Who's the most socially conservative President...

[nclib]

Goerge W. Bush, easily.

[adam]

Probably Reagan...he is after all the tree of life to modern day social conservatives.

[Nym90]

Reagan, though in comparison to his era rather than in absolute terms, W. Bush.

[Wakie]

Socially conservative ... W Bush easily.  Even though a lot of it is just lip service.

[opebo]

George W. Bush, though he fits his times better - the US is much more conservative socially than it was in the 1980's.  Reagan was relatively more intolerant compared to his contemporaries than Bush is compared to his.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

bush

[jokerman]

Reagan.  Bush may play up social issues more in campaigns, but barely pays a lick of attention to them as far as legislation and leadership.

[bullmoose88]

Dubya.

Reagan, IIRC, signed into law, as California governor, one of the most permissive abortion laws in the country (at the time).

While the notion that Reagan gave into popular demands is probably valid, its hard to see Bush II doing the same thing in the same situation.

[J. J.]

I'd have to say Reagan, especially considering the times.  The GOP president four years before him was pro-choice.  The one eight years before him had a Justice Department that was in favor of quotas.

[MaC]

George W Bush, though Nixon was consdiered very socially conservative for his time.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

Reagan: Because actions speak louder than bullsh*t.  I don't see how the folks on this board find Dubya remotely socially conservative compared to Reagan, but everybody has a right to their opinion.

[nlm]

Goerge W. Bush, easily.

Define socially conservative for us. I tend to still think of conservatism more as a movement to keep government out of peoples lives, which has nothing to do with what these folks that have wrapped themselves in the banner of social conservatism these days are about. While many of the personal values are similar between old school conservatives and this new batch, there is at least one huge difference - the concept of the governments involvement in the personal lives of Americans was an anthema to the old school.

If you are equating social conservatism to these modern theocrats then W is the answer with Reagan laying the ground work for him.

If you are talking about old school conservatism that valued individual freedoms and wanted to keep the government out of our lives then W is as far from the answer as you can get.

[??????????]

If by socially conservative you mean theocrat, then Dubya.

Bush is a theocrat? LOL!!!

[Republican Michigander]

Reagan - easily.

[© tweed]

Bush II

Reagan's social conservatism was all rhetoric to keep the base fired up.  He never truly pursued social conservative goals, certainly not the the degree of Bush.

[Boris]

Bush II

Reagan's social conservatism was all rhetoric to keep the base fired up.  He never truly pursued social conservative goals, certainly not the the degree of Bush.

I dunno....I was under the impression that Bush 41 was a moderate and he moved rightward during the 1992 campaign to reach out to his social-conservative base that was slipping away to Ross Perot.

I personally see Dubya's social conservatism and devoutness as just ploys to gain votes. I remember during the 2000 campaign he positioned himself as a moderate and then moved right-ward in 2004 with the whole gay marriage crap.  He's merely a New-Englander disguised as a Southerner.

[Jake]

Bush's policies have been, though I suspect Reagan was more socially conservative belief wise. You also have to respect how Reagan ignored AIDS!

[Nym90]

Dubya.

Reagan, IIRC, signed into law, as California governor, one of the most permissive abortion laws in the country (at the time).

While the notion that Reagan gave into popular demands is probably valid, its hard to see Bush II doing the same thing in the same situation.

Reagan also implemented a prison furlough program very similar to the Massachusetts program that Dukakis got vilified for (which was also created by a Republican).

Of course, these facts were conveniently forgotten during the 1988 campaign.

[© tweed]

Dubya.

Reagan, IIRC, signed into law, as California governor, one of the most permissive abortion laws in the country (at the time).

While the notion that Reagan gave into popular demands is probably valid, its hard to see Bush II doing the same thing in the same situation.

Reagan also implemented a prison furlough program very similar to the Massachusetts program that Dukakis got vilified for (which was also created by a Republican).

Of course, these facts were conveniently forgotten during the 1988 campaign.

The problem in 1988 was though that Dukakis didn't condemn the program or say that he didn't implement it, rather, he defended it.

[Nym90]

Dubya.

Reagan, IIRC, signed into law, as California governor, one of the most permissive abortion laws in the country (at the time).

While the notion that Reagan gave into popular demands is probably valid, its hard to see Bush II doing the same thing in the same situation.

Reagan also implemented a prison furlough program very similar to the Massachusetts program that Dukakis got vilified for (which was also created by a Republican).

Of course, these facts were conveniently forgotten during the 1988 campaign.

The problem in 1988 was though that Dukakis didn't condemn the program or say that he didn't implement it, rather, he defended it.

True. Obviously that was stupid, but the implication that this was something unique to Massachusetts or even to Democrats was clearly wrong. The idea of prison furloughs seems ridiculous now but it was obviously quite mainstream in the 1970's, seeing as it was supported and often implemented by Republicans, even conservative Republicans like Reagan.

[nclib]

If you are equating social conservatism to these modern theocrats then W is the answer with Reagan laying the ground work for him.

If you are talking about old school conservatism that valued individual freedoms and wanted to keep the government out of our lives then W is as far from the answer as you can get.

I was thinking more along the lines of what you said in the first paragraph.

[Nym90]

If you are equating social conservatism to these modern theocrats then W is the answer with Reagan laying the ground work for him.

If you are talking about old school conservatism that valued individual freedoms and wanted to keep the government out of our lives then W is as far from the answer as you can get.

I was thinking more along the lines of what you said in the first paragraph.

Still, on what issue is Bush more conservative than Reagan? Obviously the country as a whole is more socially liberal now than it was 20 years ago, so compared to the average, Bush is more conservative. But in absolute terms, I can't see any issue on which he's more conservative.

Reagan refused to even mention the word AIDS (Bush at least acknoledges the problem and tries to do something, regardless of your opinion of those efforts), Bush at least supports civil unions (which obviously very few politicians of any party would have openly supported in the 1980's), and Reagan opposed economic sanctions on South Africa during apartheid, just to think of a few which come to mind for me.

Bush probably doesn't think that ketchup should be considered a vegetable, either.

[nlm]

If you are equating social conservatism to these modern theocrats then W is the answer with Reagan laying the ground work for him.

If you are talking about old school conservatism that valued individual freedoms and wanted to keep the government out of our lives then W is as far from the answer as you can get.

I was thinking more along the lines of what you said in the first paragraph.

Still, on what issue is Bush more conservative than Reagan? Obviously the country as a whole is more socially liberal now than it was 20 years ago, so compared to the average, Bush is more conservative. But in absolute terms, I can't see any issue on which he's more conservative.

Reagan refused to even mention the word AIDS (Bush at least acknoledges the problem and tries to do something, regardless of your opinion of those efforts), Bush at least supports civil unions (which obviously very few politicians of any party would have openly supported in the 1980's), and Reagan opposed economic sanctions on South Africa during apartheid, just to think of a few which come to mind for me.

Bush probably doesn't think that ketchup should be considered a vegetable, either.

Let me start by stating that I'm a very conservative person, so I don't consider the word conservative to be a bad one or one that should be associated with disregard for others or oppression of others. However, I can understand how the growing and very loud and grating voices within the Republican Party have poisoned the perception of what a conservative is in this country for many.

Conservatism, in and of itself, has nothing to do with bashing gays, failing to acknowledge AIDS or opposing economic sanctions on South Africa. Certainly, people who have wrapped themselves in conservatism and claimed it as being theirs and theirs alone have done these things. That they claim it as their own has burned a scar into conservatism, but it doesn't make it theirs.

At least in my little world, the Republican Party has got almost nothing to do with conservatism at this point. Both the Republicans and the Democrats seem to be utterly devoid of principals at this point in time - so how can the Republicans follow conservative principals if they don't have any principals? They can not - and they don't.

I gave up on the GOP a while ago. But they are a political party and as such twists with the changing tides and alters their views and actions and principals as those that control it see fit. Being a Republican has nothing to do with being a conservative, and I consider myself (and many of my associates) to be living proof of that. I laugh my *ss off when I hear people talking about DINO's and RINO's and lack of party loyalty. How can a person be loyal to a shifting set of principals, or no principals at all?

Ah well, I'm just being long winded about saying I'm a conservative and the things you associate with conservatism in your post have nothing to do with me or quite a few conservatives I know. But I'm sure watching Republicans brand liberals as evil for the last few decades makes it easy for you to do so in return, but it doesn't make you any more correct than they were.

 

[Nym90]

If you are equating social conservatism to these modern theocrats then W is the answer with Reagan laying the ground work for him.

If you are talking about old school conservatism that valued individual freedoms and wanted to keep the government out of our lives then W is as far from the answer as you can get.

I was thinking more along the lines of what you said in the first paragraph.

Still, on what issue is Bush more conservative than Reagan? Obviously the country as a whole is more socially liberal now than it was 20 years ago, so compared to the average, Bush is more conservative. But in absolute terms, I can't see any issue on which he's more conservative.

Reagan refused to even mention the word AIDS (Bush at least acknoledges the problem and tries to do something, regardless of your opinion of those efforts), Bush at least supports civil unions (which obviously very few politicians of any party would have openly supported in the 1980's), and Reagan opposed economic sanctions on South Africa during apartheid, just to think of a few which come to mind for me.

Bush probably doesn't think that ketchup should be considered a vegetable, either.

Let me start by stating that I'm a very conservative person, so I don't consider the word conservative to be a bad one or one that should be associated with disregard for others or oppression of others. However, I can understand how the growing and very loud and grating voices within the Republican Party have poisoned the perception of what a conservative is in this country for many.

Conservatism, in and of itself, has nothing to do with bashing gays, failing to acknowledge AIDS or opposing economic sanctions on South Africa. Certainly, people who have wrapped themselves in conservatism and claimed it as being theirs and theirs alone have done these things. That they claim it as their own has burned a scar into conservatism, but it doesn't make it theirs.

At least in my little world, the Republican Party has got almost nothing to do with conservatism at this point. Both the Republicans and the Democrats seem to be utterly devoid of principals at this point in time - so how can the Republicans follow conservative principals if they don't have any principals? They can not - and they don't.

I gave up on the GOP a while ago. But they are a political party and as such twists with the changing tides and alters their views and actions and principals as those that control it see fit. Being a Republican has nothing to do with being a conservative, and I consider myself (and many of my associates) to be living proof of that. I laugh my *ss off when I hear people talking about DINO's and RINO's and lack of party loyalty. How can a person be loyal to a shifting set of principals, or no principals at all?

Ah well, I'm just being long winded about saying I'm a conservative and the things you associate with conservatism in your post have nothing to do with me or quite a few conservatives I know. But I'm sure watching Republicans brand liberals as evil for the last few decades makes it easy for you to do so in return, but it doesn't make you any more correct than they were.

 

Although I do oppose the things that I listed as evidence of Reagan's conservatism, I'm not branding anything as evil. But for a term like conservatism to have any meaning, I feel it should be used in the context that most people use it in, even though this obviously frustrates many who are used to a different standard.

You bring up good points about the shifting idelogy of the parties. I think the reality of both parties is that they have cobbled together a patchwork of special interest groups and must cater to the positions of those groups, even if the groups themselves don't have a lot in common with each other.

[Bdub]

I say Reagan.  Bush talks like he is socially conservative, but he is not near as big of one as he sounds.