Category talk:Right of reason
I think Obama would qualify as a moderate conservative. See here for one example: [1]
Here's another. [2]ClothCoat (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- By international standards, it's probably true. But I'd rather not create controversy for BoNs while he's still POTUS.
- I would also suggest that you re-title this "Right of reason" instead of "Right of Reason" (just for spelling consistency with other categories). Osaka Sun (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Boy this list is notably short, though that's probably more telling of the conservative movement than it is our own prejidices. We should create a page for Mike Lofgren and put him under this category. I'm a pretty hardcore social democrat but even I respect that guy.ClothCoat (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
It strangely makes me smile that I looked at the list of who was on here and immediately saw three of my idols. As for why the low representation, I'd probably guess because most of the people RW has articles on are complete nutbags.-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 02:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Adam Smith, Ike , and Burke are the idols I presume? Also, you are correct in that we mainly collect articles on whack jobs, but the modern right-wing seems to be attracting more crazies in general for some reason. Except for Russia where Stalinists are more popular than the ultra-nationalists.ClothCoat (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- The truth is, nuts exist with equal occurrence on all sides of the political spectrum (plane?). RationalWiki makes it a goal to document the nuts, not the sane people, thus the skimpy category of sane conservatives, and the enormous list of people pissed at us. Brenden (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's more that RW is more US/UK-centric due to its userbase. There has been a noted conservative radicalization in North America in recent years, but once you branch out to the rest of the developed world there's more of a political tendency to be in the centre. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- What Osaka said. The Republican party is, though not far right, certainly radical right. The Democrat party is center so the underrepresentation of left wing views leads to fewer "moonbats" here. The liberals and moderate socialists tend to be more in line with skeptics probably because they have to think for themselves to a degree to get past a lot of the negative connotations surrounding the word "liberal" or "left".ClothCoat (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ike, Burke, and Buckley. I'm familiar with the economic views of Smith and let's say I'm not a fan. I'm not sure why the rise in vulgar conservatives has been happening lately, but I hope it's a good thing, that this is rather like the declaration of civil war in the 1860's in the US by slave holders: their position has become untenable and this is the last violent death rattle before the idiocy is done and gone, soon to be replaced by better thinking.-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 02:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not really sure about the usefulness of this category, but some of these things just don't belong. Adam Smith? Mike Gravel? Really? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Adam Smith is usually considered one of the intellectual fathers of Conservativism.-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 19:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Which demonstrates the problem with projecting current political categories onto historical figures. Smith's arguments against mercantilism were hardly conservative in his day. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Mike Gravel is a libertarian for the most part so I don't see the confusion there. Adam Smith was more or less a moderate libertarian who would be considered more right wing than left wing.ClothCoat (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Gravel is in fact a genuine liberal, a relic from that long lost time when there really were a few good people in the Senate: Mike Gravel, George McGovern, Eugene McCarthy, Frank Church, Mark Hatfield, James Abourezk, and I probably missed a few. I would argue he still is. Trying to run for the Libertarian Party nomination is not the same thing as being a libertarian. Speaking of who does belong in this category: Mark Hatfield does, except we don't have an article on him yet. Secret Squirrel (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Mike Gravel is a libertarian for the most part so I don't see the confusion there. Adam Smith was more or less a moderate libertarian who would be considered more right wing than left wing.ClothCoat (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Which demonstrates the problem with projecting current political categories onto historical figures. Smith's arguments against mercantilism were hardly conservative in his day. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Adam Smith is usually considered one of the intellectual fathers of Conservativism.-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 19:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not really sure about the usefulness of this category, but some of these things just don't belong. Adam Smith? Mike Gravel? Really? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ike, Burke, and Buckley. I'm familiar with the economic views of Smith and let's say I'm not a fan. I'm not sure why the rise in vulgar conservatives has been happening lately, but I hope it's a good thing, that this is rather like the declaration of civil war in the 1860's in the US by slave holders: their position has become untenable and this is the last violent death rattle before the idiocy is done and gone, soon to be replaced by better thinking.-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 02:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- What Osaka said. The Republican party is, though not far right, certainly radical right. The Democrat party is center so the underrepresentation of left wing views leads to fewer "moonbats" here. The liberals and moderate socialists tend to be more in line with skeptics probably because they have to think for themselves to a degree to get past a lot of the negative connotations surrounding the word "liberal" or "left".ClothCoat (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's more that RW is more US/UK-centric due to its userbase. There has been a noted conservative radicalization in North America in recent years, but once you branch out to the rest of the developed world there's more of a political tendency to be in the centre. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- The truth is, nuts exist with equal occurrence on all sides of the political spectrum (plane?). RationalWiki makes it a goal to document the nuts, not the sane people, thus the skimpy category of sane conservatives, and the enormous list of people pissed at us. Brenden (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
No, Smith would not be considered right-wing in the context of his day, nor was he a "moderate libertarian" (an anachronism). Read what I wrote above. Smith was opposed to the rise of absolutist monarchies and the protectionist policies advocated by the mercantilists. While he was not a radical nor a socialist, he was hardly a right-winger. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Can I add Barry "Every Christian outght to kick Jerry Falwell in the ass" Goldwater to this category, or is he still mr. in your guts you know he's nuts? Secret Squirrel (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- No. I was already complaining about Taft, but at least he was a religious moderate and pro-civil rights (preventing a stopped clock). Osaka Sun (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I was sorta kinda kidding. Goldwater is the very definition of a stopped clock. But can I pleeeze add George "Sweet Home Alabama" Wallace? Secret Squirrel (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAp9sFVdERQ Osaka Sun (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I was sorta kinda kidding. Goldwater is the very definition of a stopped clock. But can I pleeeze add George "Sweet Home Alabama" Wallace? Secret Squirrel (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- No. I was already complaining about Taft, but at least he was a religious moderate and pro-civil rights (preventing a stopped clock). Osaka Sun (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't Joe Clark fit this category?S.H. DeLong (talk) 06:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
This category is very subjective.[edit]
Thoughts on deletion?--Hastur! (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe changing the name to "moderate conservative?" and trimminng it? Although moderate changes from country to country. Seriously Reagan and Ron Paul are on this same list?--Hastur! (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
There are NO rational conservatives[edit]
Therefore, I think this category should be deleted. Catgrrl37-0 (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure if I would go that far...but a lot of people in this category should not be here. For starters, Dewey, Eisenhower, and Lincoln were not even right-wingers by the standards of their time(Lincoln was progressive and the former two were more like centrists).-Flandres (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I have tried removing the worst offenders. While there are still enough people left(for now) that I would not support deleting the category, I do think people need to have way higher standards before putting somebody in it. Heck, some of the people I have left in here are still pretty dubious-Sullivan called BLM a cult and Kasich is the living embodiment of "wants a prize for basic human decency."-Flandres (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)