Do Conservatives want to take America backwards?

Not sure why you put in the it was the Democrats comment, as I neither subscribe to the dumb democrats nor the ridiculous republicans way of doing things. However since you did, lets not pretend that either the democrats or the republicans are the same parties, that they were fifty years ago. To act like what the democrats did in another time is grounds for condemnation of the current party (which has many things that it could be condemned for) ignores history.
One could say that a lot of the people lining up to come here were coming because they were being fed a lie about how great things were here (which granted was better than in many of the countries in which they came from). However they were being fed this lie because of Americas need for cheap labor that could be exploited. You can be sure that the Chinese that were brought here to build the transatlantic railroad and other things were not told that they could not own land or have a wife or any of the other atrocities that were committed against them. They did not live in an age of the internet where one can gain information about any subject in a moments notice. They lived in a time where as information was hard to come by and very often false (that is not to say that all information gained in our era is true either but at least you have the option of getting it from multiple sources). What you feel was plenty of opportunities for all is just one of our cultural myths. If you seriously examine the times even the aristocracy (which was largely anglo-saxon) was seriously constrained by social mores. The women were certainly not given freedoms as to opportunities. It was only with the Equal Credit Act of 1974 that women were able to do things like buy a house or get a business loan with out a male (father, husband) cosigner.
Not sure why you feel that 1920 was this cut off date for America doing good in the world. Up to that point we were still largely an agrarian, isolationist country. One could argue that World War II and the aftermath was the point when we did they most good. After all how many countries bomb the crap out of their enemies (Japan in particular) and then turn around and help the countries to rebuild, the way we did? Yes the aftermath of World War II led to the cold war and it's assorted tragedies and gave rise to Americas unending quest for cheap oil and all the wrongs we have done over that quest. However I'm not sure what you see were the great benefits that an America that was engrossed in nation building prior to 1920 conferred on the world. Perhaps you feel that slaughtering the Indians and stealing their land was something that the rest of the world should emulate. But I think they had enough of their own history of doing such things not to need us to show them how to do it. About the only great thing early America gave to the world was an example that people did not need a king and could rule themselves. That I will agree was a great good.

"However they were being fed this lie because of Americas need for cheap labor that could be exploited." You must be part of a labor union, because most people don't think that working for a market-rate wage is exploitation. Labor unions seem to think that their members should make $100 an hour to copy out of the dictionary........



"If you seriously examine the times even the aristocracy (which was largely anglo-saxon) was seriously constrained by social mores." You're right; there was a time in this country when people recognized that the most rewarding work for a woman was being a wife and a mother. As a result, most women did that, and families functioned—marital strife was low, and so was crime, because children grew up in families where the parents taught them, rather than send them to daycare to be raised by indifferent strangers. Huh. What a horrible life they had.



"Not sure why you feel that 1920 was this cut off date for America doing good in the world. Up to that point we were still largely an agrarian, isolationist country." That's silly. Have you forgotten about the industrial revolution? Apparently you have. As for isolationism, we didn't have to beat up everyone else; we were the shining beacon on the hill, setting a great example, and the other nations knew that if they didn't treat people with some decency, they'd just come here. Many ignored that warning, and lost sizable portions of population to emigration to the States. That was the best way we ever did good.



"One could argue that World War II and the aftermath was the point when we did they most good." Yes, but you can also argue that our involvement led to our subsequent decision to be the world's human rights policeman, taking it upon ourselves to overthrow sovereign nations because we feel like it. We are not God to overthrow governments and set up governments. Stopping Hitler was a noble goal, as was helping our long-time allies, but it set a very ugly precedent in that example.



"Perhaps you feel that slaughtering the Indians and stealing their land was something that the rest of the world should emulate." Oh, come now......there was wrong done on both sides. Yes, the Feds treated the Indians terribly on some occasions, but on other occasions they treated us terribly—breaking treaties, massacring citizens, forcibly reclaiming land they sold, etc. While it was wrong, they gave us such a hard time that it's no wonder the Feds gave them a hard time. The biggest problem I see with the Feds' Indian policy was not treating each tribe as what they were—an independent nation-state. For what the northern tribes did, the Cherokees suffered, for example.



You remind me of the skeptic in "The Great Carbuncle." Your view of the world is so darkened by your presuppositions that you cannot see good when it is staring you in the face. "Take off those abominable spectacles," and you might see it!

"Take of those abominable spectacles and you might see it" amazing how you see your own faults in other people. You are so blinded by your myths that you fail to see reality.
For you even to make the claim that there was wrong on both sides of the Indian conflicts shows you total ignorance of what happened. First of all to make the claim that the Indians reneged on deals when they sold the land shows a lack of understanding of what went on. The Indians never had a concept of land ownership the way Europeans and did not understand that they were selling the land for all time. The feds broke way more treaties than the Indians ever did. Every time people wanted a westward expansion the treaties were broken or the Indians were forced into situations where they were forced to react, . Conveniently giving the feds a chance to go to war against them. "They gave us such a hard time that it's no wonder the Feds gave them a hard time" Do you really not understand that we were stealing their land (despite the few times we supposedly paid for it) and forcing them further and further away from their homes. I wonder how you would act if someone did the same to you? For that matter look at how Americans react when they can't get the cheap oil they feel is their birthright. You have American oil companies with the support of our government in Africa and the middle east basically dispose people of their land and lives. That is where all of your overthrowing sovereign nations comes from. Not from us acting in the name of human rights. The United States has set up more dictators than we have overthrown. Let's not forget it was Ronald Reagan who started people like Suddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden on their road to power.
Actually I own a small business and am not a part of a labor union. But lets discuss what those evil labor unions did. They basically gave rise to a large middle class rather than one of overlords and exploited workers. Make no mistake about it what you call a market rate wage was not a living wage by any standard. The horrible labor unions gave us a 40 hour five days a week structure. Something that is disappearing for a large part of the labor force now that labor unions have become such a small part of the work force (11.8% 2011 Bureau of Labor Statistics). As is a wage that pays people enough to get by on. Real wages for the American middle class have been in decline since the 1970's. Why is it that the market rate wages of the middle class have declined in real dollars over the last forty years and at the same time market rate wages for the one-percent have skyrocketed. Can't possibly have anything to do with how the one-percent determines those wages now could it. When I want to know what kind of work is rewarding for a women I will ask one, not take the word of a man who thinks that being a wife and mother is what women should be happy with. You can be sure that a lot of women were not happy with their lot. This however was all that they were allowed. According to the FBI crime rates in America have been declining and are now at there lowest level since the 1960"s. When you add in that much of arrests are for drugs (that incidentally were legal in the time your refer to as our golden era) it very hard to buy into your argument about what a crime free era that was as opposed to now.
No I did not forget the industrial revolution the effects of which were not really widespread in the United States until the late 1800's. Even then most of it was concentrated in the northeast. The south until post World War II was still a largely agrarian society that had been devastated by the Civil War. The mid-west except for a few urban populations was largely agriculturally based and under populated. Much of it remains so today.

I do not envy anyones wealth. If you are as poor as you claim to be then perhaps you should examine trickle down wealth and see all of the statistics that show it has not worked and instead has merely allowed a small percentage of the population to benefit. If trickle down had really worked we should be in an era of unprecedented prosperity for the middle and lower classes in America. Instead the middle and lower classes are way worse off now than they were in the fifties and sixties (when measured in real dollars) The odds are good that you will never obtain the same standard of living as your parents did. That is an economic reality, based on statistics not republican talking points. You have bought into the idea that it is the government somehow keeping you from getting ahead. The government is not the one that outsourced jobs to foreign countries. In search of cheap exploitable labor American business has expanded our trade deficits, polluted foreign countries and destroyed the natural environment, all in the name of short term profits. How has that benefited you? You feel that government is this evil entity crushing human accomplishments while businesses are these altruistic entities that benefit everyone. That totally ignores the history of business practices. Do businesses do good? Of course they do, but very often they must be forced to do good. If you want to seriously examine why we are currently in bad economic times. Then consider how taxes were cut under Bush while he started two wars that were outside of the budget. Economics has long taught that you can not have guns and butter. Yet that is exactly what he did. Americans were not asked to sacrifice for these wars instead they were told to go shopping. As far as most Americans were concerned these wars were barely on the radar. Well the bill came due.

Ridiculous regulations what exactly do you mean by that? You mean laws that say they can not despoil the environment? Do you feel that if a business, say pollutes the groundwater of a town, that they should not be held responsible? You are against government taxation so obviously you do not feel that a local government should tax the people of the town to provide remedies for the polluted water. So exactly how do you feel it should be rectified? Or do you just feel the people of the town should be so grateful for the polluting industries jobs that they should just drink the polluted water and bear the health costs themselves? Do you mean regulations that say construction industries that use scaffolding must provide their workers with safety harnesses? Or do you just feel that they works should be so grateful for a job that they should be at risk falling to their death? Or perhaps you mean regulations that said cars should provide first seat belts and then later airbags. After all once the car is sold it is not their responsibility what happens to the drivers. Maybe you consider regulations that say Halloween costumes have to be flame retardant to be unnecessary. Do you feel that it is unnecessary for building codes in California to require that building be earthquake resistant. Or that housing in costal communities be built to reduce hurricane damage? I would really like to know if you feel we should return to a time where there were no regulations regarding businesses and how their practices effected, their workers, their customers or the towns where they were located? Do you really feel that that was a golden era for everyone? Or was it just a golden era for the owners? Is the "right" to a profit devoid of any responsibilities?

"Most people look for the housing they can most easily afford and do no really take those matters into consideration." Then it's 100% their fault if something bad happens because they were too lazy to do their homework. Liberty does require that people be vigilant and take responsibility for their own lives.



"So even if the entire town boycotted their products it would have no impact on their bottom line nor make them change what they are doing." This is not true in the age of the Internet and social activism. Never before have people with an axe to grind had so many ways to get their beef in front of people. Worldwide boycotts have happened, and now more than ever, social networking allows people to effect change without involving the government. It is sad that in an age where government regulation is least needed, it is most present.



"As far as quitting a job because of poor working condition most companies would be able to replace you before you were even out the door." That's because the economy has been so ravaged by the redistributionist policies of the past 100 years. The government has been a vampire, sucking the life out of our economy, and had it not had such a good start, and grown so strong, it would have died a long time ago. It's dangerously close today.



"Calling for people to strike is pretty funny coming from the guy who thinks thinks were better one hundred years ago. That was the time period when companies were easily able to use the police force to bust up the strikes." Yes, and I think that it was better that the police busted up the strikes. The labor unions have used striking and various other means of distressing employers to extort concessions that have been ruinous to American businesses. Yet, they do still have the power, and it is an illustration of the power people have to change their conditions without using the government.



By the way, great necropost. ;P