penalties,” “100,000 cops,” and “125,000 new state prison cells.”