We aren't talking about republicans, we are talking about conservatives. Those two terms are not synonyms. If you mean a conservative U.S. republican and a chinese communist don't share much in common, then it follows that do have something in common.

Can you point out any of that commonality?

If I may jump in...

U.S. Republicans and Chinese Communists are both strong supporters of allowing the government to spy on the citizens without warrants. U.S. Republicans and Chinese Communists also want to weaken laws that protect the environment. One important difference though is that because of the high literacy rate and comparatively fair news coverage(when compared to China) in America, there's too much opposition for the U.S. Republicans to get everything they want.

Here's what America would look like if the U.S. Republicans had free reign like the Chinese communists...







I'm not a fan of having children rummaging through garbage, which is why I usually don't vote for Republicans.

But this is all slightly off-topic, since we're discussing partisanship and not ideology.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

I don't think I agree with the notion that conservatives, at least in the political sense, are at all opposed to change. Don't look at it as liberals pulling the country in one direction and conservatives trying to stay put, look at it as conservatives and liberals pulling the country in opposite directions. You'd be pretty hard pressed to find a conservative anywhere who is totally happy with the status quo and wants no change, the change may be in the opposite direction from the change liberals want, but it's change none the less. For example, outlawing abortion is considered a conservative stance, yet legal abortion is currently the status quo, meaning in this instance liberals are advocating the status quo and conservatives are the ones advocating change. The same goes for taxes, most liberals advocate change that would increase taxes and government power, yet on the flip side most conservatives are for change that would actually decrease taxes and reduce government power - note that neither side is advocating the status quo.

Perhaps the term "conservative" is an inappropriate label to describe the political demographic it does, to me it would be better used to describe culture, not politics.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what's for dinner.
Liberty is a well armed lamb willing to contest the majority decision!" ~ Benjamin Franklin
"Diplomacy is the art of saying Nice Doggie! while you're looking for a rock. ~ Wynn Catlin
"There are no innocent civilians." - Gerneral Curtis Lemay. A.K.A Bombs away Lemay

You have pointed out some similiarities. What is the basis of either of these similiarities? Is there a common denominator which can be traced to the definitions (of conservative) that have been given so far? (Or do we need to expand on the definitions?)

Someone advocating for change is not 'conservative' about whatever change he's advocating. You're right in that wanting to overturn Roe v Wade isn't a conservative position, in the true sense of the word, since Roe v Wade is the current status quo. Social 'conservatives' advocating for sea change aren't conservative - they're reactionary (I use this term to describe someone whose goal is to change the status quo to the way things were in years gone by). 'Liberal' is not a good term to describe this sort of notion, but neither is 'conservative'.

And, I think this is the problem with framing American politics in terms of "conservative" and "liberal" when describing political opinions. For some reason, Republicans and Democrats have loosely adopted these respective titles and they use them. At one point, the Republicans may have been uniformly conservative and Dems uniformly liberal, but you'd be hard pressed to make that case now (or at other times during the existence of both parties). But people describing themselves as 'conservative' are essentially bastardizing the term, when what they really are is ideologically compatible with the GOP platform. Sometimes that platform is conservative (opposing gay marriage, health care reform, etc) and other times it isn't (Roe v Wade, nation building adventures, overturning affirmative action, etc)

Incidentally, I think your last line is spot on.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

This thread isn't about defining either. It's about bashing conservatives. If the OP wanted a good dialogue, we would be having one by now instead of simple cliches bantered back and forth.

__________________
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. ---P. J. O'Rourke

No this thread is not about "bashing conservatives." There may be some unpleasant truths revealed in discussing this topic by exploring its definitions, applications and examples, but that is not "bashing."

If one finds that an unpleasant truth about them makes them uncomfortable, then introspection may be called for.

Your attempt to draw parrelles is feeble and weak, you are mired in your dogma. Ever hear of the EPA? Sure Nixon wasn't a panty wetting environmentalist but he was a politician and leader who saw what the public wanted and acted. Tell me what a great liberal icon tricky dick was.

You didn't want dialogue, as proven by your first response to any post which merely insinuated Communist North Korea was "conservative". Here's my first post:

Classic Liberalism meant small government, maximum freedom for individuals. Virtually all libertarians today are the remnants of that tradition. Many, if not most American conservatives share many of those qualities.

What unites American conservatives is the yearning for smaller, less intrusive government. What separates conservatives are social issues, such as gay marriage, yet we unite around gun rights. Americans are more socially conservative than Europeans, therefore, most European conservatives are strictly fiscal conservatives.

Looking at our founders from today's perspective, I'd say Washington was a Conservative, Jefferson a Libertarian, and Adams a Liberal.

I used to frequent a Scottish political board, and the differences between American Conservatives and European Conservatives is pretty extraordinary. With the possible exception of the Thatcherites who would fit into the GOP quite well. Most European Conservatives are appalled at the idea of gun rights for citizens.

Your reaction? Nothing.

I say again, if you want a good dialogue, we can have one. You obviously don't.

__________________
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. ---P. J. O'Rourke

The ultimate problem with conservatism, at least in America, is that what's espoused is often in direct contrast to behavior. Take for example the primary mantra of conservatives: shrinking the size of the government.

Yet in practice conservatives have never shrunken the size of the government. What conservatives have done and what Chinese communists have done in that regard is disturbingly similar. They have but one aim and that is to strengthen the power of the central government.

So the problem isn't the definition of how the phrase "conservative" is used. The problem is that those who would subscribe to conservatism are so corrupt morally and intellectually that once they have a shred of power, they will stop and nothing to increase and maintain their own power, even if it involves discarding their own so called stated beliefs. But this isn't a problem in just the U.S.

In my first reply in this thread I pointed out that the only constant worldwide regarding conservatism is that one must be a hypocrite to be conservative. This is because no matter where you go in the world conservatives are saying people need to do one thing but then contradict their own words by their actions.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

And yet, conservatives cheered and applauded for the passing of the PATRIOT ACT. If conservatives had a hint of integrity they would have fought to prevent the passing of this abomination. This is why I hold most conservatives with utmost contempt: they preach about how people should act one way but act in a contradictory manner to their own words.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

Odd Act to bring up, beings it passed Congress with almost unanimous support.

Be that as it may, if you're expecting to vote for perfect people, you shouldn't vote. Perhaps that's a difference in the Left and Right, as the Right has no illusions that they're voting for saints.

__________________
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. ---P. J. O'Rourke

I've been fairly consistent with applying responsibility to those at the top.

Was the bill signed by a man claiming to be a conservative or a man claiming to be a liberal? Answer the question.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

My first response to a post was regarding the United States Constitition. Also the OP states that this is not about any specific country.

About what you say here: The fact that the basis you call on is classic liberalism means that it is not in fact conservative, it is liberal by definition. This thread is to discuss conservatism not liberalism.

You are free to engage the other posters in this thread in discussion.

I should have qualified it with "mostly" or "almost always" or "overwhelmingly". Some allowance has to be made for the fact that the two parties did a complete flipflop in terms of political philosophy which didn't happen overnight, it took place over decades.

ElectoralMaps.org - Timeline of U.S. Presidential Elections - Popular and Electoral Vote Totals - Courtesy of Wikipedia.org

The southern states overwhelmingly vote as a block for the more conservative candidate and the northeastern states overwhelmingly vote as a block for the more liberal candidate. There are a few exceptions but those are the clear trends. The states that voted for Lincoln are the states that voted for Gore, Kerry and Obama.