Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2011-03-14T01:44:30Z

ArthurFredrickson:

There are many brilliant -- and popular -- conservative songs.

Here is our growing list:
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L--cqAI3IUI Wouldn't It Be Nice]'', by the [[Beach Boys]]. Pro-marriage.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5RkzbHb-w You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)]''. Abstinence for rock fans. The versions by [[The Supremes]] and [[Phil Collins]] were popular.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl6yilkU1LI Fast Car]'', by [[Tracy Chapman]]. Self-help, free market, division of labor, and a criticism of alcohol.
#''Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road'', by Elton John. The same message as the [[Prodigal Son]]: look objectively at our own lives, and realize that "I should have listened to my old man."
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6yLQRF-cEU Have You Forgotten?]'', by [[Darryl Worley]]. Patriotic response to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]].<ref>http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=15568</ref>
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aMMRes2u4 Still the One]'', by Orleans (1976). A tribute to fidelity in relationships.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHsDa9_HSlA Sweet Home Alabama]'' by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereotyped attacks by [[liberal]] rocker Neil Young.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew Stand By Your Man]'', by [[Tammy Wynette]]. Don't expect [[feminists]] to like that one! Or [[Hillary Clinton]]!
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCqZ-9-lDEo Lee Greenwood's rendition] of [[Battle Hymn of the Republic]]. "As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dFl9OHE-8g The Man Comes Around]'', by [[Johnny Cash]].
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-1_d6bbM1I My Love]'', by [[Petula Clark]]. Christian love in secular form.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4 I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)]'', originally by the Bobby Fuller Four. Its title says it all. The version by [[The Clash]] has a good tempo.
#"You Light Up My Life" by [[Debbie Boone]]. One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].
#"Pomp and Circumstance" ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOcvcBxrfN4 ''Land of Hope & Glory'']) By Freedom gain, by Truth maintain...
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ0oCmDXrVk&mode=related&search= Jerusalem]''. Don't let the sword sleep in the hand.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahd2piIr4Q Brothers In Arms]'', by [[Dire Straits]]. We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeWZhuzFMM8 The Ascent of Stan]'', by [[Ben Folds]]. Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.
#"Starting All Over Again" by [[Petula Clark]]. Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.
#"Thank You My Lord" by [[Petula Clark]]. The title says it all.
#"Brick" by [[Ben Folds Five]]. Shows the regret involved in abortion.
#"Alive" by [[P.O.D]].: About being thankful for the gift of life.
#"Gotta Serve Somebody" by [[Bob Dylan]]. "It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."<ref>http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html</ref>
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU Jesus Take The Wheel]'', by [[Carrie Underwood]]. A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPBwXKgDTdE Mine]'' by Taylor Swift. Talks about how her parents divorced, and how she doesn't want that to happen with the guy she meets, dates, and marries.
#"Red Barchetta" by [[Rush]]. Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.
#"Father of Mine" by [[Everclear]]. A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM The Taxman]'', by [[The Beatles]]. George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes." <ref>http://home.att.net/~chuckayoub/Taxman_Lyrics.html</ref>
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eonyfRet8&feature=related Back in the U.S.A.]'', by [[Chuck Berry]]. A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZVPv9B-ZlM Government Cheese]'', by [[The Rainmakers]]. Humorous spoof of welfare.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPywgiMb4k Angry Young Man]'' by [[Billy Joel]]. The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzU2iJ9qfXg Gimme Back My Bullets]'', by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. The name says it all.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPlGFh6OpQ Spirit In The Sky]'', by [[Norman Greenbaum]].
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38oeBgvbMYA Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun]'', by [[Grand Funk Railroad]]. A father gives his son some sage advice.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=096LhjGNNCk Something For Nothing]'', by [[Rush]]. "You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."
#"Neighborhood Bully" by [[Bob Dylan]]. Israel's right to exist and defend itself.
#"Get It Right the First Time" by [[Louisiana's Le Roux]]. Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.
#"Only The Young" by [[Journey]]. "The shadows of a golden age, a generation waits for dawn, the brave carry on, the bold and the strong". An anthem for the Reagan Generation.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o Yours Is No Disgrace]'', by [[Yes]]. Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.
#"Fair Exchange" and "Sparks of the Tempest" by [[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]. Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.
#"In America" by the [[Charlie Daniels]] Band. Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
#"Storm the Embassy" by the [[Stray Cats]]. Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis.
#"We Must Take America Back" by [[Steve Vaus]]. Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.
#"Renegade" by [[Steppenwolf]]. John Kay's childhood escape from Communist East Germany.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI Capitalism]'', by [[Oingo Boingo]]. There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.
#"Unborn Child" by [[Seals and Crofts]]. This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.
#"Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)" by [[Steve Taylor]]. Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their head in the sand".
#"Last Kiss" by Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders, covered by other artists. "Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when I leave this world"<ref>http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=14</ref>
#"Love Me, I'm a Liberal" by [[Phil Ochs]]. Revealing Liberal hypocrisy for what it is.
#"America USA" by [http://giveagiftofsong.com/products.htm]Joey Sudyka. Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6XZDb045xU Red White and Blue]'', by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]].
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBohsCG8emk Simple Man]'', by [[Charlie Daniels]]. A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.
#"That Smell" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A very strong anti-drug use song by America's most well-known Southern rock band.
#Virtually anything by [[Toby Keith]], but especially "Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)".
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pldyz9VS2yY Under God]'', by [[Pat Boone]].
#"Christmas Shoes" by NewSong - a Christmas song by a Christian band.
#"God Bless the USA" by Lee Greenwood.<ref>http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/proudtobeamerican.html</ref>
#"God Bless America" Words and music by Irving Berlin.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed]'' [[Yes]] "...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you..."
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g Supper'sReady] [[Genesis (band)|Genesis]]''. ''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, "This is the supper of the mighty one", Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoaH0I9UwLI Your Love Is Extravagant]'' Casting Crowns
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnhYE1DhC4 What If His People Prayed]'' Casting Crowns
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBiei21-C8 King Without a Crown]'' by Matisyahu - A Hasidic Jew raps about God as the source of happiness and salvation from the things of this world: "If you're drowning in the waters and you can't stay afloat ask Hashem for mercy and He'll throw you a rope."
#"Take Me Home, Country Roads" by John Denver (and others). Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions.
#"Sin City" by the Flying Burrito Brothers. Attacks modern decadence and predicts divine punishment for sin.
#"I Saw the Light" by Hank Williams (and numerous cover versions). Redemption from sin through faith.
#"No Son of Mine" by Genesis.
#"Don't Stop" (Thinking About Tomorrow) by Fleetwood Mac.<ref>Used by Bill Clinton as his campaign theme song in 1992, but liberals often try to appeal to conservative themes for elections.</ref>
#"Lightning Crashes" by Live. The joy and significance of childbirth.
#"Takin' Care of Business" by Bachman-Turner Overdrive. The work ethic and promoting self-employment.
#"Cat's In The Cradle" by Harry Chapin. The importance of traditional families and responsible fatherhood.
#''[http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6547 The Devil Went Down To Georgia]'', by [[Charlie Daniels]]. A deeper message here, as Daniels explains.
#"Big Money" by Rush - Pro-[[capitalism]]
#"Real American" by Rick Derringer - patriotic anthem, known as [[Hulk Hogan]]'s pre-fight song
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1lSMXE3W8w&feature=related Amazing Grace]'', a Christian hymn written by English poet and clergyman [[John Newton]] (1725–1807), published in 1779.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0&feature=related Go Down Moses]'', performed by: [[Louis Armstrong]]; written by: Sy (Arr) Oliver.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5zEP4kvfnc Walking Contradiction]'' by [[Green Day]]. Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]], here [[Green Day]] mocks the often self-contradictory and inconsistent [[liberal]] ideologies, hence the term "walking contradiction".
#"God and Guns" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A powerful new Skynyrd song that elaborates on the song title.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5zEP4kvfnc Walking Contradiction]'' by [[Green Day]]. Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]], here [[Green Day]] mocks the often self-contradictory and inconsistent [[liberal]] ideologies, hence the term "walking contradiction".
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQtnPOfId0Y Be My Escape]'' by [[Relient K]]. Actually a popular song among non-conservatives too.
#''Staying Alive'', by the Bee Gees. Pro-people and pro-staying alive, and this: "We can try to understand; The [[New York Times]]' effect on man."
#''Sympathy for the Devil'' by the Rolling Stones. Reminds humanity that nobody is perfect and evil is present in the world and needs to be fought.
#''All In'' by Lifehouse.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVsZap7WBm8</ref> Describes a relationship with God as being full of commitment and without reservations.
#"[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5GDvN9_OE The Ballad of the Green Berets]", by Sergeant Barry Sadler. Pro-American and pro-military.
#''Iraq No Phobia'' by Pro-Pain. It is a pro-American, pro-military heavy metal song about the first [[Gulf War]] ''"Mohammed's no match for the great Uncle Sam."''
#''Bus Stop'', by The Hollies. Pro-romance and pro-marriage: "Someday my name and hers are going to be the same."
#''Stranger in Blue Suede Shoes'' by Kevin Ayers. Defends the right of businessmen to choose their customers: "we don't serve strangers in blue suede shoes".
# "Union Sundown" by Bob Dylan. The title said it all.

Please add your best conservative picks.

== References ==

<references/>

Dwight D. Eisenhower

2011-03-14T01:01:16Z

ArthurFredrickson:

{{Officeholder
|name=Dwight Eissenhower
|image=Eisenhower official photo.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Mamie Doud Eisenhower
|religion=[[Presbyterian]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=34th
|terms=January 20, 1953 – January 20, 1961
|vp=[[Richard Nixon]]
|preceded=[[Harry Truman]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[John F. Kennedy]]
}}
|military=y
|rank=General
|branch= [[United States Army]]
|serviceyears=1915–1953, 1961–1969<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.eisenhower.utexas.edu/All_About_Ike/Post_Presidential/Post_Presidential.html |title=The Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum Homepage |publisher=Eisenhower.utexas.edu |date= |accessdate=May 3, 2010}}</ref>
|commands=[[Europe]]
|battles=[[World War II]]
|awards=Army Distinguished Service Medal with four oak leaf clusters, Legion of Merit, Order of the Southern Cross, Order of the Bath, Order of Merit, Légion d'honneur (partial list)
}}
General of the Army '''Dwight David ("Ike") Eisenhower''' (1890-1969) was an esteemed career soldier who was the top Allied commander in Europe in [[World War II]], rose to the rank of [[Five Star General]] and who served as the 34th [[President of the United States of America]].
(1953-1961).<ref>[http://www.history.army.mil/faq/faq-5star.htm "General of the Army," the highest American military rank, is a 5-star general, comparable in rank to field marshal; there have been only five in history.] </ref> He first commanded Allied (British and American) troops invading North Africa in 1942 and Italy 1943, then became the Supreme Allied Commander of the forces that invaded Normandy on [[D-Day]], June 6, 1944, and defeated the Germans in the West.

As the great American hero of the war, both parties wanted him as a presidential candidate. He kept out of politics until 1952, but was increasing hostile to the liberalism and corruption of the [[Harry S. Truman|Truman Administration]]. In 1952 Ike argued for a vigorous anti-Communist foreign policy in defeating the isolationist Senator [[Robert A. Taft]] for the [[Republican Party|Republican nomination]] and was elected by a landslide. As president he followed conservative economic policies recommended by Taft, but continued what was left of the New Deal and expanded Social Security. In foreign policy he kept the containment policy in the [[Cold War]] and ended the [[Korean War]]. Eisenhower sponsored the [[Interstate Highway System]], signed the first civil rights bill in 82 years, and promoted domestic policies known as "dynamic conservatism". He repeatedly warned against deficit spending but launched no great moral crusade, nor did he engage in an idealistic pursuit of some overriding national goal. Critics led by Democrat [[John F. Kennedy]] charged that Eisenhower was quite content to preside over a fat, happy, satisfied nation that devoted itself to the good life. Eisenhower largely ignored partisan politics, leaving that to his Vice President [[Richard Nixon]], who was defeated in 1960 by Kennedy when he tried to run on the achievements of the Eisenhower administration.
==Early career==
Eisenhower was born David Dwight Eisenhower in Denison, Texas, on Oct. 14, 1890 of Pennsylvania Dutch heritage. The name his parents gave him at that time was David Dwight Eisenhower - a name that wasn't switched to its more familiar form until the time of Eisenhower's enrollment at West Point. His father, David Jacob Eisenhower, was of Bavarian Mennonite descent; his mother, Ida Elizabeth (Stover) Eisenhower, was of Swiss descent. The families of both parents came to America prior to 1750. Three hundred "River Brethren," including his father, moved to farms in Kansas in the 1880s. His parents were college educated, but lost their inheritance and lived poor working class lives in Abilene (apart from a short stay in Texas where Ike was born). Ike maintained close ties with Abilene his entire life. There he grew up in an environment of strong family religious traditions; his father was distant, known only as a harsh disciplinarian, but his mother had a level of activism and a sparkle in her eye that Ike inherited. In the 1890s his parents left the Mennonites to join the [[Jehovah Witness]] religion, a highly controversial group because of its refusal to salute the flag. His mother was a leader of the Witnesses but Eisenhower was never a member.<ref>Gerald Bergman, "The Influence of Religion on President Eisenhower's Upbringing" ''Journal of American & Comparative Cultures'' (2000) 23(4): 89-107. Issn: 1537-4726 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]; As President Eisenhower was baptized into the Presbyterian church--the only president to be baptized while in office. [http://www.classroomhelp.com/lessons/Presidents/eisenhower.html see source]</ref> Eisenhower had six brothers; they all had successful careers. The oldest, Arthur, became a banker; Edgar a lawyer; Roy a pharmacist; Earl an electrical engineer; and Milton a [[New Deal]] official, became president the Johns Hopkins University and a close adviser to Ike.

Eisenhower was well educated in the small city's public schools and graduated from Abilene High School in 1909. He told a party rally that year that he was a Democrat. Despite the strong pacifist sentiment in the community, Eisenhower entered the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1911. Cadet Eisenhower was outstanding as a football player until he injured a knee in his sophomore year. He became a student coach with a deep knowledge of the game and for the next decade was in demand as a football coach at different army posts. His academic performance was average and he was commissioned a second lieutenant in June 1915 in the "class stars fell upon." The World War was underway in Europe, but it made little impact on the West Point curriculum, which was oriented toward military engineering and history, and above all to complex teamwork (and a disdain for politicians).

The new second lieutenant was assigned to the prestigious 19th Infantry Regiment at Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, Texas. There he met Mamie Geneva Doud, daughter of a prosperous Denver, Colorado, family. They were married on July 1, 1916; Eisenhower was promoted to first lieutenant the same day. They had two children, a boy who died in infancy, and John Sheldon Doud Eisenhower, who became an Army career officer.

During World War I Eisenhower, a permanent captain and a temporary lieutenant colonel, commanded 10,000 men at the Tank Corps training center at Camp Colt, Pennsylvania; he later built his Gettysburg farm home nearby. He was preparing to sail for France when the armistice took effect on November 11, 1918, so he did not see combat. He had, however, achieved the number three rank in the Tank Corps; his close friend [[George Patton]] was number 2, and did see combat in France.

==Interwar years==
After the war, Eisenhower reverted to the permanent rank of major--one he was to hold for 16 years. In spring 1919, took part in the army's Transcontinental Convoy designed to demonstrate the need for better roads and a transcontinental highway system. The entourage left from Washington and followed a route that approximated the planned Lincoln Highway. The "truck train," as Ike called it, consisted of 81 military vehicles, 37 officers, several hundred enlisted personnel, and numerous civilian vehicles. The army vehicles included one small tank, which was the responsibility of Eisenhower and his friend, Major Sereno Brett. An estimated 3.5 million people viewed the convoy, which arrived in San Francisco in September. Among the lessons learned by the military was that they needed more durable vehicles and better maintenance procedures; it also gave him the idea for a national highway system that would facilitate troop movements.

After commanding several units in the fledgling Tank Corps, the Corps was disbanded and Eisenhower was told that his theorizing about the use of armor in future wars would jeopardize his career as an infantry officer, so he stopped. In 1922 he became executive officer of the 20th Infantry Brigade in the Panama Canal Zone, where he had many in-depth conversations with his first mentor General Fox Connor, an intellectual who had been a top aide to General [[John J. Pershing]]. Eisenhower recalled the experience as his "graduate school of military affairs." In 1924 Eisenhower graduated first in his class of 275 from the Army Command and General Staff School, a signal that he was among the half-dozen most promising young officers in the army. He also graduated from the Army War College. Assigned to Pershing's Battle Monuments Commission, he went to France twice and wrote a guidebook to the French battlefields, and added Pershing's mentorship. In late 1929 he was assigned to the office of the assistant secretary of war. He served three years in this critical position. A specialist on logistics and supply, he largely wrote the Army's "Industrial Mobilization Plan of 1930." (It was not, however, used when the war came.<ref> Kerry E. Irish, "Apt Pupil: Dwight Eisenhower and the 1930 Industrial Mobilization Plan" ''The Journal of Military History''70#1 (January 2006), pp. 31-61 in [[Project Muse]]- </ref>) Eisenhower moved up to the office of Chief of Staff, becoming an assistant to General [[Douglas MacArthur]], a mentor whom he greatly admired at the time. When MacArthur was sent to the Philippines in 1935, Eisenhower accompanied him as assistant. There Eisenhower helped create the Philippine Army, specializing in its air force. He earned pilot's wings and a lieutenant colonelcy.

Holland (2001) argues that Eisenhower was the best read and trained officer of his age in the interwar Army and possessed a "terrific intellect." Far from being an unknown, his talents and work ethic attracted the attention of some of the Army's most important senior officers, especially Connor and MacArthur, who mentored Eisenhower and boosted his career. Indeed, he benefited from such attention more than any other officer of the era.
==World War II==
===1940-42===
Back in the United States in early 1940, he served as chief of staff of the Third Division and the Ninth Army Corps, and then of the Third Army. In this capacity, he had a large part in the tactical planning of the Louisiana war games of 1941. He won notice and rapid promotion to colonel and brigadier general. Eisenhower became the protégé of Chief of Staff [[George C. Marshall]], serving in the office of the chief of staff as chief of the plans division and was named a major general. His first task was planning the Army's defensive role against Japan. American strategy called for defeat of Germany first, and in early 1942 Eisenhower took charge of planning its implementation. This brought him into repeated conflict with Chief of Naval Operations [[Ernest J. King]], who wanted to shift most of the Navy's resources to the Pacific, stripping Europe of the landing craft Eisenhower needed.
[[Image:IKE3.JPG|thumb|260px|1944 WW2 government poster to sell bonds]]
===1942-45===
After a survey trip to Britain, Eisenhower was appointed commander of U.S. troops in Europe. Now a lieutenant general with three stars, he took charge of "[[Operation Torch]]" the Allied invasion of French North Africa. The landings there on November 8, 1942, met with merely temporary resistance from the French, and agreements with French Vichy leaders soon brought about Allied control of French North Africa. Eisenhower had been too cautious and landed too far west, which prolonged the campaign. After an unexpected defeat at Kasserine Pass, Eisenhower's forces crushed the Germans and Italians from the west while British General [[Bernard Montgomery]] mauled them from the east; the enemy surrendered in May 1943. Eisenhower next supervised the Allied invasion of Sicily (July, 1943), in which the enemy escaped with all their soldiers and supplies. Eisenhower then led the invasions of mainland Italy (September 1943), which quickly bogged down. Despite numerous strategic mistakes, Eisenhower was learning, and he was pushing the Germans back. He tended to run his command through committees and distanced himself from day-to-day decisions, delegating responsibility to subordinates and rarely interfering. His genius was in understanding how to make coalition warfare work in both the military and political spheres. Eisenhower proved adept at dealing with the British and French, while wary of a possible German counterattack through Spain (which never happened).

===Supreme Commander 1943-45===
His tactical military successes, and especially his ability to lead and coordinate the efforts of all the Allied forces and to smooth over inter-Allied rivalries, led to Eisenhower's appointment in December 1943 as commander of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe (SHAEF). This was the command charged with leading the largest, climactic Allied push of the war--the invasion of France. Marshall himself wanted the job, but President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] insisted on Eisenhower.<ref> FDR told Marshall he was essential at home, thus allowing Marshall to save face. FDR felt Eisenhower was the better planner and diplomat.</ref>

Eisenhower molded the giant force that on June 6, 1944, landed on the beaches of Normandy. Although meeting fierce German resistance, his command of the air meant the Germans were immobile and could not be resupplied. Eisenhower's the forces broke through at St. Lo (July 18, 1944), and landed also in southern France (August 15, 1944). The Germans rapidly retreated to Germany, many escaping through the Failaise Gap that the American field commander, General Omar Bradley, had failed to close. The liberation of Paris on August 25, 1944, seemed to herald a quick end to the war. But a German counterattack, called the "Battle of the Bulge" in the Ardennes in mid-December 1944, caught the Allies by complete surprise. This time bad weather grounded the Allied air forces, but the Germans were stunned to discover that Allied artillery used proximity fuzes that made its barrages much more effective. Eisenhower had fought the Pentagon to get those fuzes (which Washington feared would be reverse engineered by the Germans and so should not be used.) The Battle of the Bulge was won when the skies cleared, but cost 77,000 casualties, the highest toll in U.S. military history. Finally on March 6, 1945, the Allied forces crossed the Rhine. They cleared the Ruhr Valley region and reached and bridged the Elbe River. Eisenhower declined to advance on the political target of Berlin, because the casualties would be too high and the Soviets had been assigned that task. He instead focused on destroying Nazi forces in central and southern Germany. This decision was controversial, but led to a quick collapse of Nazi Germany, which surrendered on May 8, 1945.<ref>Donald E. Shepardson, “The Fall of Berlin and the Rise of a Myth” ''Journal of Military History'' (1998) 62(1): 135-153. Issn: 0899-3718 Fulltext: [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0899-3718(199801)62%3A1%3C135%3ATFOBAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L in JSTOR] </ref>
===Debate with Montgomery===
[[Image:Eisenhower, Patton, Truman.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Eisenhower (left) with General [[George Patton]] and President Truman, 1945]]
Following the breakthrough in France in August 1944 an argument broke out between the Eisenhower, and the Commanding General of the 21st British Army Group, General Sir [[Bernard L. Montgomery]]. Montgomery argued that a concentrated attack, which he would lead, on the northern line of advance was preferable to Eisenhower's two-pronged broad-front advance. When Eisenhower decided that as of 1 September 1944 he would assume command of the ground troops from Montgomery, the temporary ground forces commander, the debate widened to include command. Except for Operation MARKET-GARDEN, Eisenhower did not take seriously Montgomery's single-thrust proposals.<ref> Chester Wilmot's ''Struggle for Europe'' (1952) told Montgomery's side of the story but focused the debate narrowly on strategy, virtually excluding the arguments over command. Montgomery did not show Wilmot his papers concerning command, only strategy, so Wilmot wrote about what he knew. Politics influenced Churchill's history of the war, published in 1953, which omitted Churchill's reservations over Eisenhower's exercise of ground command, owing to the fact that Eisenhower was now President. See G. E. Patrick Murray, ''Eisenhower versus Montgomery: The Continuing Debate'' (1996)</ref>

===Intelligence===
Eisenhower entered the war ignorant of the intricacies of intelligence gathering; by 1944 he was a highly sophisticated and effective user of massive amounts of secret information from American and British sources. Throughout the European campaign he had almost as good a grasp of German order of battle as Hitler's staff, and sometimes better. He learned from Ultra and other deciphering of German messages; he was also informed by anti-Nazi Europeans outside Germany (although he did not have spies inside Germany). He relied too much on signal intelligence gathered by Ultra's monitoring German radio messages, and thereby was taken by surprise by the Battle of the Bulge, because the Germans used land lines for telephone and telegraph messages. Eisenhower became skilled in deceiving the Germans about Allied strength and possible landing sites. He pretended that the Normandy landing was a feint and that Pas de Calais and Norway were the real invasion sites, and the Germans bought the deception and misdirected their forces. Eisenhower used well the covert operations of the French Resistance.<ref>Stephen E. Ambrose, "Eisenhower and the Intelligence Community in World War II". ''Journal of Contemporary History'' (1981) 16(1): 153-166. Issn: 0022-0094 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0094(198101)16%3A1%3C153%3AEATICI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M in Jstor] </ref>
==Postwar==
After duty in charge of the American zone in Germany, and a tour as chief of staff of the Army (Nov. 1945- Feb 1948), Eisenhower retired from the service. His war memoir, ''Crusade in Europe'' (1948) was a financial and critical success. He became president of Columbia University in New York (1948-50), but his heart was in world affairs, not academia.

The 1951 appointment of Eisenhower as NATO's first supreme allied commander, Europe (SACEUR) was crucial to the alliance's success. Eisenhower was the only individual with sufficient military and political stature to persuade Western Europe to rearm in the face of the Soviet threat. While not completely successful - NATO's combat strength did not reach the desired totals - Eisenhower spent 18 months visiting member countries and organizing available military forces. When he left NATO in 1952 to run for president, the organization was planning an ambitious expansion, including the entry of Greece and Turkey into the alliance and the rearming of the Federal Republic of Germany.<ref> See Bielakowski (2004)</ref>

==1952 Presidential campaign==

Eisenhower was convinced that America's own security depended on its commitment to NATO. He was therefore outraged by the isolationism of the leader of the GOP in Congress, Ohio Senator [[Robert Taft]]. [[Image:I-like-ike.jpg|thumb|175px]] In February 1951, Eisenhower met privately with Taft, seeking the senator's assurance that he would support America's commitment to European collective security. Taft refused, and the die was cast for Eisenhower's entry into the 1952 presidential contest to stop Taft and guarantee an internationalist commitment. Numerous Republican politicians in the Northeast, led by New York Governor [[Tom Dewey]] and Massachusetts Senator [[Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.]], along with media leaders, urged Ike to run, and set up Ike Clubs that sounded a drumbeat of popular demand. Taft was adding delegates; he had about 450 of the 604 needed for the nomination, but Eisenhower delegates were also being elected in the primary, despite the leader's indecision. Finally, with his reorganization of NATO accomplished, Eisenhower entered the race in Abilene on June 4, intending, as he always did, to win. <Ref> Ambrose 1: ch 25-26</ref> He stood for internationalism in foreign affairs--basically a continuation of the Roosevelt-Truman policies. On domestic affairs he was conservative and pro-business, though he did not attack labor unions the way Taft did. Most of all he stood for new leadership and for a level of competence the nation had been missing for eight years. After ousting some Taft delegates the convention nominated Eisenhower, who chose young Senator [[Richard M. Nixon]] as his aggressive running mate. Eisenhower and Taft came to terms, and the GOP ran a united campaign.

[[Image:Ike-shahn52.jpg|thumb|275px|left|Left-wing cartoonist Ben Shahn attacked Ike as a dangerous man on horseback--the most common line of attack used by Democrats in 1952]]

Eisenhower crusaded against the multiple failures of the Truman administration at home and abroad, summed up as "Communism, Korea and Corruption." His campaign made heavy use of the catchy slogan "I Like Ike"; it became an animated TV commercial produced by [[Roy Disney]] and the Citizens for Eisenhower-Nixon <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.archive.org/details/Eisenhow1952|title=Internet archive, Eisenhower Campaign Spots|accessdate=2007-09-11|date=1952}}</ref>.

Truman's popularity had collapsed because of the failure to end the Korean war. Late in the campaign Eisenhower electrified the nation by promising "I Shall Go to Korea" (and thus promising to end the war quickly). This speech is one of the rare instances when a single address is credited with having a decisive effect upon a presidential election. Though Eisenhower's personal stature seemed to validate the promise of his declaration, the public response additionally derived from four elements that formed a major portion of the conceptual, emotional, and interpretive manner by which voters in 1952 perceived and acted upon their world: 1) the Cold War discourse as it had been practiced from 1946 to 1952, making it the nation's greatest challenge; 2) the foreign policy debate discourse, especially as it related to involvement in Asia; 3) the Korean War discourse as practiced from 1950 to 1952, in which the GOP was free to denounce Truman because Congress had never been asked to approve; and 4) the discourse of Eisenhower from 1942 to 1952, portraying the joyful warrior, particularly the 1952 campaign discourse featuring an appeal to character. Because of this complex context, the speech was a decisive event. Once in office Eisenhower threatened to use nuclear weapons unless the Chinese came to terms on the issue of prisoner exchange, which they promptly did.<ref>Martin J. Medhurst, "Text and Context in the 1952 Presidential Campaign: Eisenhower's 'I Shall Go to Korea' Speech" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' (2000) 30(3): 464-484. Issn: 0360-4918 [http://www.questia.com/read/5001083440 online edition]</ref>
[[Image:1952VOTE.JPG|thumb|380px]]

==Presidency==
===Organizer===
Journalists in the 1950s depicted Eisenhower as a laid-back "chairman of the board" who let his subordinates run the government. The opening of Eisenhower's papers surprised scholars, who discovered that behind the scenes Eisenhower was a hands-on leader. He ran the show in his White House, not Sherman Adams or John Foster Dulles. He was well informed, on top of the issues, and possessed of an impressively analytic mind and a formidable capacity for clear, incisive expression in literate prose that is worlds apart from his opaque press conference locutions. He emphatically was the engine of his presidency who watched details and made all the major decisions. As a consequence Eisenhower's ratings by historians and political scientists rose from 22nd place in the 1962 Schlesinger poll to 12th place in the 1981 David Porter poll to 9th in Steve Neal's 1996 poll.<ref> Fred I. Greenstein, "The Hidden-hand Presidency: Eisenhower as Leader. A 1994 Perspective." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' (1994) 24(2): 233-241; Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. "Rating the Presidents: Washington to Clinton." ''Political Science Quarterly'' 1997 112(2): 179-190. Issn: 0032-3195 Fulltext: [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0032-3195(199722)112%3A2%3C179%3ARTPWTC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4 in Jstor] </ref>

Truman, bitterly unhappy with his own White House staff, joked that when Ike became president he would push a button and nothing will happen. Truman was wrong, for Eisenhower was the best organizer in the Army, and he redesigned the White House staff and the executive departments so he had clear control at all times, and brought on board talented senior staff to oversee the process, such as former New Hampshire governor Sherman Adams, his chief assistant from 1953 to 1958.<ref> Alfred D. Sander, ''Eisenhower's Executive Office'' (1999); Charles Walcott and Karen M. Hult, "White House Organization as a Problem of Governance: the Eisenhower System." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' (1994) 24(2): 327-339. Issn: 0360-4918 </ref>
===New Deal===
Eisenhower did not have the votes in Congress to dismantle the New Deal. In general he did stop their expansion. He expanded [[Social Security]]coverage, allowing Republicans to claim some credit for a very popular program.
===Civil rights===
Civil rights for blacks had appeared on the national agenda, but Eisenhower did not give enthusiastic support to the [[Warren Court]] decision in the Brown case in 1954 which outlawed school segregation. Eisenhower did approve a weak Civil Rights bill in 1957. When Governor Orval Faubus defied a federal court order regarding school integration in Little Rock in 1957, Eisenhower nationalized the state National Guard and sent in elite Army combat troops to enforce the court orders. Eisenhower successfully integrated the military during his first term (a process begun by Truman in 1948), and integrated the public schools in the District of Columbia.<ref>David A. Nichols, ''A Matter of Justice: Eisenhower and the Beginning of the Civil Rights Revolution'' (2007)</ref>

Eisenhower tried to privatize federally provided electric power, which he viewed as inefficient and as a form of 'creeping socialism.' Eisenhower, however, had a difficult time dismantling public energy services due to the New Deal legacies of the [[Tennessee Valley Authority]] (TVA) and the [[Rural Electrification Administration]] (REA), which provided cheap power to millions of people and had bipartisan support. Eisenhower did not completely destroy public energy utilities; rather, he contained them, limiting the geographical expansion and funding of the TVA and allowing private investors access to new sources of hydroelectric power, as well as the development of nuclear power.<ref> Wyatt Wells, "Public Power in the Eisenhower Administration" ''Journal of Policy History'' 2008 20(2): 227-262 in [[EBSCO]] </ref>
===McCarthy===
Republican Senator [[Joe McCarthy]] transformed the national discourse to a focus on internal treason by charging in 1950 that Roosevelt had allowed Soviet spies into the government (such as [[Alger Hiss]]), and that by protecting them Truman was guilty of "20 years of treason." When Eisenhower was elected McCarthy turned his attention to Eisenhower's administration and hinted at "21 years of treason." His main case was a reserve dentist who was recalled to active duty and promoted to major, even though he was a member of the Communist party. "Who promoted Major Peress??" he shouted. Eisenhower would not tolerate government employees who failed loyalty or security standards, but stressed his support for civil liberties and proper procedures. He succeeded in using behind-the-scenes tactics to undermine McCarthy, particularly after January 1954 when the senator took on the US Army. Eisenhower's shrewd plan included making political speeches about what his administration had done to remove Communists from the executive branch. Among other things, the president denied McCarthy access to certain White House documents, supported anti-McCarthy Republicans in the Senate, and publicly denounced McCarthy's methods without naming the senator. In October, 1954, the Senate censured McCarthy for bringing disgrace on that body, and he disappeared from the scene.<ref> Michael J. Birkner, "Eisenhower and the Red Menace." ''Prologue: Quarterly of the National Archives and Records Administration'' (2001) 33(3): 196-207. Issn: 0033-1031 </ref>
===Foreign policy and the military===
[[Image:Eisenhower family.jpeg|right|thumb|350px|Eisenhower, his wife Mamie, his son John and his daughter-in-law Barbara at the second inauguration in 1957]]
Viewing the limited war in Korea as a mistake, Eisenhower believed that American national security and containment of Communist expansion could best be achieved through nuclear deterrence and the utilization of other assets, such as negotiations, psychological warfare and economic aid. Eisenhower worried that excessive defense spending would weaken the economy in the long-run, and thus be counterproductive. His "New Look" strategy economized by cutting back on Army divisions (much to the chagrin of the soldiers), and emphasizing instead nuclear weapons, which gave "more bang for the buck."<ref>Saki Dockrill, "Dealing with Soviet Power and Influence: Eisenhower's Management of U.S. National Security." ''Diplomatic History'' (2000) 24(2): 345-352. Issn: 0145-2096 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]</ref>

[[Image:K-TRUCE53.JPG|thumb|400px|left|Ike ends the Korean war, July 1953]]
During his first three years as President, Eisenhower cut the federal budget, largely by controlling defense expenditures. By nature a fiscal conservative, he had no patience for corporate contractors' insistence that America needed ever more defense systems, even when the point was made by his Secretary of Defense, [[Charles E. Wilson]], a former CEO of [[General Motors]]. Wilson was ridiculed by Democrats for his garbled statement, "I thought that what was good for our country was good for General Motors and vice versa." (He meant to say what was bad for the country was bad for General Motors). Wilson proposed enormous Pentagon budget requests that Eisenhower slashed back. The number of uniformed personnel dropped from 3.6 million in 1953 to 2.5 million in 1960; another 300,000 civilian jobs in the Defense department were ended. The overall military budget dropped from $43.8 billion in 1953 to $41.3 billion in 1960, or from 12.0% of GDP to 8.2%. In effect Eisenhower cut the military by 30%.

Eisenhower rejected the policy of limited war and use of tactical nuclear weapons to the strategic menu of ways to deal with the Communist threat, and instead adopted a new strategy of "massive resistance" whereby a small war with the Soviet Union would immediately turn into a major nuclear war. He knew the U.S. had substantial nuclear superiority. The effect was to deter both sides from any action that might escalate tensions into a small war. Eisenhower thus avoided World War III.

Between 1953 and 1955 Army leaders, headed by Chief of Staff General [[Matthew B. Ridgway]], attempted to overturn Eisenhower's New Look. Ridgway believed that the new policies were militarily unsound and ultimately rendered military professionalism unnecessary by eliminating the political utility of force. Determined to salvage the military profession, Ridgway tried to undermine the [[credibility]] of Eisenhower's policies. Eisenhower, however, had much greater military and political prestige and replaced him in 1955.<ref> A. J. Bacevich, "The Paradox of Professionalism: Eisenhower, Ridgway, and the Challenge to Civilian Control, 1953-1955" ''Journal of Military History'' (1997) 61(2): 303-333. Issn: 0899-3718 Fulltext: [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0899-3718(199704)61%3A2%3C303%3ATPOPER%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S in Jstor] </ref> Eisenhower likewise rejected criticism from his next Army chief of staff [[Maxwell Taylor]]. Taylor wanted more more money to achieve more flexibility, but Eisenhower got his way.<ref> Taylor retired and counterattacked, writing that Eisenhower's policy "offers no alternative other than reciprocal suicide or retreat in the face of the superiority of Soviet forces." [Taylor, ''The Uncertain Trumpet'' (1959) p. 137] President John F Kennedy greatly admired Taylor’s ideas and brought him back as chairman of the Joint Chiefs in 1962.</ref> Eisenhower had a triad of nuclear delivery systems (the B-52 bomber, submarines, and missiles), added an early warning radar system in Canada, and tried to add a civil defense system for cities in case deterrence failed, but the public was completely uninterested in his bomb shelters.

He strengthened the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the expense of the traditional service chiefs.<ref> Gerard Clarfield, ''Security and Solvency: Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Shaping of the American Military Establishment.'' (1999)</ref>

At the time there were no intercontinental missiles, and the American air defense system was considered strong enough to fend off any Soviet air attack. American progress in rocketry was upstaged by the Soviets in 1957, as they launched Sputnik, the first earth satellite, and kept their lead in space for several years. Everyone realized that gave the Soviets a lead in long-range missiles as well.
====Defeating the Bricker amendment====
Much of Eisenhower's energy in 1953-54 was devoted to defeating the "Bricker Amendment," a constitutional amendment proposed in 1951 by Republican Senator John W. Bricker of Ohio. It would restrict the president's role in entering into treaties, threatening both presidential authority and America's new internationalist role in foreign affairs. Eisenhower was annoyed that the core of legislative support came from within the Taft wing of the GOP. The Bricker Amendment grew out of opposition to the perceived threat of [[United Nations]] intervention into domestic social, economic, and political affairs - the UN's "global socialism." Through strong personal lobbying and rescinding support for human rights treaties, Eisenhower and his congressional allies narrowly defeated the Bricker Amendment, and this effectively eliminated the strength of isolationism in the postwar period.<ref>Cathal J. Nolan, "The Last Hurrah of Conservative Isolationism: Eisenhower, Congress, and the Bricker Amendment" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 1992 22(2): 337-349. </ref>

====Middle East====
Concerned over Communist subversion, Eisenhower created the '''Eisenhower Doctrine''' to support pro-Western Arab governments. At first the United States did not distinguish between Communism and radical Arab nationalism, perceiving Egyptian president [[Gamal Abdel Nasser]] as linked to Soviet encroachment. The political situation grew complex as radicals challenged the Lebanese and Jordanian governments, and the ruler of Iraq was brutally overthrown. In 1958 Eisenhower sent Marines to Lebanon to support the government but balked at British plans for greater military intervention.<ref> Douglas Little, "His Finest Hour? Eisenhower, Lebanon, and the 1958 Middle East Crisis." ''Diplomatic History'' (1996) 20(1): 27-54. Issn: 0145-2096 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]</ref> Eisenhower and Secretary of State [[John Foster Dulles]] eventually focused their strategy by distinguishing between Communism and Arab nationalism. The United States was able to limit its goals, accommodate itself to Nasser, and display a greater flexibility than the Eisenhower Doctrine originally offered. At the same time relations with Israel were greatly strengthened, which annoyed America's Arab allies.<ref> Jeffrey M. Nadaner, "Strife among Friends and Foes: the 1958 Anglo-American Military Interventions in the Middle East." ''UCLA Historical Journal'' (1997) 17: 82-123. Issn: 0276-864x </ref>

====Guatemala====
Scholars have spent a half century debating why the Eisenhower administration helped the Guatemalan army overthrow the Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán left-wing anti-American government in Guatemala in 1954. They have disagreed on the influence of the United Fruit Company, the potential role of Soviet influence, and the degree to which American officials simply misinterpreted social reform for Soviet backing. Newly declassified [[Central Intelligence Agency]] documents show the United Fruit Company played no major role, that Soviet influence was minimal, and that the Eisenhower administration did not need to be forced into the action by any lobby groups.<ref>Stephen M. Streeter, "Interpreting the 1954 U.S. Intervention in Guatemala: Realist, Revisionist, and Postrevisionist Perspectives." ''History Teacher'' (2000) 34(1): 61-74. Issn: 0018-2745 Fulltext: [[History Cooperative]] and [[http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0018-2745(200011)34%3A1%3C61%3AIT1UII%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T Jstor]] </ref>

Arbenz was elected without a secret ballot. He considered himself a communist and joined the Communist Party in 1957. His land reform, designed by the Communist Party, was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, which he then purged. His regime openly praised Stalin, relied on the communists for key decisions, and received arms from the Soviet
bloc.<ref>Piero Gleijeses, Shattered Hope: The Guatemalan Revolution and the United States, 1944-1954
(Princeton University Press, 1991), pp84, 147, 145, 155, 181-2, a virtual hagiography of Arbenz.</ref> He killed hundreds of his opponents.<ref>“Antecedentes Inmediatos (1944-1961): El derrocamiento de Arbenz y la intervención militar de
1954,” in Comisión para el Esclaracimiento Histórico (CEH), Guatemala: Memoria Del Silencio
(Guatemala, 1999), Capítulo primero (findings of Guatemala's independent truth commission after the restoration of civilian rule and democracy)</ref> The CIA intervened because it feared that a communist dictatorship would become a Soviet beachhead in the Western Hemisphere.<ref>Nicholas Cullather, Secret History: The CIA’s Classified Account of its Operation in Guatemala,
1952-1954 (Stanford University Press, 1999) pp24-7, based on the CIA archives</ref>

The Truman administration began developing contingency plans to remove Arbenz in 1952, in the event that he became a threat to American interests in the region. In the face of widespread popular discontent in Guatemala and mass protests organized by the Catholic Church, the CIA used black propaganda to spread panic among the population. In the midst of a low-level internal civil war, the Eisenhower administration mobilized disaffected Guatemalan exiles to invade the country from neighboring [[Honduras]]. Arbenz, a fighter until the end, donned his colonel's uniform and prepared himself for war with the United States. Ultimately, however, there was very little fighting at all; the military failed to support Arbenz due to its own concerns over his perceived radicalism. The US-armed rebellion quickly took over the country, to the surprise of the CIA, which had expected much fiercer resistance. With the army promptly joining the revolt, Arbenz fled the country in a panic. He was allowed exile by the new regime.

Vice-President [[Richard Nixon]] praised the new elections held by the military regime, declaring that Guatemala represented "the first time in history that a Communist government has ever been overthrown and replaced by a free one." However, Guatemala would be plagued with instability for decades. A series of military coups rocked the country, as Soviet and Cuban support for Communist violence caused bloody civil strife. After a 1982 coup, Guatemala was placed under a US arms embargo imposed on human rights grounds. A vicious genocide reminiscent of the mass killing of the Hmong in [[Laos]] was then carried out against the Mayan Indians, in which scores of thousands were massacred.

[[Che Guevara]], an Argentine citizen living in Guatemala, was outraged by the coup. He vowed to fight for Marxist revolution elsewhere in Latin America.

Arbenz, a disillusioned radical, moved initially to [[Mexico]] and then to [[Cuba]], where he celebrated the Castro "revolution" and cheered on Communist guerillas throughout the continent.

===Second term===
====Reelection 1956====
=====Heart attack=====
Eisenhower suffered a heart attack in 1955. In response he learned to control his hot temper, maintain his proper weight; stop smoking cigarettes; measure his blood pressure and blood cholesterol levels; manage anxiety, depression, and fear; and handle worry and stress. He learned to recognize skipped heart beats, too rapid pulses, and the need for the occasional use of nitroglycerin.<ref> Clarence G. Lasby, ''Eisenhower's Heart Attack: How Ike Beat Heart Disease and Held on to the Presidency.'' (1997)</ref>

Ike’s chief cardiologist, Dr. Paul Dudley White, declared in February 1956 that there was no medical reason why Eisenhower could not serve another term. These reports reassured the public, but new concern arose in June when Eisenhower had to undergo emergency abdominal surgery because of an ileitis attack. Although the President recovered fully and quickly, many voters wondered whether Eisenhower could withstand the rigors of a second term. Eisenhower had told close friends that he hoped to retire after a single term, because of his age (66), his desire for the emergence of new leadership in the GOP, and his conviction that he had performed his duty to his country. Yet after his heart attack Eisenhower could not think of a single Republican in whom he had confidence who could win the presidency. He doubted whether Nixon was ready enough for the presidency. Such ruminations persuaded Eisenhower by the beginning of 1956 that there really was no alternative to his running again to guarantee the nation's well-being.

=====Ike's campaign=====
Ike worried that Nixon might be a political liability, but across the land Republican regulars loved Nixon's strident, partisan rhetoric. Nixon refused to take a cabinet post and Eisenhower could not dump him. At the San Francisco convention the delegates chose Nixon with only one dissenting vote.

At the beginning of the campaign, two-thirds of the voters approved of Eisenhower's performance in office. Eisenhower's high standing was based on peace and prosperity--securing an armistice in the Korean War, meeting with Soviet leaders at Geneva in 1955 in the first East-West summit conference since 1945, avoiding war in Vietnam, and presiding over a robust economy and a complacent society. Eisenhower was eager to run on this record; his campaign slogan was "Peace, Prosperity, and Progress."

=====Stevenson again=====
Stevenson, a weak campaigner lacking Ike’s charisma, was the Democratic front runner because no senior Democrat wanted to be run over by the Eisenhower Express. His only major opponent was Senator [[Estes Kefauver]] of Tennessee, whose progressive views on civil rights and crusading investigations of organized crime had made him popular with liberals, reformers, and those weary of politics as usual. Kefauver won in New Hampshire on 13 March and a week later pulled off a stunning upset in Minnesota. The two men debated on 21 May, the first nationally televised presidential debate. Stevenson won narrowly in the Florida primary and then won a landslide victory in California that proved decisive. The delegates voted for Kefauver over [[John F. Kennedy]] as the vice presidential nominee.

Stevenson found it impossible to dent the President's enormous popularity, even when warning about Ike’s dubious health (in fact Eisenhower, who was ten years older, outlived Stevenson). He criticized Eisenhower for using nuclear fears to keep the peace, settling for prosperity that excluded many farmers and small businessmen, and exulting in "progress" that forced children to endure a shortage of schools and teachers. Stevenson, a conservative on racial issues, ignored civil rights, as did Eisenhower. Stevenson ridiculed Eisenhower for narrow, weak, and even indolent leadership, quipping that the President devoted more energy to his golf game than to driving important legislation through Congress. Stevenson offered spending proposals to raise the quality of life by providing federal aid for educational programs, medical research, economic development of depressed areas, and health care for the elderly. Few voters paid attention.

Stevenson blundered by calling for suspension of nuclear testing and termination of the draft: he thereby highlighted defense issues that were Eisenhower's long suit. Stevenson argued that neither reform would weaken national defense. The American nuclear arsenal could already obliterate the Soviet Union many times over and so there was no need to poison the atmosphere with nuclear fallout; a switch from conscription to an all-volunteer force would result in longer terms of service and improved readiness in armed forces dependent on ever more sophisticated military technology. Stevenson advocated both proposals because he thought they were right rather than politically popular, but he never imagined how badly they would backfire. Eisenhower firmly replied that the United States could not maintain adequate military forces without a draft. Three weeks before the election the Soviet Premier endorsed Stevenson’s test ban; it was a kiss of death. Nixon condemned Stevenson as an appeaser, while Eisenhower, a five-star general, scorned his challenger for injecting a delicate international issue into the campaign.

World crises erupted in the Suez and Hungary in the final days of the campaign. When Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal, Britain, France, and Israel launched a coordinated, surprise military attack to seize the canal, without consulting Washington. Eisenhower insisted on a cease-fire that humiliated the British and French. Meanwhile the Soviets sent 200,000 troops to break the Hungarian freedom movement. Eisenhower condemned the Soviet invasion, but there was nothing he could do to stop it. Stevenson, with scant experience in world affairs had no alternative policy, as the nation rallied behind the world leader in the White House.<ref> John Barlow Martin, ''Adlai Stevenson and the World'' (1977)</ref>

=====Landslide again=====
On election day, Eisenhower won a landslide victory, with a plurality of almost ten million votes with 57.6% of the popular vote, a gain of 2.5%, and carried 41 states with 457 to 73 electoral votes. The Democrats held most of the Solid South, but little else as cities, suburbs, and farms and nearly every major social and economic group rallied to Ike. However it was a personal triumph with short coattails, for Eisenhower was the first winner since 1848 to see his party lose both houses of Congress. The election of 1956 was an individual victory for Eisenhower, a resounding vote of confidence in one of the most popular Presidents in American history. In 1958, however, the country was suffering a sharp recession, intensified by major strikes. The Democrats won a sweeping landslide to control large majorities in Congress.

=====See also=====
*[[Dwight Eisenhower's 1956 Republican National Convention Speech]]

====Sputnik 1957====

The surprise launch of Sputnik, the the first satellite around the earth by the Soviets in 1957 caused a major crisis and a rethinking of national goals in missile technology and science education generally. Eisenhower set up a civilian agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), to carry out a highly publicized program of space exploration that would counteract the Soviet success. Five interest groups pressed Eisenhower for more aggressive action: a loose federation of physicists and astronomers interested in advancing basic research; the Pentagon, which wanted to use NASA's scientific discoveries to understand Soviet threats; engineering corporations who foresaw a large aerospace industry; space flight enthusiasts eager to pursue exploration beyond atmosphere; and politicians who wanted to restore national prestige.<ref>Roger D. Launius, "Eisenhower, Sputnik, and the Creation of NASA." ''Prologue'' (1996) 28(2): 126-143. Issn: 0033-1031 </ref>

The Air Force reacted to Sputnik by developing a series of new bomber systems to keep pace with new missile systems, notably air-to-surface missiles, the B-52, and the B-70. Eisenhower vacillated on the B-70, and John F. Kennedy later canceled the program because it was technically questionable and too expensive.<ref>Peter J. Roman, "Strategic Bombers over the Missile Horizon, 1957-1963." ''Journal of Strategic Studies'' (1995) 18(1): 198-236. Issn: 0140-2390 </ref>
====Interstate Highways====
Eisenhower proposed a federal highway system in 1955, but Congress rejected it because of financing issues. The multiple interests groups came together in 1956 to pass the Federal Interstate Defense Highway Act, also known as the National Highway Act.<ref> The "defense" part was essential to get funding. It provided for fast military movement and allowed the evacuation of cities after an attack or natural disaster. Mark H. Rose, ''Interstate: Express Highway Politics 1941-1956'' (1979)
</ref> The federal government paid 90% of the cost, which was passed along to users as the new Highway Trust Fund collected new taxes on fuels, tires, and vehicles to achieve pay-as-you-go funding. The 42,000-mile interstate highway system, largely completed in 25 years, integrated the nation into a single transportation system. Truckers saved enormous amounts on fuel and travel time, which reduced shipping costs and led to large-scale productivity gains, while driving another nail in the railroad coffin. Passenger traffic soared, opening up new horizons for vacations and job searches, and new ways for extended families to come together. Much of the traffic was short-distance, as the interstates opened up the outer suburbs around all major cities. The U.S. already had the world's best road system; the interstates made another quantum leap in the most modern transportation system in the world. Eisenhower is given the credit for the Interstate Highway System<ref>[http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/interstate.html see source]</ref>.

====Farewell address====
Eisenhower's farewell address on 17 January 1961 warned the nation against depending on an economy that was based on a military-industrial complex. Written by political scientist Malcolm Moos with help from brother Milton Eisenhower, the speech echoed the president's conviction that wars must be made obsolete. While he believed that the Soviet threat was being exaggerated, President Eisenhower argued for sufficiency, not superiority. The "military industrial complex" became a slogan used by the New Left in the 1960s to attack American capitalism, and became a standard ingredient of Soviet propaganda. Most Americans, however, ignored it.<ref>Douglas Brinkley, "Eisenhower the Dove." ''American Heritage'' (2001) 52(6): 58-63, 65. Issn: 0002-8738 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]] </ref>

==Legacy==
Eisenhower's legacy was victory in wartime, prosperity and peace afterwards. He was totally committed to the [[Republicanism, U.S.|core republican values]] of civic duty and common sacrifice. Throughout the war he called for voluntary self-restraint and obedience to duty, which he called the first tenet of his religion. His apocalyptic view of World War II was based on a dualism that pitted the selfish against the selfless. He saw the war largely as a spiritual struggle within the Allied camp between these two forces. Civilians as well as soldiers were exhorted to sacrifice personal interests for the sake of total mobilization, which meant exercising the virtue of selflessness. He interpreted fascism as a manifestation of selfishness and social disorder. As a soldier, his legacy includes common sense, caution, exhaustive planning, collaboration with allies, superb diplomatic timing, avoidance of casualties, and respect for the common soldier. As president his legacy was moderation, a sense of inclusiveness, a rejection of fear and paranoia, dedication to selecting the best experts, a disdain for partisanship, a commitment to entrepreneurial freedom, an abhorrence for war, a love of democracy. and a long-term sense of national greatness. <ref>: Ira Chernus, "Eisenhower's Ideology in World War II," ''Armed Forces & Society'' (1997) 23(4): 595-613; Stephen E. Ambrose, "Eisenhower's Legacy," ''Prologue'' (1994) 26 (Special Issue): 160-167. ISSN: 0033-1031 </ref>

The "Eisenhower Era", 1953-1963, marked a decade of peace and prosperity, with an end to the bitter conflicts regarding class and ideology that marked the 1940s, and before the even more violent and bitter years of the 1960s. People look back with nostalgia, and gratitude for the man who kept the peace and quiet.
===Eisenhower Library===
Opened in 1966, the Dwight D. Eisenhower presidential library at Abilene, Kansas, houses Eisenhower's presidential papers, collections of papers of 350 of his associates, and records of White House agencies that functioned during his presidency. The library also holds photographs, motion picture films, and Eisenhower memorabilia, and sponsors meetings of scholars to discuss Eisenhower and his era.

==Quotes==
* "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid" <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=2k96AB7VU7YC&pg=PA278&dq=History+does+not+long+entrust+the+care+of+freedom+to+the+weak+or+timid&ei=ORk5SvbzE4f8yATfneHGCw Civilization's quotations: life's ideal‎ - Page 278] by Richard Alan Krieger</ref>

==Further reading==
* Ambrose, Stephen E. vol 1: ''Eisenhower: Soldier, General of the Army, President-Elect''; vol 2: ''Eisenhower: The President''; one volume edition is ''Eisenhower: Soldier and President'' (2003), standard scholarly biography [http://www.amazon.com/Eisenhower-Stephen-E-Ambrose/dp/0671747584/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193643591&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Boyle, Peter G. ''Eisenhower.'' (Profiles in Power Series.) (2005). 200 pp.
* Damms, Richard V. ''The Eisenhower Presidency, 1953-1961'' (2002) 161 pp. shor7t survey by British scholar
* D’Este, Carlo. ''Eisenhower, A Soldier’s Life'' (2002), 848 pages; a major military biography; [http://www.amazon.com/Eisenhower-Soldiers-Life-Carlo-DEste/dp/0805056874/ref=pd_bbs_9/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193643591&sr=8-9 excerpt and text search]
* Greenstein, Fred I. ''The Hidden-Hand Presidency: Eisenhower as Leader'' (1991), highly influential study by political scientist
* Greenstein, Fred I. "Ronald Reagan. Another Hidden-Hand Ike?" ''PS: Political Science and Politics,'' Vol. 23, No. 1. (Mar., 1990), pp. 7-13. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1049-0965%28199003%2923%3A1%3C7%3ARRAHI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0 in JSTOR]
* Pach, Chester J. and Elmo Richardson. ''Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower'' (1991), the standard historical survey
* Parmet, Herbert S. ''Eisenhower and the American Crusades'' (1972) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14967951 online edition], scholarly biography
* Perret, Geoffrey. ''Eisenhower'' (2000), popular military biography; [http://www.amazon.com/Eisenhower-Geoffrey-Perret/dp/1580624316/ref=pd_bbs_12/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193643591&sr=8-12 excerpt and text search]
* Picket, William B. ''Dwight David Eisenhower and American Power'' (1995) 231pp
* Sixsmith, E. K.G. ''Eisenhower, His Life and Campaigns'' (1973) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=99905729 online edition]
* Stoler, Mark A. "Dwight D. Eisenhower: Architect of Victory" in Theodore A. Wilson, ed. ''D-Day 1944'' (1994), pp 298-317
* Weigley, Russell F. ''Eisenhower's Lieutenants: The Campaign of France and Germany 1944-1945'' 2 vol (1981), comprehensive history of Ike's campaigns
* Wukovits, John. ''Eisenhower: A Biography.'' (Great Generals Series.) (2006). 204 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Eisenhower-Biography-Generals-John-Wukovits/dp/1403971374/ref=pd_bbs_5/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193643591&sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]

==Biographies==
* Ambrose, Stephen E. vol 1: ''Eisenhower: Soldier, General of the Army, President-Elect''; vol 2: ''Eisenhower: The President''; one volume edition is ''Eisenhower: Soldier and President'' (2003), standard scholarly biography [http://www.amazon.com/Eisenhower-Stephen-E-Ambrose/dp/0671747584/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193643591&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Ambrose, Stephen E. ''The Supreme Commander: The War Years of General Dwight D. Eisenhower'' (1999), standard scholarly biography [http://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Commander-General-Dwight-Eisenhower/dp/1578062063/ref=sr_1_31/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193643932&sr=8-31 excerpt and text search]
* Bischof, Gunter, and Stephen E. Ambrose, eds. ''Eisenhower: A Centenary Assessment'' (1995), 281pp, most papers focus on presidency
* Boyle, Peter G. ''Eisenhower.'' (2005). 200 pp. on presidency; [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Eisenhower-Profiles-Power-Peter-Boyle/dp/0582287200/ref=sr_1_3/202-0472110-4831859?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193948987&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* D’Este, Carlo. ''Eisenhower, A Soldier’s Life'' (2002), 848 pages; a major military biography; [http://www.amazon.com/Eisenhower-Soldiers-Life-Carlo-DEste/dp/0805056874/ref=pd_bbs_9/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193643591&sr=8-9 excerpt and text search]
* Eisenhower, David. ''Eisenhower At War 1943/45'' (1986), 825pp; solid biography by his grandson
* Korda, Michael. ''Ike: An American Hero'' (2007) popular military biography; [http://www.amazon.com/Ike-American-Hero-Michael-Korda/dp/0060756659/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193643591&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Lasby, Clarence G. ''Eisenhower's Heart Attack: How Ike Beat Heart Disease and Held on to the Presidency.'' (1997) 384 pp. unusually brilliant medical history covering his entire life
* Perret, Geoffrey. ''Eisenhower'' (2000), popular military biography; [http://www.amazon.com/Eisenhower-Geoffrey-Perret/dp/1580624316/ref=pd_bbs_12/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193643591&sr=8-12 excerpt and text search]
*Picket, William B. ''Dwight David Eisenhower and American Power'' (1995) 231pp, short overview by scholar
* Sixsmith, E. K.G. ''Eisenhower, His Life and Campaigns'' (1973) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=99905729 online edition]
* Wicker, Tom. ''Dwight D. Eisenhower'' (2002), short political biography by journalist [http://www.amazon.com/Dwight-D-Eisenhower-Tom-Wicker/dp/B000S9HXHG/ref=pd_bbs_10/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193643591&sr=8-10 excerpt and text search]
* Wukovits, John. ''Eisenhower: A Biography.'' (Great Generals Series.) (2006). 204 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Eisenhower-Biography-Generals-John-Wukovits/dp/1403971374/ref=pd_bbs_5/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193643591&sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]

===To 1952===
* Bielakowski, Alexander M. "Eisenhower: the First NATO SACEUR' ''War & Society'' (2004) 22(2): 95-108. Issn: 0729-2473
* Chernus, Ira. "Eisenhower's Ideology in World War II," ''Armed Forces & Society'' 1997 23(4): 595-613. Issn: 0095-327x Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]
* Chernus, Ira. ''General Eisenhower: Ideology and Discourse.'' (2002). 366 pp.
* Gelb, Norman. ''Ike and Monty: Generals at War.'' (1994). 480 pp.
* Holland, Matthew F. ''Eisenhower between the Wars: The Making of a General and a Statesman.'' (2001). 248 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Eisenhower-Between-Wars-General-Statesman/dp/0275963403/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193771696&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Murray, G. E. Patrick. ''Eisenhower versus Montgomery: The Continuing Debate'' (1996), historiography [http://www.questia.com/read/71152600 online edition]
* Pickett, William B. ''Eisenhower Decides to Run: Presidential Politics and Cold War Strategy.'' (2000). 215 pp.
* Pogue; Forrest C. ''The Supreme Command'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=91954887 online edition]
* Rostow, W. W. ''Pre-Invasion Bombing Strategy: General Eisenhower's Decision of March 25, 1944.'' (1981). 166 pp.
* Stoler, Mark A. "Dwight D. Eisenhower: Architect of Victory" in Theodore A. Wilson, ed. ''D-Day 1944'' (1994), pp 298-317
* Weigley, Russell F. ''Eisenhower's Lieutenants: The Campaign of France and Germany 1944-1945'' 2 vol (1981), comprehensive history of Ike's campaigns

===Presidency===
===General and domestic policy===
* Albertson, Dean. ''Eisenhower as President'' (1963) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=7944890 online edition]
* Alexander, Charles C. ''Holding the Line: The Eisenhower Era, 1952-1961'' (1975) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14427822 online edition]
* Allen, Craig. ''Eisenhower and the Mass Media: Peace, Prosperity and Prime-Time TV.'' (1993). 259 pp.
* Damms, Richard V. ''The Eisenhower Presidency, 1953-1961'' (2002) 161 pp. short survey by British scholar
* Greenstein, Fred I. ''The Hidden-Hand Presidency: Eisenhower as Leader'' (1991), highly influential study by political scientist
* Greenstein, Fred I. "Ronald Reagan. Another Hidden-Hand Ike?" ''PS: Political Science and Politics,'' Vol. 23, No. 1. (Mar., 1990), pp. 7-13. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1049-0965%28199003%2923%3A1%3C7%3ARRAHI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0 in JSTOR]
* Griffith, Robert. "Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Corporate Commonwealth" ''The American Historical Review'', Vol. 87, No. 1 (Feb., 1982), pp. 87-122 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762(198202)87%3A1%3C87%3ADDEATC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G in JSTOR]
* Harris, Douglas B. "Dwight Eisenhower and the New Deal: The Politics of Preemption" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly,'' Vol. 27, 1997 [http://www.questia.com/read/5000477727 online edition]
* Harris, Seymour E. ''The Economics of the Political Parties, with Special Attention to Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy'' (1962) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=11927680 online edition]
* Krieg, Joann P., ed. ''Dwight D. Eisenhower, Soldier, President, Statesman'' (1987), 24 essays by scholars; presidential years [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15349835 online edition]
* Lee, R. Alton. ''Eisenhower and Landrum-Griffin: A Study in Labor-Management Politics'' (1990).
* Lewis, Tom. ''Divided Highways: Building the Interstate Highways, Transforming American Life'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0140267719/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* May, Ann Mari. "President Eisenhower, Economic Policy, and the 1960 Presidential Election." ''Journal of Economic History'' (1990) 50(2): 417-427. Issn: 0022-0507 Fulltext: [http://www.jstor.org.proxy.cc.uic.edu/view/00220507/di975691/97p02343/0 in Jstor]]
* Olson, James S. ''Historical Dictionary of the 1950s'' (2000) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=11624132 online edition]
* Pach, Chester J. and Elmo Richardson. ''Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower'' (1991), standard historical survey
* Parmet, Herbert S. ''Eisenhower and the American Crusades'' (1972) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14967951 online edition], scholarly biography
* Reichard, Gary W. ''The Reaffirmation of Republicanism: Eisenhower and the Eighty-Third Congress'' (1975) 303 pages
* Reichard, Gary W. ''Politics As Usual: The Age of Truman and Eisenhower'' (2nd ed. 2004), 213pp; short survey
* Reinhard, David W. ''The Republican Right since 1945'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/read/91954887 online edition]
* Rose, Mark H. ''Interstate: Express Highway Politics 1941-1956'' (1979), 169 pp.
* Saulnier, Raymond J. ''Constructive Years: The U.S. Economy Under Eisenhower'' (1991).
* Stein, Herbert. ''Presidential Economics, The Making of Economic Policy From Roosevelt to Clinton'' (3rd ed. 1994) [http://www.amazon.com/Presidential-Economics-3rd-Economic-Roosevelt/dp/0844738514/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194060084&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Wagner, Steven. ''Eisenhower Republicanism: Pursuing the Middle Way.'' (2006). 179 pp. isbn 978-0-87580-362-3.)
* Warshaw, Shirley Anne, ed. ''Reexamining the Eisenhower Presidency.'' (1993). 234 pp.

===Foreign and military polices===
* Barrett, Roby C. ''The Greater Middle East and the Cold War: US Foreign Policy Under Eisenhower and Kennedy'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Greater-Middle-East-Cold-International/dp/1845113934/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193771849&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Beschloss, Michael R. ''Mayday: Eisenhower, Khrushchev, and the U-2 Affair'' (1987)
* Borhi, Laszlo. "Rollback, Liberation, Containment, or Inaction?: U.S. Policy and Eastern Europe in the 1950s" ''
Journal of Cold War Studies'' 1#3 (1999), pp. 67-110 in [[Project Muse]]
* Bose, Meena. ''Shaping and Signaling Presidential Policy: The National Security Decision Making of Eisenhower and Kennedy.'' (1998). 197 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Shaping-Signaling-Presidential-Policy-Eisenhower/dp/0890968330/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193643466&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]
* Bowie, Robert R. and Immerman, Richard H. ''Waging Peace: How Eisenhower Shaped an Enduring Cold War Strategy'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/read/23291881 online edition]
* Brands, H. W. "The Age of Vulnerability: Eisenhower and the National Insecurity State." ''American Historical Review'' 1989 94(4): 963-989. Issn: 0002-8762 Fulltext: [http://www.jstor.org.proxy.cc.uic.edu/view/00028762/di957298/95p00067/0 in Jstor]]
* Carter, Donald Alan, "Eisenhower Versus the Generals," ''The Journal of Military History'' 71 #4 (October 2007) pp 1169-1200.
* Chernus, Ira. ''Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace'' (2002). 162 pp
* Clarfield, Gerard. ''Security with Solvency: Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Shaping of the American Military Establishment'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/54797113 online edition]
* Coleman, David G. "Eisenhower and the Berlin Problem, 1953-1954," ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' 2#1 (2000), pp. 3-34 in [[Project Muse]]
* Divine, Robert A. ''Eisenhower and the Cold War'' (1981) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=79050575 online edition]; [http://www.amazon.com/Eisenhower-Cold-War-Robert-Divine/dp/0195028244/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193942894&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Divine, Robert A. ''The Sputnik Challenge: Eisenhower's Response to the Soviet Satellite'' (1993).
* Dockrill, Saki. ''Eisenhower's New-Look National Security Policy, 1953-61.'' (1996). 400 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Eisenhowers-New-Look-National-Security-1953-61/dp/0312158807/ref=sr_1_9/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193643510&sr=8-9 excerpt and text search]
* Geelhoed, E. Bruce and Edmonds, Anthony O. ''Eisenhower, Macmillan, and Allied Unity, 1957-1961.'' (2003). 196 pp.
* Hewlett, Richard B. ''Atoms for Peace and War, 1953-1961: Eisenhower and the Atomic Energy Commission'' (1989).
* Jackson, Michael Gordon. "Beyond Brinkmanship: Eisenhower, Nuclear War Fighting, and Korea, 1953-1968," ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'', Vol. 35, 2005 [http://www.questia.com/read/5011113930 online edition]
* Kengor, Paul. "Comparing Presidents Reagan and Eisenhower" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 28, 1998'' [http://www.questia.com/read/5001348655 online edition]
* Kingseed, Cole C. ''Eisenhower and the Suez Crisis of 1956.'' (1995). 166 pp.
* Marsh, Steve. "Continuity and Change: Reinterpreting the Policies of the Truman and Eisenhower Administrations toward Iran, 1950-1954," ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' 7#3 (2005), pp. 79-123 in [[Project Muse]]
* Medhurst, Martin J. "Text and Context in the 1952 Presidential Campaign: Eisenhower's 'I Shall Go to Korea' Speech," '' Presidential Studies Quarterly,'' Vol. 30, 2000 [http://www.questia.com/read/5001083440 online edition]
* Melanson, Richard A., and David Mayers, eds. ''Reevaluating Eisenhower: American Foreign Policy in the 1950s'' (1987)
* Osgood, Kenneth. ''Total Cold War: Eisenhower's Secret Propaganda Battle at Home and Abroad'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Total-Cold-War-Eisenhowers-Propaganda/dp/0700614451/ref=sr_1_5/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193942894&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
* Rabe, Stephen G. ''Eisenhower and Latin America: The Foreign Policy of Anti-Communism'' (1988).
* Rosenberg, Victor. ''Soviet-American Relations, 1953-1960: Diplomacy and Cultural Exchange during the Eisenhower Presidency.'' (2005). 324 pp.
* Roman, Peter J. ''Eisenhower and the Missile Gap.'' (1995). 264 pp.
* Showalter, Dennis E., ed. ''Forging the Shield: Eisenhower and National Security for the 21st Century.'' (2005). 235 pp. essays by scholars
* Tananbaum, Duane. ''The Bricker Amendment Controversy: A Test of Eisenhower's Political Leadership'' (1988);
* Tudda, Chris. ''The Truth Is Our Weapon: The Rhetorical Diplomacy of Dwight D. Eisenhower and John Foster Dulles.'' (2006). 224 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Our-Weapon-Rhetorical-Eisenhower/dp/0807131407/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193949259&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
** Johns, Andrew L. "Fighting Words," ''Reviews in American History'' 35#2 (2007) pp. 273-283 review of Tuda

===Primary Sources===
* [http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/ERP/ Council of Economic Advisors, ''Economic Report of the President'' (annual 1947- )], complete series online; important analysis of current trends and policies, plus statistical tables
* Gallup, George Horace, ed. ''The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion, 1935-1971'' 3 vol (1972) summarizes results of each poll as reported to newspapers.
* Eisenhower, Dwight D. ''Crusade In Europe'' (1948), war memoir [http://www.amazon.com/Crusade-Europe-Dwight-David-Eisenhower/dp/080185668X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193643591&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]
* Eisenhower, Dwight D. ''White House Years- Mandate for Change, 1953-1956'' (1963) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=16309287 online edition]
* Eisenhower, Dwight D. ''White House Years- Waging Peace, 1956-1961''
* [http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/index.htm ''Eisenhower Papers''] 21 volume scholarly edition; complete for 1940-61; volumes XIV-XXI covering 1953-61 are online.
**Eisenhower, Dwight D. ''Eisenhower: The Prewar Diaries and Selected Papers, 1905-1941.'' ed. by Daniel D. Holt and James W. Leyerzapf, (1998). 576 pp.
* [http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/speeches/index.htm selected speeches, full text]
*[http://millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/digitalarchive/conferenceDetail/26 Farewell speech, 1960]
* ''The Churchill-Eisenhower Correspondence, 1953-1955'' edited by Peter G. Boyle, (1990) [http://www.questia.com/read/35246690 online edition]
* [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/ ''The Public Papers of the Presidents'' contain most of Eisenhower's public messages, statements, speeches, and news conference remarks. Documents such as Proclamations, and Executive Orders]
===Memoirs ===
* Eisenhower, John S. D. ''Strictly Personal'' (1974), by his son
* Eisenhower, Milton S. ''The Wine Is Bitter'' (1963) and ''The President Is Calling'' (1974), his brother
===WW2 aides===
* Bradley, Omar N. ''A Soldier's Story'' (1951) and ''A General's Life: An Autobiography'' (1983)
* Butcher, Harry C. ''My Three Years With Eisenhower'' (1946) by wartime aide
* Collins, J. Lawton ''Lightning Joe: An Autobiography'' (1979)
* Smith, Walter Bedell. ''Eisenhower's Six Great Decisions'' (1956), by wartime chief of staff

====White House aides====
* Adams, Sherman. ''Firsthand Report'' (1961), by White House chief of staff
* Benson, Ezra Taft. ''Cross Fire: The Eight Years With Eisenhower'' (1962) by the Secretary of Agriculture [http://www.questia.com/read/9241389 online edition]
* Hughes, Emmet John. ''The Ordeal of Power'' (196)3, by the White House staff liberal
* Kistiakowsky, George B. ''A Scientist at the White House'' (1976)
* Larson, Arthur. ''The President Nobody Knew (1968)''
* Nixon, Richard M. ''Six Crises'' (1962); ''RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon'' (1978), [http://www.amazon.com/RN-Memoirs-Richard-Nixon/dp/0671707418/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194143335&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Strauss, Lewis L. ''Men and Decisions'' (1962)

== Also See ==

*[[Gallery of American Heroes]]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

{{USPresidents}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Eisenhower, Dwight D}}

[[Category:World War II Commanders]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:American war heroes]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:United States Army]]
[[Category:1950s]]
[[Category:New Deal]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Cold War]]
[[Category:United States Veterans]]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2011-03-14T00:58:39Z

ArthurFredrickson:

There are many brilliant -- and popular -- conservative songs.

Here is our growing list:
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L--cqAI3IUI Wouldn't It Be Nice]'', by the [[Beach Boys]]. Pro-marriage.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5RkzbHb-w You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)]''. Abstinence for rock fans. The versions by [[The Supremes]] and [[Phil Collins]] were popular.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl6yilkU1LI Fast Car]'', by [[Tracy Chapman]]. Self-help, free market, division of labor, and a criticism of alcohol.
#''Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road'', by Elton John. The same message as the [[Prodigal Son]]: look objectively at our own lives, and realize that "I should have listened to my old man."
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6yLQRF-cEU Have You Forgotten?]'', by [[Darryl Worley]]. Patriotic response to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]].<ref>http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=15568</ref>
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aMMRes2u4 Still the One]'', by Orleans (1976). A tribute to fidelity in relationships.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHsDa9_HSlA Sweet Home Alabama]'' by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereotyped attacks by [[liberal]] rocker Neil Young.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew Stand By Your Man]'', by [[Tammy Wynette]]. Don't expect [[feminists]] to like that one! Or [[Hillary Clinton]]!
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCqZ-9-lDEo Lee Greenwood's rendition] of [[Battle Hymn of the Republic]]. "As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dFl9OHE-8g The Man Comes Around]'', by [[Johnny Cash]].
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-1_d6bbM1I My Love]'', by [[Petula Clark]]. Christian love in secular form.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4 I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)]'', originally by the Bobby Fuller Four. Its title says it all. The version by [[The Clash]] has a good tempo.
#"You Light Up My Life" by [[Debbie Boone]]. One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].
#"Pomp and Circumstance" ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOcvcBxrfN4 ''Land of Hope & Glory'']) By Freedom gain, by Truth maintain...
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ0oCmDXrVk&mode=related&search= Jerusalem]''. Don't let the sword sleep in the hand.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahd2piIr4Q Brothers In Arms]'', by [[Dire Straits]]. We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeWZhuzFMM8 The Ascent of Stan]'', by [[Ben Folds]]. Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.
#"Starting All Over Again" by [[Petula Clark]]. Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.
#"Thank You My Lord" by [[Petula Clark]]. The title says it all.
#"Brick" by [[Ben Folds Five]]. Shows the regret involved in abortion.
#"Alive" by [[P.O.D]].: About being thankful for the gift of life.
#"Gotta Serve Somebody" by [[Bob Dylan]]. "It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."<ref>http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html</ref>
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU Jesus Take The Wheel]'', by [[Carrie Underwood]]. A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPBwXKgDTdE Mine]'' by Taylor Swift. Talks about how her parents divorced, and how she doesn't want that to happen with the guy she meets, dates, and marries.
#"Red Barchetta" by [[Rush]]. Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.
#"Father of Mine" by [[Everclear]]. A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM The Taxman]'', by [[The Beatles]]. George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes." <ref>http://home.att.net/~chuckayoub/Taxman_Lyrics.html</ref>
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eonyfRet8&feature=related Back in the U.S.A.]'', by [[Chuck Berry]]. A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZVPv9B-ZlM Government Cheese]'', by [[The Rainmakers]]. Humorous spoof of welfare.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPywgiMb4k Angry Young Man]'' by [[Billy Joel]]. The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzU2iJ9qfXg Gimme Back My Bullets]'', by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. The name says it all.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPlGFh6OpQ Spirit In The Sky]'', by [[Norman Greenbaum]].
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38oeBgvbMYA Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun]'', by [[Grand Funk Railroad]]. A father gives his son some sage advice.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=096LhjGNNCk Something For Nothing]'', by [[Rush]]. "You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."
#"Neighborhood Bully" by [[Bob Dylan]]. Israel's right to exist and defend itself.
#"Get It Right the First Time" by [[Louisiana's Le Roux]]. Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.
#"Only The Young" by [[Journey]]. "The shadows of a golden age, a generation waits for dawn, the brave carry on, the bold and the strong". An anthem for the Reagan Generation.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o Yours Is No Disgrace]'', by [[Yes]]. Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.
#"Fair Exchange" and "Sparks of the Tempest" by [[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]. Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.
#"In America" by the [[Charlie Daniels]] Band. Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
#"Storm the Embassy" by the [[Stray Cats]]. Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis.
#"We Must Take America Back" by [[Steve Vaus]]. Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.
#"Renegade" by [[Steppenwolf]]. John Kay's childhood escape from Communist East Germany.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI Capitalism]'', by [[Oingo Boingo]]. There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.
#"Unborn Child" by [[Seals and Crofts]]. This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.
#"Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)" by [[Steve Taylor]]. Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their head in the sand".
#"Last Kiss" by Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders, covered by other artists. "Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when I leave this world"<ref>http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=14</ref>
#"Love Me, I'm a Liberal" by [[Phil Ochs]]. Revealing Liberal hypocrisy for what it is.
#"America USA" by [http://giveagiftofsong.com/products.htm]Joey Sudyka. Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6XZDb045xU Red White and Blue]'', by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]].
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBohsCG8emk Simple Man]'', by [[Charlie Daniels]]. A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.
#"That Smell" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A very strong anti-drug use song by America's most well-known Southern rock band.
#Virtually anything by [[Toby Keith]], but especially "Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)".
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pldyz9VS2yY Under God]'', by [[Pat Boone]].
#"Christmas Shoes" by NewSong - a Christmas song by a Christian band.
#"God Bless the USA" by Lee Greenwood.<ref>http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/proudtobeamerican.html</ref>
#"God Bless America" Words and music by Irving Berlin.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed]'' [[Yes]] "...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you..."
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g Supper'sReady] [[Genesis (band)|Genesis]]''. ''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, "This is the supper of the mighty one", Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoaH0I9UwLI Your Love Is Extravagant]'' Casting Crowns
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnhYE1DhC4 What If His People Prayed]'' Casting Crowns
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBiei21-C8 King Without a Crown]'' by Matisyahu - A Hasidic Jew raps about God as the source of happiness and salvation from the things of this world: "If you're drowning in the waters and you can't stay afloat ask Hashem for mercy and He'll throw you a rope."
#"Take Me Home, Country Roads" by John Denver (and others). Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions.
#"Sin City" by the Flying Burrito Brothers. Attacks modern decadence and predicts divine punishment for sin.
#"I Saw the Light" by Hank Williams (and numerous cover versions). Redemption from sin through faith.
#"No Son of Mine" by Genesis.
#"Don't Stop" (Thinking About Tomorrow) by Fleetwood Mac.<ref>Used by Bill Clinton as his campaign theme song in 1992, but liberals often try to appeal to conservative themes for elections.</ref>
#"Lightning Crashes" by Live. The joy and significance of childbirth.
#"Takin' Care of Business" by Bachman-Turner Overdrive. The work ethic and promoting self-employment.
#"Cat's In The Cradle" by Harry Chapin. The importance of traditional families and responsible fatherhood.
#''[http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6547 The Devil Went Down To Georgia]'', by [[Charlie Daniels]]. A deeper message here, as Daniels explains.
#"Big Money" by Rush - Pro-[[capitalism]]
#"Real American" by Rick Derringer - patriotic anthem, known as [[Hulk Hogan]]'s pre-fight song
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1lSMXE3W8w&feature=related Amazing Grace]'', a Christian hymn written by English poet and clergyman [[John Newton]] (1725–1807), published in 1779.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0&feature=related Go Down Moses]'', performed by: [[Louis Armstrong]]; written by: Sy (Arr) Oliver.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5zEP4kvfnc Walking Contradiction]'' by [[Green Day]]. Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]], here [[Green Day]] mocks the often self-contradictory and inconsistent [[liberal]] ideologies, hence the term "walking contradiction".
#"God and Guns" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A powerful new Skynyrd song that elaborates on the song title.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5zEP4kvfnc Walking Contradiction]'' by [[Green Day]]. Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]], here [[Green Day]] mocks the often self-contradictory and inconsistent [[liberal]] ideologies, hence the term "walking contradiction".
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQtnPOfId0Y Be My Escape]'' by [[Relient K]]. Actually a popular song among non-conservatives too.
#''Staying Alive'', by the Bee Gees. Pro-people and pro-staying alive, and this: "We can try to understand; The [[New York Times]]' effect on man."
#''Sympathy for the Devil'' by the Rolling Stones. Reminds humanity that nobody is perfect and evil is present in the world and needs to be fought.
#''All In'' by Lifehouse.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVsZap7WBm8</ref> Describes a relationship with God as being full of commitment and without reservations.
#"[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5GDvN9_OE The Ballad of the Green Berets]", by Sergeant Barry Sadler. Pro-American and pro-military.
#''Iraq No Phobia'' by Pro-Pain. It is a pro-American, pro-military heavy metal song about the first [[Gulf War]] ''"Mohammed's no match for the great Uncle Sam."''
#''Bus Stop'', by The Hollies. Pro-romance and pro-marriage: "Someday my name and hers are going to be the same."
#''Stranger in Blue Suede Shoes'' by Kevin Ayers. Defends the right of businessmen to choose their customers: "we don't serve strangers in blue suede shoes".
# Union Sundown - Mr. Bobby Dylan The title said it all.

Please add your best conservative picks.

== References ==

<references/>

Talk:Deceit

2011-03-14T00:50:39Z

ArthurFredrickson: /* Number 6 */ new section

'''Archives:''' [[/Archive 1|1]]


==Obama==
'There are claims that president Barack Obama is a Muslim. If true, this would be a massive deception of the American public. See the evidence on his biography page.' Having looked at his 'Religious Affliations' section on his page, I can't find anywhere him suggesting he's not a Muslim. Now, I'm not going to make a judgement on what his religion is, but being a Muslim isn't deceit. If he did claim to be Christian, Jewish, Hindu etc, then I think that should be made clearer. User: TedMoult

==Examples==

Do we really need this many examples of deciet? While I believe this website should present conservative values on every page, This particular page seems to be a huge political statement about how rotten the liberals are. honestly I don't think thats the best way to present conservative values. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

: I agree. Deceit is pretty easy to understand. The example of Eve in the Garden of Eden might serve as a good example, but it's clear that this list exists more to bash Liberals than provide examples. It's gratuitous and patronizing. I'd support removing it as well. [[User:EMorrissey|EMorrissey]] 10:12, 26 November 2009 (EST)

:: Deceit may be "pretty easy to understand," but [[liberals]] deny it and not everyone recognizes it. This list is a primer so that people are not as fooled by it. It's remarkable that anyone would object to exposing deceit and warning people about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:40, 26 November 2009 (EST)

:: I don't think he was objecting to exposing deceit, he was just pointing out that compiling a huge page of it makes it seem as if this website is just a huge, rambling, attack on liberals as opposed to an informative and useful resource. I fully agree that exposing the deceit is important, but it would be better done by moving the information from this page to all the pages that are specifically affected--[[User:JacobX|JacobX]] 10:52, 26 November 2009 (EST)

:::There's no logic to the objection. It obviously is useful to see a collection of various examples of [[deceit]] in one place. The real objection is probably not that this entry is ineffective, but that it is highly effective in educating visitors about liberal deceit. Don't worry, liberals can still feign surprise when a new example is exposed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:17, 26 November 2009 (EST)

::: I see your point, but I still think it looks, as [[User: Emorrisey|EMorrissey]] said, "gratuitous and patronizing." If you think having the information on the wiki is important, maybe we should consider moving the examples to a page entitled [[Liberal Deceit]] or something similar.--[[User:JacobX|JacobX]] 22:31, 26 November 2009 (EST)

::::Obviously most deceit is liberal in nature, but that doesn't mean a qualification should be placed on this entry. If you can find non-liberal deceit of the same order and magnitude as the examples here, then we'd include it. Non-liberal deceit is rare and you may not be able to find any.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 26 November 2009 (EST)

:::: I wasn't talking about the type of the deceit so much as the quantity; having twenty examples seems like overkill. As for the variety of deceit, I'm obviously not going to argue that liberals aren't more likely to be deceitful than your average person. However, its not like they have a monopoly on deceit either, and being deceitful isn't a prerequisite for being a liberal. You can also just be misguided. As for non-liberal deceit, there are plenty of examples. What about watergate?--[[User:JacobX|JacobX]] 19:38, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::::: The nature of politics is inherently deceitful. Watergate was similar in many ways to what many other politicians have done, and will continue to do. It does not rise to the level of these examples, which are not about winning one election but are clear-cut examples of extreme deceit, often for its own sake. Also, by the way, many of the players in the Watergate scandal were liberal, even though Republican.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:57, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::::: Ah. Well I'm not going to argue with that, but for the purpose of the article the magnitude of deceit seems unimportant; watergate still provides as much of an example as the ones shown in the article. Also, I still believe that the list needs to be shortened for the same reasons I mentioned above.--[[User:JacobX|JacobX]] 20:03, 28 November 2009 (EST)

==10 Commandments==
I don't think the reference about removing the 10 Commandments from schools really shows that you're going for. The decision was to remove any physical depiction of the 10 Commandments, which has nothing to do with whether morals are taught in schools. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

: "Nothing to do with morals are taught in schools"? You can't be serious. That's like saying "2+2=4" has nothing with whether "2+3=5". If the Ten Commandments can't be on the wall, then they can't be taught for [[normative]] purposes in textbooks either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Yes I am serious. To use your example you don't need a poster that says 2+2=4 to learn that or to know it. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 18:41, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Character education is a big part of the curriculum these days, and I've yet to see a school library without a bible in it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Reference to the Ten Commandments is relevant to that page, not this one. Same for public schools. Deleted part about deceit not being taught in public schools. It's ridiculous to note on every page whether something is or is not taught in liberal American public schools (the list would be too long). --[[User:Ursus|Ursus]] 13:07, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
:Seconding Ursus' comment. Furthermore, the exclusion of the Commandments from the educational curriculum has no place in the definition of any word. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:54, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== contradiction in the definition ==

I am not sure why I am getting involved with this, but here goes:

* " Deceit is the fraudulent representation of a material fact, made intentionally or recklessly or without reasonable basis and with the intent to induce reliance on the falsehood".
* "Traditionally deceit was taught as being wrong and in violation of the Ten Commandments" -"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor".

The logic implied therefore is that'''all deceit'' is prohibited by the 10 commandments.

However, bearing "false witness against a neighbour" is not the same as "fraudulent misrepresentation of a material fact", and does not encompass all the things that the latter could possible include. For example, claiming that you have a PhD when you do not have one is clearly deceit, but I cannot find anything in the 10 commandments that tells me I should not do it. I am not stealing; I am not bearing false witness against a neighbour. Am I coveting? I don't think so. As far as the ten commandments is concerned, I can get away with it.

Under these circumstances, the statement concerning the 10C needs to be amended to say:
"Deceit has traditionally been viwed as being morally wrong and in many respects it is in violation of the Ten Commandments, especially those deceits which involve harm or malpractice to another person" --[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 16:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sometimes deceit can also be stealing - if you are trying to get advantages by deceiving. For example that kind of telling you have a PhD can have this kind of wrong motive. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Most crimes entail deceit, but the point here is when deceit is the primary wrongdoing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::You seem to be missing the point. I am not saying deceit is right, far from it. I am saying that the statement that "deceit is ... in violation of the Ten Commandments" is not correct, as some deceits are NOT in violation of any of the 10 commandments.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Sean, I thought I made the change you requested. Sure, some deceits are justified, just as self-defense can justify killing in rare circumstances. But the statement is correct, that deceit has traditionally been taught as being wrong under the Ten Commandments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Apologies, had missed that in the article, I was still responding to the stuff on the talk pages. Thank You. I shall now go back to what I know best.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

== Politicization ==
So, regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deceit&diff=181455&oldid=181449 this] edit war, the two sentences seem to suggest two things:
# They suggest that all Conservatives are not deceitful, and that all Liberals are deceitful. That is a perfect definition of [[stereotype]], and I'm sure we can agree that stereotypes suck.
# Reference #2 suggests that ''only'' conservatives teach their children the ten commandments, therefore implying that A). Liberals cannot be Christians, and B). All Liberals are atheists.
Am I the only one who notices this? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:36, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::No, you are not the only one. The universal statements are a little misleading, though I personally agree with what is said for the most part.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:40, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::So you agree that all liberals are atheist deceivers, and all conservatives are "true" Christians and always honest? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:::No that is not what I meant at all. Refering to groups, any groups, in terms of "all" is never a good thing to do, and should be somehow worked out. [[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:47, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

So it's not deceit when the army lies about Tilman, it's not deceit in the case of Iran-Contra or Watergate or the "slam-dunk" or "sexing up" intelligence reports or plagiarizing someone's report when speaking to the UN. Maybe this article needs to flat out say what the people who run this website obviously want it to say and define deceit as "what happens when anyone whom it is politically convenient to call a liar lies" and at least be a little less deceitful about it. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: REPLY TO ABOVE: The statement does not say that all liberals are deceitful. I don't think all liberals are. And I don't think all conservatives are honest. But conservatives do teach that deceit is wrong, and liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong. That's a fact. Compare a public school classroom, where you won't hear that deceit is wrong, with a conservative classroom, where you will hear that. This is not a politicization. This is observable fact.

: Sevenstring can suggest other examples of deceit comparable to the ones listed. But the examples he identified are not comparable, because in those cases deceit was not embraced for ideological gain as it was in the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:13, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: P.S. I just rolled back the Tillman example, because that was not deceit for any gain. It is common practice for the military, dating back to the death of Benny Goodman (?) by friendly fire during WWII, to glorify the victims of war and minimize embarrassment. JFK's heroism in his PT boat was actually the result of incompetence; Kerry's heroism was questionable also. There is nothing new about this and the military is not guilty of deceit in the same way as the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:: So the whole big push to punish plagiarising in public schools (two of my friends got failing grades for that), expelling people for cheating on tests, etc. (another friend got nabbed for that), and punishing kids for lieing to teachers are just coincidences, right?
:: Once again, Andy, you are stereotyping the entire public school system. Perhaps instead of saying that "liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong", it can be phrased as "the public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong". Both statements are completely false, but at least it's a step towards the truth.
:: And as for Tillman; it doesn't matter the tradition or context which it is in; it's still deceit. And I don't see Watergate on there, or the Lewinsky scandal. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:17, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::P.S. and really, not only Conservatives teach the ten commandments. Call me a heretic, but I'm pretty sure the 10C are standard throughout all kinds of Christianity. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh, come off it - how, exactly, does fudging the truth to justify a war not fall under the rubric of "deceit" for "ideological gain?" Or breaking into the opposing party's headquarters and then using the state apparatus to cover it up in order to win an election? By your own definition, weak as it is, those are textbook examples. And who says that there needs to be ideological gain for deceit to occur? [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, you're in denial. I know what's taught in public schools. Hoji, if you're in public school, I challenge you to find anything in any of your textbooks, lecture notes, writing assignments, etc., that says deceit is wrong. It's not there, and that is because liberals run public schools. It is there in conservative classrooms. Sure, plagiarism and cheating are punished if someone is caught, but that can be explained by self-interest better than teaching it is "wrong".

: Sevenstring, your complaint is that the list is not longer. Present something as airtight and long-lasting as the current examples and we'll include it. Delaying a few weeks before telling the truth about Tillman's death does not come close, not by a long shot. That TEMPORARY deceit could just as easily be justified as honoring Tillman rather than benefiting anyone, and the military has been doing that for decades without complaint in many celebrated cases. Shall we put JFK's PT boat incident in the list also???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::As for JFK's PT boat incident, if it is relevant, then sure, put it on. And as for the schools, you seem to be equating "liberal" with "public schools", which is certainly wrong. I grew up in a liberal household, and was taught that deceit is wrong. I am sure that the ''vast'' majority of ''all'' American families teach their kids that deceit is wrong; it is not a good way to win arguments, friends, or respect. In the public schools, deceit isn't taught to be wrong because there isn't an obsession with teaching moral behavior, because schools rely on parents to choose the moral education they give their children. If anything, I would say that Conservatives are just as deceitful as liberals; everything on AiG, for instance, is intentionally spun to persuade, even if that means leaving out relevant facts. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
Please excuse my vitriol, but Andy, I have been following this for a long time, and you have never cited ANYTHING to back up your bizarre assertions about liberals and deceit. I am liberal (mm..refreshing), I don't believe in deceit, neither do my children. In fact, neither do any of my friends, who are mostly liberal. You should be ashamed of yourself. Oh, that's right, im about to be banned for speaking my mind, and the truth. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 20:49, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

ASchlafly, did you even read my post? My complaint is not that " the list is not longer," but that by YOUR definition of, essentially, lying in the name of the advancement of political ideology, the discourse leading up to the invasion...errrrrrrrr liberation of Iraq was deceitful. As was Watergate. "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," indeed. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 21:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: Liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong. "OneLove", do you teach that deceit is wrong? Did you ever hear public school, which is run by liberals, teach that it is wrong? Please answer without making absurd remarks like I "should be ashamed of" myself. You're not helping your cause.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm going to attempt to draw a conclusion based on your logic, Andy;
::*Catholicism is a branch of Christianity
::*Catholics believe the Pope is divinely appointed by God.
::*Therefore, all Christians believe that the Pope is divinely appointed by God.
::Here, Catholicism represents the public school system, the Pope represents deceit, and Christianity represents liberals. You know that the above scenario is wrong, because it is based on faulty logic. Also, public schools certainly do not teach that deceit is ''right'', which you are seeming to imply. As an organ of the federal government, in accordance with the first amendment, schools do not teach about morality. So, using faulty logic, I draw that liberals are more patriotic! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:24, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, Andy, I would be happy to answer more specifically. I used to be a public school teacher, in South San Francisco (NOT affiliated with San Fran in ANY way). I, of course, taught that deceit was wrong DAILY. Every single time a student would try to lie, or "pull one over" on me, I would explain to them why that was the wrong thing to do. I'm not sure why you would think any public school teacher would do otherwise. At least, none of my colleagues encouraged deceit. Given humans are fallible, I'm sure some teachers are as well. I quit teaching because of the general underfunding in schools in California. Also, to assert "the public schools are run by liberals" is patently ridiculous. Some school boards are quite liberal, some quite conservative, and they tend to swing back and forth--usually in reaction to a previous board being to extreme in their liberalism or conservatism. So, I'll add again, you should be ashamed. You prove that either you are deceitful or ignorant or both, but I won't generalize to all conservatives, because that would be incorrect stereotyping. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 21:51, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:OneLove, when did you teach: 1950? Anyone familiar with public schools today would find your claims to be so out-of-date as to be absurd. The word "wrong" in a moral sense has not been used in public school for at least a decade. Kids can be busted for drugs in the bathroom of the school and still the term morally wrong won't be used. I had my kids in public school, and I follow them closely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:59, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::In all honesty, Andy, I am undoubtedly the most qualified in this debate to comment on the current status of public schools, seeing as how I actually attend one, and deal with these non-issues you talk about regularly. And I do not see why you decided to drag the public school system into this, as the gross stereotype still exists on the page; the idea that "liberals", as a group, do not teach about the wrongness of deceit, is simply absurd. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Hey, I'm a qualified attender also![[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 22:05, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
First, OneLove, was NOT a sock of userP,,,s. Second, I have it on good authority that he taught public school in the early to mid nineties, not the 1950s. You are falling back on some shaky debating tactics. Oh, time to ban me for being a sock of OneLove, who was not a sock of p...s.[[User:Downinmyheart|Downinmyheart]] 22:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

*Do any of you above have cites showing the "improvement" of public education over the past 20 years? And if you produce them, do they take into account the lessening of academic standards and wholesale changes to the curriculum over the years to make it appear to be getting better? I have to tell you all the major and politically diseperate academic organizations don't see improvement. Is this really the argument you want to make, that public schools are "fine"? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:46, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:No, the public school issue was a distraction; the actual issue was the line "Conservatives teach that deceit is wrong. Liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong", which is completely absurd. Following this, Andy attempted to equate "Liberals" with "public school system". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Public schools are a perfect example of liberals who teach. I'm open to other examples, such as liberal philosophers.

:: A substantial percentage of liberals are atheists who doubt anything is morally right or wrong. For them to teach that "deceit is wrong" would be, well, deceitful in itself!

:: Rereading OneLove's claim above that he "taught that deceit was wrong DAILY" makes me wonder if he is being deceitful here. Not even the clergy teaches that deceit is wrong DAILY. I've observed on this website that some liberals actually enjoy being deceitful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

*''Since this is a self-admitted and proclaimed Conservative and Christian-friendly encyclopedia'', there is nothing distracting in Andy's comments. I would submit that moral relativism and equivalency, along with historically revisionist thinking, which are an inarguable part of todays public school curriculum, do foster the "if it feels good do it" 60's mentality. I have several currently teaching relations, in rural and urban areas. Most of them have confirmed for me tonight, that teaching "right and wrong" as it once was, has been ditched in favor of non-judgemental lessons, and a reliance on "gray areas". --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Still, the blanket statement is misleading; there certainly are conservatives who deceive (and teach that deceit is right), and there are certainly liberals who teach that deceit is wrong. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:09, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Michigan's Department of Education requires public schools to teach students a certain set of Core Democratic Values. One of those values is Truth. [[User:TigersRoar|TigersRoar]] 21:20, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Interesting, unless you're joking. Can you provide the link for that so I can confirm and see exactly how it is required? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:23, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:::[http://www.michigan.gov/documents/10-02_Core_democtaric_Values_48832_7.pdf Took about five seconds on google]... but personally I think it's a [[liberal]] scam. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:18, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== Archiving ==

Someone who won't get yelled at like I do, would you be so kind as to archive this page and leave the section "10 Commandments" as the beginning piece? Thanks oodles! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:06, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Done. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:11, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

*You are so much more than kind, even if you won't share your box with everyone. :-( How do you get those neat accents on your sig? In my most Liberal whine, I feel so much less than without a cool sig! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 02:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

==Democratic Party==

[[David Limbaugh]] accused Democratic leaders of "deceit" on Iraq. He says they don't really intend to "win" in Iraq, butm want us to withdraw so that we will "lose" (which, by the way, is what happened when we withdrew from Vietna: an even worse tyranny was created in the entire country than ever existed in South Vietnam: compare 20,000 "tiger cage" deaths South Vietnam to 500,000 post-ware executions in North Vietnam. I think we also have to count the 250,000 to 500,000 [[boat people]] who died escaping the Communists.)

*Nothing better illustrates the Democrats' duplicity and emptiness concerning Iraq than the manifestly contradictory statements of two of their leaders in the last few days preceding the election. Rep. John Murtha, who probably represents the bulk of his party, reiterated his nauseating, America-denigrating contention that the United States cannot win militarily in Iraq. We must resolve this matter diplomatically, he said, meaning we must negotiate with terrorists, and we must redeploy, meaning withdraw – very, very soon.Then, after Sen. Elizabeth Dole said that Democrats are content with losing the war in Iraq, Sen. Chuck Schumer replied indignantly, "Democrats want to win the war by changing the war strategy."
*Now, should we believe Murtha or Schumer? Does Schumer really expect us to believe he has experienced a miraculous, neoconservative conversion, or is he just lip-syncing? That's a no-brainer: Of course he isn't sincere in saying Democrats want to win in Iraq by changing the strategy in Iraq. That would put him at odds with 90 percent of the Michael-Mooreized Democratic base and with the pronouncements of his party's leadership over the last year.
*Dress it up however you like, Democrats are advocating an almost immediate withdrawal from Iraq before the Iraqi security forces are capable of sustaining their nation's security and newly formed government. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52813]

Is this an "example of deceit", or just a partisan criticism of the [[Democratic Party]] by a conservative? The answer will determine where I place this quote. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:45, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

:Did Murtha say we cannot win militarily in Iraq, or did he say that we cannot win in Iraq with a 100% military approach? There is a moderate difference.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 21:48, 31 December 2008 (EST)

==American Public Schools==

"The American public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong, at least not using the Ten Commandments." It is my belief that this statement is misleading, it provides the suggestion that the Ten Commandments are required to teach that deceit is wrong. Just as it is possible to teach that murder is wrong without referring to the 10 Commandments it is just as possible to teach that deceit is wrong without referring to them, and there is no source to support a claim that the American Public School system does not teach that deceit is wrong, albeit without the 10 Commandments (my original reason for the citation template). Really, this article does not need the statement, and it has already been extensively covered in the 10 Commandments article. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 23:59, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

*The American public schools teach moral relativism. How does one get a clear idea of "right" and "wrong" when one is taught all such things are relative? I unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 00:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Character education is a BIG part of the curriculum these days. Try googling it. Here's just one link. I'd be happy to discus this further with anyone who feels there's a moral vacuum among teachers these days. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:50, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
http://www.goodcharacter.com/

*Character education, taught from a secular-progressive POV, is nothing. Since they cannot bring themselves to actually say "anything" is "wrong", it is meaningless. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 01:49, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:We constantly say things are wrong: stealing, hurting, lying, etc. Some of our students are of religions other than Christianity...would it be right to instruct a Buddhist student using Christian scripture? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:34, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:*Yes, of course it would, in the United States! We are a Judeo-Christian country. We have achieved what we have here by virtue of being a "melting pot", not a balkanized hodge-podge of competing cultures. While the secular-progressives might wish it to be multi-cultural, with each and every ethnic and religious group clinging to their "Mother Culture", that is exactly the cause of the slaughter's in Africa and East Europe. Teaching a Buddhist Christian scripture in no way "demeans" their own. But it does teach them valuable lessons, and offers them understanding and insight into their new country and its attendant culture. You say you are constantly telling them things are wrong; Do you tell them why? And if so, what are those "non-religious" reasons? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 10:28, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:No American [[public schools]] teach that anything is "wrong". Maestro, post here the quote and citation of any textbook used in public school that says something is morally "wrong". As one would expect, eliminating God from public schools has also eliminated morality in terms of right and wrong. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:: it took me 30 seconds: ''Lying is wrong''[http://www.goodcharacter.com/pp/trustworthiness.html] [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 10:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Some website? How is that related to ''[[public schools]]'' or their textbooks? I hope your editing here maintains a higher caliber than your research on this topic! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 10:51, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Right, TK. Dkips, what does that website have to do with public schools? Public school curricula are available online, I think. But you didn't cite to one. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:I wouldn't be surprised if you can't find a textbook that says lying is wrong. That sort of thing is taught in kindergarten, which doesn't use textbooks (it's also taught by parents at an even younger age, and it's they who have the real responsibility for moral instruction of their children, much moreso than government schools). Please do find me a textbook on moral relativism that is used in public schools. And, if we want to take the Bible literally, the ten commandments don't exactly teach deceit is wrong. They teach that bearing false witness against your neighbor is wrong, but bearing false witness is only a specific kind of deceit (there are countless lies oen can tell that do not involve bearing false witness against anyone). And if we want to be super-technical, it can be said that if someone lives far enough away from you that they wouldn't be considered a "neighbor" then it's perfectly fine to bear false witness against them. This morality is seeming slightly relative. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 11:57, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong because that's something that's taught ''long'' before a child enrolls into the public school system. It's not that schools teach some sort of secular code of conduct or moral relativism - it's that they don't teach it '''at all''' because it's best taught by parents. Besides, there are many of us that view man as a creature endowed with a predisposition to perform goodness! [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, public schools are often known to defer to parents with the utmost of respect. Just look at sex education; that's left strictly to the parents... Do you guys really think that by parroting each other that people won't see you're talking in circles? Apply some logic - don't make up phony reasons for why it's not taught and try to convince yourselves what you made up on the spot is true. Either it's taught or it's not. In fact, here's an easy one. Find me the curriculum that states what you said. Anything along the lines of "We don't teach that deceit is wrong because that is left to the parents and takes place before youngsters enter school." Want to find just one? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:26, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

::You want to apply some logic? Fine. You're committing a grievous logical fallacy in your argument; remember, '''the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.''' Do you honestly believe something as mundane as "deceit is wrong" should be a bullet point on a syllabus for a public school class? If you want to see how seriously public schools take student discipline, character, and behavior, just look at my old Code of Conduct from the JCPS: http://www.jefferson.k12.ky.us/Pubs/codeofconduct.pdf . '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 15:46, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm sorry, but the code of conduct is sadly what I would expect it to be - a 25 page document outlining what is not acceptable in order to close all loopholes since anything that is not outlined, could be considered acceptable. And so you have warnings not to commit arson or kidnap other students. It seems to back Andy's views more than anything else -- the common understanding of morality that used to exist is gone.

:::Getting back to the other point, you still appear to be talking in circles. You are applying the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" as a catch all after getting called on your last assertion which came across as made up on the spot. I somehow doubt that schools are removing information that used to be taught to give parents greater autonomy over their children's lives. Of course you can tell me that in the schools you have contact with that morality, right and wrong, and deceit are taught as an important part of the education process, but I would have to wonder if that itself wouldn't be an example of deceit. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:03, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm afraid I have to correct you. In many public school systems, because of pressure from Conservative lobbies, parents' groups, and churches, students are not permitted to learn anything BUT absolute "right and wrong" morality. State textbook guidelines in some of the largest markets (Texas and California) mandate that stories in primary school readers are not permitted to portray children "in conflict with adults"<ref>http://www.randomhouse.com/knopf/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780375414824</ref>, facing "complicated moral problems", or issues "without a clear right or wrong answer". Liberal pressure groups insist that these lessons are presented secularly; the result (Diane Ravitch argues in the book that this post references) is a bland, Bowdlerized reading curriculum that young people find unrealistic and boring, but politically correct to suit both Liberal and Conservative censorists.

==Clinton==

Should we mention Bill Clinton's [[deceit]]ful testimony in the [[Paula Jones]] case? It got him [[impeach]]ed (but not removed from offices). There's the misleading bit about "I didn't have sex" (playing on whether [[oral sex]] counts as [[sexual intercourse]]).

Is it [[adultery]] and/or grounds for divorce on account of un[[faithfulness]] if an ordinary man does what Clinton did with his intern? Is it [[sexual harassment]], given the power imbalance between employer and employee?

== Pat Tillman example needs work ==

"On 31 July 2007, the US Army censured three-star General Kensinger for "deception" in the friendly-fire death of Army Ranger [[Pat Tillman]] [http://www.onelocalnews.com/akronfarmreport/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=139590]"

I know this issue is loved by Bush-haters, but covering up friendly fire is common in many Administrations. Glenn Miller was killed by friendly fire and [[FDR]] covered it up. I don't see why this issue concerning Pat Tillman is given so much attention at the expense of other examples. We're not a vehicle for misplaced Bush-hating here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:How about a general article on [[friendly fire]] first? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:39, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, I see you removed the information I'd added. I would point out three things:-
 
 a) I'm not a "Bush-hater".
 b) The issue is hardly being covered only by "Bush haters"! It's front page news on Fox News as we write! [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291591,00.html]
 c) Why don't you add the into about Glenn Goodman [Miller] too? Deceit is deceit, whatever group it comes from.
 
It seems to me you're being very selective with the truth, and I think that's unfair to our troops. Friendly fire accidents are not partisan politics - they happen, it's tragic, but it's a consequence of war and the truth should not be hidden from the public by [[deceit]]. Just because it's not [[liberal]] [[deceit]] doesn't mean this incident is not [[deceit]]. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 19:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:Your point is well taken. We could use some more information on Tilman and Goodman [Miller]. One of the virtues of a democracy with a [[free press]] is that errors and misconduct can be brought to light by ordinary citizens. When this is not done for [[partisan advantage]], it's usually a good thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:59, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Exactly, Ed. I would do it, except I fear a ban from a certain someone if I put Tillman back in. Perhaps someone else would tackle it? It seems to me that an announcement that a three-star general is to be censured over the matter makes this a notable enough example of deceit in high places, and deserving of appearing in the article, and it will also make the article less biased. Deceit is practiced by all who are prepared to lie, regardless of the color of their stripes. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:03, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:First, my mistake, it was Glenn "Miller", not Goodman. So I've inserted "Miller" above in brackets to prevent the error from propagating.

:Second, no one is being blocked for this disagreement.

:Third, more facts are needed. What was the alleged "deceit"? Why is this being singled out? Was was the motive for the deceit? Our examples have thorough proof of deceit on issues of extreme public importance. Why do you think covering up an incident of [[friendly fire]], which happens in every military conflict, ranks so highly in importance? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:07, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Andy. One point is that the Deceit article is extremely partisan and one-sided, and this type of bias is part of Conservapedia's credibility problem. Adding a publicly acknowledged incident from the 'other' side that is today part of the public record adds fairness and balance - a good thing, surely? As to the details of the incident, the report has yet to be published - I make no comment. However, in the context of the 'Deceit' article, since the three-star General is accused in public with the actual use of the word "deception", it seems more than appropriate for the article. As to the 'importance', I make no partisan claims one way or the other to the validity of the incident, but as a current example of deceit, I can think of no better example. And finally, while the Glenn Miller incident was friendly fire (and yes, that happens, and no political party is to blame for it), there was no cover-up or deceit involved, was there? [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:If you're trying to make the point that liberals aren't the only deceitful people in the world, I'll agree with you. The question is: should we use breaking news for an example? That's all.

:Since you didn't jump in and help me write [[Pat Tillman]], I went ahead and did it by myself. See also [[fratricide]] and [[friendly fire]]. (You can do [[free-fire zone]] if you have time.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:17, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Another Example ==

Perhaps the works of [[Ernst Haeckel]] and his "contributions" to evolution should be considered? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:48, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, that was a fraud that lasted for 100 years, long after the experts knew it was a fraud. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Catalog or informative article? ==

Is this article intended to be a catalog of acts of deceit or an article describing what deceit is? If it's the latter, then the direction of the article needs to be re-though; it's not necessary to have '''ten''' different examples of deceit to convey what deceit is. This is expressly different from [[liberal deceit]], which is actually of catalog of the subject matter. Maybe this article should be re-written to contain the "Top 3" examples that express what deceit is? '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:11, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

==Public Schools==

I don't see how you can make the claim that public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong when a large number of students are expelled for ACADEMIC DISHONESTY [[User:Dragonmaster|Dragonmaster]] 15:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:Are you including in your "academic dishonesty" the act of copying, word for word, a passage of text from another source without clearly demarking this passage with quotation marks? Aka [[Barker|plagiarism]]? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::I busted kids left and right for that when I taught junior high. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:38, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

BTW, since when have the commandments been 'banned'? They're not publically desplayed (believe it or not, some students follow other religions), but banned? There's a bible in every library. You make it sound like crack or guns or something. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:23, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

:The issue of whether deceit is ever justified is a deep and complex one. Is "tattling" always wrong? Is to "bear false witness" wrong because it is tattling, or because it involves deceit?

:How about telling someone that a thing is okay when you know it is not, so they do it and get into trouble? We need to expand upon the ethics of truth and deceit. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:37, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

This is a high-quality page. Additions to the list must be at the same quality level as existing examples. A [[liberal]] newspaper article claiming that a Republican lied about some fact doesn't cut it. Look at the examples, and please propose only additions at comparable level of significance, proof, and amount of deceit. Future reversions of low-quality examples will not be explained. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:I'm still amazed that Ted Haggard, who publicly preached against homosexuality (saying "We don't have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity. It's written in the Bible"[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003365311_jesuscamp08.html], and the National Association of Evangelicals under his leadership found "homosexual activity, like adulterous relationships, is clearly condemned in the Scriptures"[http://www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=editor.page&pageID=303&IDCategory=8]) led a three-year homosexual relationship with a gay prostitute, complete with the use of methamphetamine. Hmm... the leader of a national body of Christians having gay sex behind his wife's back, while preaching against those same activities seems a bit [[deceit]]ful. Oh well, I'm sure the whole thing is a big liberal conspiracy. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 02:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::By the way, Pastor Haggard spoke at my friends church two weeks prior to his being "outed", and I was fortunate enough to attend. It was a special evening sermon about sexual morality, and I can tell you from personal experience that he wasn't quite fond of homosexuals. (If you don't believe me, I'd be glad to email you contact info for the church). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:03, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Well, you'll notice that we don't have Bill Clinton and "that woman" as an example either. A benchmark is usually an intentional decision to mislead for personal gain that causes hardship to others by withholding information that could have been used to make honest, informed decisions. Whether or not Haggard had homosexual tendencies is not something that had a profound impact on the American public. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:18, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::It's not "misleading" to preach against homosexuality to millions of people while engaging in a homosexual ''and'' adulterous relationship? As a major Christian leader, Haggard had a huge influence on the voting habits of Conservative Christians. And I'm still having trouble determining how number 11 had a profound impact on the public. And regarding Clinton, he wasn't actively speaking out against homosexuals and adulterers. Haggard was, and his platform was against homosexuality ''and'' adultery, both of which he committed. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:28, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I think you overestimate Haggard's influece. The Haggard example seems like a better example of hypocrisy, not deceit. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 03:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I don't think saying that the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, who also was the pastor of a 14,000-member megachurch, and one of TIME's 25 most influential evangelicals has influence one the vote of CC's is an "overestimate". And he did deceive; he deceived his wife, his family, and his congregation. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:39, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Which sounds more like Haggard:
::::::::::*"''criticism of others, by a standard one does not apply to oneself''" from [[hypocrisy]]
::::::::::or
::::::::::*"''the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another''" from [[deceit]]? I say what he did was a better example of hypocrisy. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 03:42, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::So people who have committed adultery shouldn't think it's wrong, or speak out against it? Sin is sin, and if we happen to fall into sin it doesn't exonerate us or mean we can no longer speak out against it. If someone is a pedophile, that person still has the right to speak out against it, and that is not deceitful. If Haggard didn't believe the practice of homosexuality was wrong, but spoke out against it, and he received financial gain for his position, then I would certainly agree with you that would be deceitful. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:44, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

*Hoji, is AmesG ghost writing your stuff now? :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:59, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:Perhaps, TK, I merely have my own viewpoints which happen to overlap with other people's in some areas. Learn together, do you think he would have been the head of the NEA if he had been preaching "homosexuality is OK"? As a mega-pastor, he received quite the salary - he was practically a celebrity. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 13:25, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:*Hoji, he could have quite possibly been President of the NEA (National Education Association) preaching "homosexuality is OK", being it is the Liberal/Left Wing organization that it is, but of course he would never have been President of the Evangelical association! But it is Apples and Oranges to compare the duties and responsibilities of the President of either NEA with those of the POTUS. A logical fallacy, that makes a good "show" argument, but one that doesn't hold up. That said, I am uneasy holding people up for their personal failings in regard to such things, Even President Clinton. However one had an elected trust with the people of the United States,300,000,000 of them, the other didn't. I was bothered much more by Clinton's equivocation (actual and moral) over the meaning of the word "is" and his allowing good Citizens' reputations to be smeared along with the attendant financial ruin. I was also affronted to be told by President Clinton and his agents that I was part of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy" in thinking what he did was wrong. At least Jimmy Swaggart, in picking up prostitutes not even six miles from my home, didn't blame me or deny what he had been doing and ruin other people's lives in the process. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:08, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:*I don't think you'd see him preaching homosexuality is ok because he doesn't believe it. From what I could tell, his preaching matched his beliefs. Some of the most vehement anti-smoking people I know with messages of 'don't ever start' and 'I wish I could quit' are those who are hooked on cigarettes. And let's be honest here, the man was hardly Fred Phelps. Homosexuality isn't a once a week topic and it wasn't a major part of Haggard's weekly messages. I just read a 6 page interview that Christianity Today did with him in November 2005. Although it touched on a multitude of different issues and his views, the only mention of homosexuality was that Haggard supported the Court's decision in Lawrence v Texas to stay out of the private life of homosexuals. Hardly seems deceitful does it? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:21, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

: Hoji, I agree that number 11 should be deleted for lack of significance. I didn't insert that item. Honestly, I don't think number 10 is significant enough either, but I tried not to be heavy-handed about this.

: As to Haggard, it was a scandal but it was not "deceit" like the other examples. Maybe he was a hypocrite, but that is not "deceit" either. Perhaps the people who supported Haggard were deceived, but they are not significant in comparison to how the public was deceived in the other examples. By the way, I had never even heard of Haggard before the [[liberal]] media made this such a big deal just prior to the election. Adding Haggard to the list would require adding scores of [[liberals]] like Clinton, who pretended to have a good Christian marriage with Hillary, to the list too. That's not what this entry is about.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:03, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Every single example of deceict (except maybe that Dutch art forger) is of a liberal. Every time someone posts an example of conservative decption, it's deleated, with an explanation that it's a 'scandal' or a 'lie', but not 'deception.' Isn't is slightly deceptive to only include the deceit of one side of the political spectrum? Just my two cents. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:47, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

: Some [[liberals]] delight in [[deceit]], and they have succeeded in driving morality out of [[public schools]]. So it's not surprising that many major examples are about [[liberals]]. But I don't claim that "every single example" is about [[liberals]]. You seem to be drawing that conclusion.

: Provide a [[conservative]] example of similar magnitude and it will remain there. But please don't simply post a scandal that is not really deceit, or an insignificant example.

: Surely you don't expect [[deceit]] to occur as often by people who teach that it is wrong as those who don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::<s>Andy, your suggestion that all liberals practice and encourage deceit is utterly ridiculous. There are deceitful Christians, and there are deceitful conservatives. Many liberals are Christian, and many conservatives are as well. But to conflate "liberal" with "some public schools" is a pretty far stretch.
</s>::Regardless, I think the word "Watergate" sums up a very well-known example of conservative deceit. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 18:19, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

::: Hoji, do you really expect [[deceit]] to be correlated precisely 50/50 among two very different groups, [[liberals]] and [[conservatives]]?

::: Let's put this a different way. Do you think people who advocate legalizing drugs have a greater percentage of drug use than people who oppose legalizing drugs? Surely you don't think that correlation is a perfect 50/50 also. And if you agree that is unlikely to be evenly split, then why the claim that deceit must be evenly split also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::: The difference between your analogy and this situation is that both liberals and conservatives, by and large, teach that deceit is wrong. There aren't that many people out there (Christians, jews, muslims, atheists, agnostics, rastafarians, etc.) that actively advocate deceit. If I'm reading the analogy correctly (the drug-legalization advocates represent liberals, and the drug represents deceit), then this isn't congruent with the actual situation. And I've given two perfectly good examples of conservative deceit; I'm still waiting for a reply on the Watergate cover-up. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 19:43, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm still waiting for Hoji to take back his ''all liberals practice'' comment, which comes directly after Mr. Schlafly's ''Some [[liberals]] delight''. There's a big difference between [[some]] and [[all]], well known to all intellectuals and philosophers since the time of [[Aristotle]].

After you take that back, we can progress to your next error. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:52, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:I formally retract my "all liberals practice" comment. It still seems that great lengths are being taken to keep conservatives off the list. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 19:54, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Hoji, how about this: people who support gun control are less likely to own guns than people who support the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Agree with that? If so, then why so much protest over a similar statement about deceit? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:33, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

==Delete==
Since I apparently shouldn't use the <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> stub on the main page for whatever reason, I'm going to voice my opinion here that this article is counter-productive and should be deleted and re-created without bias. As it is now, it is a shining example of pure and simple hatred. Disgusting. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]]

*The above post is a shining example of useless posts. What, specifically in the article do you object to, "Doctor"? Is there some specific fact or citation you dispute? That would be helpful, and better than just a statement of opinion backed by nothing. Sort of like if I said your post was the work of a bitter, Liberal troll who is full of [[deceit]] and [[Liberal Bias]] without pointing to specifics. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:15, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:Any article that has considerable ongoing activity should not just be stamped with <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> without any other comment. We try to make extensive use of the talk pages to discuss thoughts and recommendations for improvement. It is also customary to put new commentary on the bottom, not on the top. Thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:10, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

==Environmental hoaxes and hogwash==

Should we list or link to [[global warming]], [[ozone depletion]], etc.? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:19, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Do you really think such a large body of people made up a scientific theory to deliberately trick people? Thats the real question you should be asking. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:22, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:I believe to be deceitful you would have to show that those who push GW, OD, etc are lying about it. Perhaps *some* pushers are being deceitful, but it's not a strong enough case to call all of them deceitful. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 19:23, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::Right, that's the question. Is it a "hoax" if the people promoting it actually believe it? I would not apply the work ''hoax'' to anything other than a falsehood promoted by people who know it to be false, e.g., the theory that [[crop circles]] are mysterious, possibly supernatural or 'alien' phenomena. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:25, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
:Well some people can really buy into those crop circles! I mean, some farmers have seen a lot of green that way... Anyway, I don't believe GW or Ozone depletion to be a hoax. I can see how people might conclude that its a flawed science, but certainly not a hoax? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:37, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate your input; it's good advice. I'll start a category for flawed science instead, maybe. Or how about [[:Category:Junk science]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:39, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:wow wow wow, thats not what I'm advising at all. How would you then go on to define a junk science? Would you base it on a flawed methodology in collecting evidence, or simply that the conclusions do not meet the answers you want them to meet? I think that is at the heart of this sort of debate. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:45, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::CP is way ahead of you: [[Junk science]] ;) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:47, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Graham, I think "junk science" is generally the promotion of a finding as "scientific" or "unscientific" based purely upon whether - as you said - its conclusions support the answers (or views) you want to promote.

Like, if you want to ban smoking in public places because (a) you personally hate the smell of the smoke or the dizzy feeling you get when you inhale a whiff or (b) you want to make other people take better care of their health - but you say that [[secondhand smoke]] is dangerous to others even if this is not supported by the evidence - then you are engaging in junk science. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure hoax fits. A hoax has to be perpetrated by someone, but who's doing the perpetrating if not the scientists? There's also a rather high burden of proof to fit it into junk sceince, as you point out. I'm not sure we can yet match that burden. ''Politicians'', on the other hand, would fall into your pattern of "X is dangerous even if not supported by the evidence." I don't believe for one minute that scientists are engaging in any sort of this behavior, but politicians, not being educated in the material, certainly can; they don't have the technical background to know if their conclusions are supported by the evidence. In addition, it's a hot-button issue right now; I wouldn't be surprised if some of the politicians pushing global warming hysteria really don't believe it but just want the votes. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 20:15, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Maestro, your edits injected liberal bias, like the phone "separation of church and state" which is a liberal fiction. Your other edits also deserved reversion. Adhere to our [[rules]], please. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:43, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Okay, what didn't you like? The fact that I mention deceit was forbidden by Islamic law? Or the way I corrected a now untrue statement about Wikipedia (they now mention in their article that the drawings are 'allegedly fraudulent'). As the article stands, it says something untrue about Wikipedia. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:46, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

I read your explanation, and I still don't get it. How is mentioning Islam a liberal bias? And liberal or not, the Wikipedia embryo article simply does not say what this article claims anymore. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:48, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

: Please don't discuss a content page here. The talk pages for each content page are for that purpose. Take your comments over to [[Talk:Deceit]] and I'll respond there. But don't omit how you inserted the [[liberal]] fiction "separation of church and state," as I noted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:52, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Here you go. I won't argue about church and state, and I know that mentioning Wikipedia in a less negative sense than before raises hackles here, but Islam? I'm still stumped as to how that breaks the rules. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:56, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:Didn't Mohammed break his peace treaty with the Jewish tribes and attack them? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:08, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Your comment about [[Islam]] seemed unsupported and motivated by [[political correctness]]. Your statement about [[Wikipedia]] seemed false since the entry had the date of the [[liberal]] falsehood on [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:32, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:Well, it's your site, your rules. I was simply trying to show how universal the rule for honesty is (and I backed it up with a quote from the Koran), but, like I said, it's your ballgame. Allah Akbar. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 20:46, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
::Maestro, if you can give an exact quote from the Koran about that outlawing of deceit, then that would definitely make it supported. If so, why not add it to the article? [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 15:23, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Once bitten, twice shy, friend. Apparently my edits were a 'pile of manure' (see below)[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
::Maestro, you dumped the entire 2nd Sutra, which, after doing a search, doesn't even use the word deceit. What verse do you feel makes this point? And how does this correspond with Mohammed's later actions? You also included it along with a number of other alterations such as the "Constitutional Separation of Church and State". Guess what, if there's a rose in the middle of a pile of manure, it still gets thrown out. No one is going to do your cleaning for you. Present a polished product on its own merits and if it doesn't stick, then voice your complaints. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:25, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:Are we still arguing about this? I said above that you won. Drop it already.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

==Heading edit==

Hi. I changed a sentence in the opening header that mentions conservatives actively fighting deceit, while liberals purposely spread/encourage it. It now reads:

"Both Conservatives and Liberals at large consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, but there are claims that Liberals are more guilty of deceit than Conservatives."

I feel this is more accurate, as the original statemend suggested that each and every Liberal and Conservative were thus branded. My quote sorta smacks of overt political correctness, though, and if anybody has a better idea, please suggest/change it. [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 14:15, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:Wonderful! They'll never allow it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
::You're right. They didn't. Good call! Now, to whomever made the edit, I posit this: one of the Conservapedia Commandments says that everything must be true and verifiable. Now to make such a sweeping statement that the "huge majority" of Liberals actively practise deceit suggests that you have numbers or a study supporting your claims. So, please cite your work. And an "examples of bias in Wikipedia" doesn't count, because WP doesn't represent liberals at large.

::Also, just nitpicking here, but the way you changed the sentence makes it so it doesn't make any sense. But since I got scolded for trying to change the article, I'll leave it up to a sysop or something.[[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 19:31, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:::TK (an admin) edited it. Such talk will ban you. But I agree, if this 'encyclopedia' is going to be anything more then a joke to the majority of the non-American-conservative world (which is about 99.1 percent of the planet), they're going to have to find a balance in their edits.--[[User:Mircofixit|Mircofixit]] 22:12, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== How we differ from Wikipedia ==

{{cquote|We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.}}

The above section is quoted from the current version of [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. Under that light, I find it extremely odd to see the claims ''"Conservatives and a very small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, and there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives."'' being backed up by a conservative ''commentary'' and a conservative ''column''. Also factoring in here is the hilarious issue of backing up a completely liberal-bashing claim with only conservative opinion pieces. For what it's worth, the reference might as well read "Because we say so".

This is exactly what the above difference with Wikipedia is about: You postulate an opinion as a fact (and even claim there is "substantial evidence") and then just cite conservative journalists/bloggers/commentators/columnists (or whatever they want to call themselves) who voice their opinion. And look at how unbiased they are: "So the left, led by the slimy Media Matters organization, began a counterattack using the liberals’ favorite weapon – the lie."

Fact is: The claims ("Conservatives and small minority of liberals fight it" and "evidence that liberals are more guilty") are practically impossible to prove because they're incredibly broad and would require measurements that are impossible to perform without asking God to take a look into his divine logs.

I could claim that it's exactly the other way around while citing MoveOn and Mr. Colbert, and the claim would be exactly as valid as the one we got in terms of relying on authority and good sources.

Right now, the claim should be severely rephrased to make it clear that this is an ''opinion of some conservatives''. Everything else would be pure irony: Deceit on the article about deceit. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:00, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, I've waited several days for voices of disagreement. Considering that nobody objected, I implemented a change of the form "X claims Y" to point out that the sources are biased opinion pieces instead of authority. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 11:33, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::It's funny how my talk page proposal stays up here for almost a week without anybody objecting, but the edit doesn't even remain intact for ten minutes.
::The claim is impossible to prove, and it's broad to the degree of being opinion (or worse: fiction). Backing it up with conservative opinions only shows that there are actually conservatives aside from the author of the claim who believe this.
::Looking at the other end of the spectrum, I'm sure that there are liberal columnists and commentators who argue that there is evidence of conservatives being more deceitful. Should I cite them as authority as it is being done with conservative columnists? No, I don't think so. Opinion pieces don't become authority just because you agree with them. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:03, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::: First of all, it is a sourced claim, and what would you expect, offcourse those are conservative facts that this is based on, good luck on getting liberals to admit their deceits, and while it says "conservatives" instead of "some conservatives" it offcourse just means that most of conservatives see it this way, not necesarily all, just like you would say that Liberals are pro abortion alltho there might be some liberals who dont't feel that way. I think your addition should be reverted, in current form it sounds silly. [[User:ConanO|ConanO]] 12:39, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::::There is a claim and there are sources, but that doesn't make a sourced claim. The sources (a conservative commentary and a conservative column) show that there are conservatives who make certain claims.
::::#That conservatives consider deceit wrong.
::::#*That one is not overly bold in itself, assuming that this is just about "most" conservatives.
::::#That merely an "overwhelmingly small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong".
::::#*How do you prove such a claim? Are there polls? Did they ask a thousand liberals if they considered deceit to be wrong? Or maybe somebody made a statistic?
::::#That "there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives"
::::#*The killer. A claim that there is evidence, but where is the evidence? Where do the sources present evidence?
::::The problem with the sources is that they simply make bold claims and attacks themselves while showcasing select examples, quite likely with their own spin to them. Okay, sure, that's what comments and columns are free to do, I figure, but that doesn't change that these are ''opinions'', not authority. For bold claims like these, we need the latter, not the former.
::::Here, let me illustrate my point with "The Conservative Voice" source from our paragraph in question. Would you seriously put this into CP's [[Liberal]] article:
{{cquote|Today's liberals are intellectual terrorists who try to destroy free speech. Instead of fairness, facts, and logic, they use lies and personal attacks to attack those who want to exercise their Freedom of Speech.[http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27429.html]}}
::::See? A claim and a source. However, it simply repeats opinion as fact and thus doesn't belong into an encyclopedia article. The source is not authority, and there are no facts given to back his claims and accusations. It's a "Because he said so" situation.
::::You said it yourself: It's highly unlikely that thousands of liberals suddenly step forward and admit that they used deceit. Likewise, it's unlikely that thousands of conservatives would do that. What does this mean? Liberals deny their deceit while conservatives don't use deceit? Both sides deny it? Liberals don't do it, but conservatives deny it? Neither side uses it? That's what I meant when I said that the claim is practically impossible to prove in the form that had been there. You can give examples for either side using deceit, and you can point at people who agree with the claim, but you can't make calls like "that side does it more" based on this. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:19, 11 October 2007
(EDT)

We don't need your liberal bias here, and in any case you are compering apples with oranges. [[User:NikD|NikD]] 08:18, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

==Read My Lips==

How about Bush, Sr's, famous 'Read my lips, no new taxes' pledge while campaigning, only to raise taxes as president? Surely that was decption? [[User:Monitor|Monitor]] 13:00, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Do you have evidence that he was intending tax hikes when he was campaigning as opposed to shifting policies to deal with new fiscal realities? [[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 13:02, 8 November 2007 (EST)

As a former vice president, director of the CIA, and ambassador, I'm pretty sure that he was aware that fiscal realities can change. He was also aware that Americans wanted a candidate who would promise not to lower taxes, something Dukakis was not willing to promise. Bush looked America in the eye and said he wouldn't raise taxes. This helped him get elected. I'm sure it didn't make him happy when he was forced to raise them, but he was not a dumb man. He promised 'no new taxes,' while he was well aware they might be required. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:55, 8 November 2007 (EST)

So then your answer is "no." [[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 18:03, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Right, Dewey. After Bush made that promise, the [[Democrats]] who controlled [[Congress]] becamed determined to force Bush to break the promise. That's not deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 8 November 2007 (EST)
:Do you have evidence that congress was determined to force Bush to break the promise, or was this an example of 'shifting policies to deal with new fiscal realities' if I may quote? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 07:35, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== Haeckel fraud exposed by Behe &Jonathan Wells in 2000 ==

It appears it is likely that the Haeckel fraud was exposed to the general public by the New York Times in 2000 vis a vis Michael Behe. It also appears as if Stephen Jay Gould was not happy Gould did this. However, I do know also that [[Jonathan Wells]] also exposed the fraud to the public with his publication of the book Icons of Evolution in 2000. Please see: http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf It appears though the scientists knew it earlier:
:Adam Sedgwick, 1894
:William Garstang, 1922
:Gavin de Beer, 1958
:William Ballard, 1976
:Stephen J. Gould, 1977
:Richard Elinson, 1987
:Jane Oppenheimer, 1987
:Michael Richardson, 1995
:Stephen J. Gould, 2000 [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/wells_and_haeckels_embryos.php]

So it appears as if the deceit article is errant and the NYT or Wells exposed the fraud to the general public in 2000 unless the author of the Dec 2000/Jan 2001 article is referring to 1999 which is doubtful. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 9 November 2007 (EST)

==Broken source link==
Source #6 is a dead link and needs to be updated or removed, even so it appears to be a transcript from a talk show which is not an ideal source, actual data is preferred. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 17:47, 17 December 2007 (EST)

==I am officially leaving this website after reading this==

As the title would suggest, I am leaving this website because of this article, but not exclusively so. This article is an example of mindless hatred, lack of understanding and common human decency towards those of opposite political persuasions. You claim to be Christian Conservatives - do you even know what it means to be a Christian? Honestly, some of you would prefer spending time at a rally denying basic rights to homosexuals than time spent in a homeless shelter. I will pray for the makers of this article, and will continue to pray for the poor souls who get caught up in your immoral (Amoral) propaganda. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: Usually the [[Parthian Shots]] do better than that, "ModerateCatholic". For example, usually disgruntled users cite something more specific than vague rants. But suit yourself, and please use your real first name if and when you return. May I recommend [[liberal]] [[Wikipedia]] for you in the meantime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I will pray for you especially, you poor misguided soul. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:P.S- Is the use of the term 'Parthian Shots' a way and means for you to divert accountability for your crimes? Throwing around the term 'Liberal Wikipedia' is another example of your uncontrollable hatred. There will be a home for you in the fiery pits of hell, unless you repent. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

ModCath seems to be a poorly executed caricature. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:41, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== Pathetic Rubbish ==

There is absolutely no reason for the continued inclusion of this tripe in the article:

{{cquote|[[Deceit]] plays a central role promoting the [[liberal]] belief system with the public, as illustrated by most examples below. Many [[liberals]] promote [[deceit]] if it advances their goals.}}

It adds nothing, and is symptomatic of an abject failure to be able to make any points besides unsubstantiated insults. The insistence of even lower-echelon editors attempting to retain it is simply servile sycophancy. Material such as this reflects abominably upon this site, and unless you desire to demonstrate that this reflection is, in fact, not simply illusory, but indicative of a reality, I suggest that it be removed. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 22:46, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: "SimonA" (unlikely your real name), obviously many [[liberals]] do use [[deceit]] to advance their goals, and they are very good at it. The entry here on [[deceit]] provides numerous important examples of this. There is no doubting these examples. They were perpetrated by [[liberals]]. Feel free to try to fool users of [[Wikipedia]], but we're not fooled here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::I think Simon's point is that disingenuous people from all over the political spectrum have used deceit to achieve their goals - for every Stalin, there is a Hitler; for every Castro there is a Bush. Singling out 'liberals' as predisposed liars does not make for a particularly instructive exercise. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 01:03, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:: The point is simple: A: A list compiled by an encyclopædia that bills itself as "Conservapedia" is unlikely to contain any information that would be particularly damaging to Conservatives, ergo, the list here is not valid evidence. B: A list of 13, perhaps dubious, examples of deceit perpetrated by liberals is not sufficient evidence for a generalization of the type made, especially given the fact that the examples pertain only to an extremely small subset of the liberal population. C: Compiling a list of 13 examples of conservative deceit would not be particularly difficult. Would such a production be valid to make a generalization stating that deceit was necessary in conservative propaganda? The answer is obvious.

:: The point is that such a passage is the argumentative equivalent of kicking someone in a sensitive area. I see no reason why it should not be removed. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 23:16, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::: Many [[liberals]] don't even accept the [[Ten Commandments]], let alone think that [[deceit]] is wrong to advance their goals. You couldn't come close to 13 examples of significant [[deceit]] advanced -- and embraced -- by [[conservatives]]. Note how many of the examples of [[liberal]] [[deceit]] continued to be embraced by other [[liberals]] who recognized the [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:27, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:::: "Many [[liberals]] don't even accept the [[Ten Commandments]], let alone think that [[deceit]] is wrong to advance their goals." Entirely tangent. I'm sure many conservatives don't, as well.
:::: And I'm sure that I could. You would just have to look at Jack Chick's web site to get about 10. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 23:31, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Andy,

My point, as well as Simon's here is that there are 'bad people' on both sides of the spectrum. With this list you are childishly saying 'Liberals are bad, Conservatives are good'. Deceit exists all over the spectrum, from people of faith to none, and from Liberals to Conservatives. Your 'examples' are taken from a tiny minority of high profile Liberals, but if someone were to add a conservative example (Such as the homosexual senator who was rampantly anti-gay rights but did things to men in toilets) you would call it, 'Liberal Lies' or whatever. Again, as I have said before, I will pray for you. You really are a unfortunate misguided soul. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)

P.S- Where I come from the labels 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are meaningless. Politics is not motivated by ideology whatsoever - all parties are pragmatic centralists. Calling me Liberal as a result of ''disagreeing with you'' is not only intellectual cowardice its simply rude. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:02, 31 December 2007 (EST)

: You're wrong. [[Liberals]] often reject the [[Ten Commandments]], and [[liberals]] use [[deceit]] far more than [[conservatives]] do. The list proves it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:04, 31 December 2007 (EST)
:: Ah. I'm sorry, I thought ModerateCatholic offered a compelling argument based on everyday experience and the last two hundred years of history. Thanks for the heads-up. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 01:10, 25 February 2008 (EST)

The list doesn't prove anything! This is like talking to a ten year old child, honestly. Just keep your hands firmly around your ears and don't allow anything to get in other than stuff you completely and utterly agree with. Thank God I've more faith in the American people, because you would make me hate my own kind. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:13, 31 December 2007 (EST)

: About 90% of your edits are talk, talk, talk, in the typical [[liberal style]]. You're in violation of our [[rules]] and your petty namecalling pollutes the site. Last chance for you to convey some knowledge here. Use it or goodbye.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:23, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:OK then. Can you please explain to me the logical basis for your entry in this article? Why have you not included isolated examples of conservative deceit also? Its anti-Academic to do what you have done. 'Typical Liberal Style' - Why don't you grow up. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 10:15, 31 December 2007 (EST)

==Liberals and Deceit==

The sentence at the beginning of the article, saying that liberals engage in deceit but not mentioning conservatives, implies that only liberals deceive. This is clearly absurd, and the "references" seem to be opinion pieces by conservatives. I am new to this website, but I don't see how this article can possibly be useful... isn't this saying that conservatives never deceive, which is clearly not true? I edited this, but someone changed it back without replying to what I said when I changed it.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:18, 15 February 2008 (EST)
:Don't remove sections of this article because you disagree with them. Remember, this is a conservative site and you're not allowed to change it to a NPOV. This is not Wikipedia. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 02:26, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::I'm sorry, as I said, I am new. I thought people were supposed to edit in factual information from a conservative viewpoint, which makes sense to me. But you didn't address what I said... do you think the assertion in the article is true, that only liberals deceive? I am a conservative, and I am not perfect... I am sure I have deceived someone at some point. Haven't you? This article doesn't seem informative really, but more like just an attack. Am I misunderstanding something?--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:31, 15 February 2008 (EST)
:::This article is not about me or other conservatives. This article is about liberals who deceive and the examples are very informative. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 02:38, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::I would understand that, but it's just called "deceit", not "liberal deceit", right? Is there some portion of the code or something that I screwed up? It looks like it's just "deceit."--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:45, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::You locked the page without replying. It seems like you're actively trying to keep the page this way, but can't really defend the assertion that only liberals deceive. I came to this site because I was not interested in the little vendettas and biases on Wikipedia, but I guess now I see that there is good reason for Wikipedia policies... I regret having helped make a new article with a substantive nature here before discovering that you guys are only interested in being just as bad as the liberals.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 21:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Nobody said that ''only'' [[liberals]] deceive, but the [[liberal]] ideology does permit and encourage deceit. Regardless, I've unlocked the page for you but will re-protect it if edits do not comply with the [[rules]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:38, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::::::My point was that there was an obvious implication by only naming liberals. It would be like saying Saudi Arabians attacked the two towers on 9-11, without mentioning the other nationalities. The implication is one of exclusivity. But thank you for unlocking it, I am glad that we're interested in being unbiased and not pulling a "lib" :)--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 21:41, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:::Well, [[liberals|who]] do you think are the ones always engaging in [[deceit]]? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 02:53, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::Except that, as I mentioned earlier, it seems pretty silly to claim only liberals deceive. Conservatives are only human too, even if in general more level-headed. I mean, take the recent sex scandals in the House. There was one Republican with pretty good policies who was hitting on a congressional page. I don't remember his name, but that was fairly strong evidence of deceit. I think he had a wife! So I mean, obviously conservatives sometimes deceive, but this article implies that only liberals do. We want to be conservative, but not just LIE, right?--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)

It was Mark Foley, a Republican in the House.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:...but do you see any examples of [[conservative]] [[deceit]] on this page? Why do you think that is? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 03:19, 15 February 2008 (EST)

::I don't understand. Are you implying that the page IS an example of conservative deceit? If that is the case, I respectfully have to state that I think that is a very poor decision, to knowingly deceive impressionable young people who might go to this page. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:24, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:::No, I was just speculating is all. Draw whatever conclusions you like from the article. Also: in general, be careful. You wouldn't want accused to be accusing Conservapedia of [[deceit]], because that is a very [[deceit|deceitful]], [[liberal]] thing to do! [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::But I think Conservapedia IS being deceitful, and I'm not a liberal! This is absurd! It's like an article on cyanide stating, "Liberals have often used cyanide as a murder tool", without mentioning conservatives... the clear implication is that liberals either use cyanide or murder, not conservatives. This is just silly... God created man as imperfect, to declare otherwise is simply hubris and pagan. I am going to change it.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 18:48, 15 February 2008 (EST)

(undent) Interesting discussion! I have just come across the [[Deceit]] page for the first time, and found such an obviously absurd suggestion that it is only liberals who deceive that I felt moved to change it. Which I did, before I came to this page! I see I am not the only one who thinks the wording was silly. Do yourselves/us/your readers a favor, and don't take us for complete idiots. It is patently absurd to suggest that liberals have a monopoly on deceit. By all means use liberal examples, in tune with the proudly acknowledged Conservapedia viewpoint, but don't make the site laughable by appearing to say that only liberals deceive. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:46, 22 February 2008 (EST)

== Piltdown Man ==

Piltdown Man was indeed a deceit, but the continued use of it as an example in the teaching of evolution was not. It was a mistake made by the ''victims'' of the deceit, not a continuation of the deceit by the ''deceivers''. The statement that "evolutionists continued this deceit for decades" is seriously misleading and should be deleted or amended. I suggest a rewrite as follows: 

The [[Piltdown Man]] was a fraudulent "Missing Link" taught to an entire generation of students worldwide from 1912 to 1953 as "proof" that man had evolved from an ape-like species. <s>Darwinists officially declared</s> The Piltdown Man was declared to be authentic and <s>gave it</s> given a formal name: ''Eoanthropus dawsoni,'' in honor of the person who claimed to have found it, Charles Dawson. The British scientific establishment largely supported the validity of Piltdown Man.<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tenness5.html</ref> But the Piltdown Man was actually a medieval skull combined with a lower jaw from an orangutan and teeth from a chimpanzee, which were then placed in a gravel pit in the village of Piltdown, England. There are reports that as early as 1914 someone at the British Museum privately admitted that "a negro skull and a broken ape jaw" had been "artificially fossilized."<ref>http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_prim_suspects/KEITH/Keith_prosecution/piltdown_unmasked.html</ref> <s>Yet evolutionists continued this deceit</s> Yet this fraud maintained currency for decades, <s>teaching it</s> in textbooks (e.g., the text at issue in the [[Scopes trial]] in 1925) <s>and publicizing it</s> as well as in popular books and magazines (e.g., a 1922 book for the general market illustrated the daily life of the Piltdown Man). <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC02561355&id=L0sDgL6sPh4C&pg=RA1-PR51 ''Everyday Life in the Old Stone Age''], Charles Henry Bourne Quennell, 1922, p. 51.</ref>

: What is the specific part of it you propose changing, and why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:20, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::Reasons as stated. Proposed changes as shown above. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 09:42, 28 February 2008 (EST)

:::Interested, but not surprised, to see that my correction of the inaccuracy in the article has been swiftly reverted. I take it, then, that you disagree with my point that the perpetation of the fraud was an error, not a deliberate deceit! I tried to raise it here, and when nobody disagreed with me I thought perhaps I might be so bold... I should clearly have known better! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:04, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::: I didn't revert your change, and apologize for not responding here sooner. I don't see how you can disagree with my changes. Large-scale deceit always has perpetrators and accomplices, plus [[deliberate ignorance]]. Surely you don't doubt that the [[Piltdown Man]] had all three among [[evolution]]ists?!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:15, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::::Well, yes, I do doubt that - but I am well aware that I won't win any such argument in this forum, so I'll leave it at that! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:20, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: [[Logic]] is welcome here, Humblpi. It's a bit of cop-out for someone to say (as we often hear) that he can't win. If you make a logical argument, you will win here. But there is no logic in insisting that the crude fraud of the [[Piltdown Man]] was somehow not perpetrated by [[evolutionists]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::You accuse me of "insisting that the crude fraud of the [[Piltdown Man]] was somehow not perpetrated by evolutionists." That is not what I said. Of course the Piltdown fraud was perpetrated by "evolutionists". My point is that the ''perpetuation'' of that fraud was not a plot (and therefore not directly a deceit) but an ''error''. Those who committed the initial fraud were guilty of deceit; those who perpetuated it were not - they were ''victims'' of the fraud, not perpetrators of it. That's all, and I suggested a small change to the article to make that clearer. But you have seen fit to change it back to a twisted version of the truth. It's your website. I leave it there. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:54, 29 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The list is [[deceit]]. They are mostly [[liberal]] but that's not our fault. If you have comparable examples of [[deceit]] accepted and promoted by [[conservatives]], then let's see them here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:54, 1 March 2008 (EST)

What would be the point , you`l only revert them .--[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 09:06, 1 March 2008 (EST)

: That's called a "cop-out". If you have examples, let's see them here. If you don't, please don't pretend otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:13, 1 March 2008 (EST)

But lets be serious your not actually suggesting that conservatives have never been deceitfull have you. What about president nixon. Is he not deceitful. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 13:28, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Former President Nixon was not a conservative, and it is an affront to suggest that. Nixon was a Keynesian (A soft term to describe a socialist) who radically increased spending on social programmes and 'normalised' relations with communist nations. He was a Liberal. [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 11:15, 2 March 2008 (EST)

: That's right. By 1972 -- before [[Nixon]]'s cover-up of [[Watergate]], [[conservatives]] were so opposed to Nixon that [[conservatives]] actually tried to defeat him in the [[Republican]] primary by backing [[John Ashbrook]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:24, 2 March 2008 (EST)

SO , the fact of the matter is that he was still a deceitful person, so therefore we should include it. His behaviour was deceitful , he is deceitful , you cant change that. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:10, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Oh yes thats it any conservative that commits deceit is actually a liberal , lol , therefore it becomes liberal deceit, it doesnt even matter , as the topic is called deciet its ok to but nixon their. People can decide for themselves weither or not he is a liberal. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:13, 2 March 2008 (EST)

:To some degree that's actually true - since [[conservative]]s, and especially Christian conservative values, adheres more to the moral principles of the Bible that explicitly forbids deceit, then one who deceives is not acting like a true conservative would. [[Liberal]]s, on the other hand, does not even seem to try to maintain a moral code.
:Nevertheless, slandering Nixon is inappropriate for this page. Just because it is true does not make it relevant here. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 19:25, 2 March 2008 (EST)

== Enron... Nixon... ==

I can hardly think of two more obvious examples of deceit. Why do Nixon and Enron get removed? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:44, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:I suppose that, as explained above, they're not really ''true'' conservatives. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 12:57, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::For that matter, shouldn't people like [[Jim & Tammy Bakker]] and [[Jimmy Swaggart]] be added to the list? I would have thought they are prime examples of deceit. I'm sure there's more, but those are the only two that come to mind right now.[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 13:46, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:::IIRC, the made mistakes and were repentant for those errors. [[Liberals]] deny that they have sinned, and deny their [[deceit]]. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 13:51, 8 March 2008 (EST)

The [[deceit]] in this list is typically ''embraced'' deceit, and run-of-the-mill political lies or fraud are not included.

Keep trying, guys, but you'll have to look a very long time to find just one example of embraced deceit by a [[conservative]] against the numerous examples of [[liberal]] deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:59, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:Nixon said, "I am not a crook," and defended his own deceit. How is that not "embraced"? Enron executives maintained their innocence all the way through the trial. How are they not similarly embracing deceit? Perhaps your definition of "embraced deceit" is such a moving target as to become meaningless.-'''αmεσ''' [[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]] 14:08, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::So by your own definition ("The [[deceit]] in this list is typically ''embraced'' deceit, and run-of-the-mill political lies or fraud are not included.") Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell et al are guilty of deceit, given the way they fervently embraced (and haven't repented for) the deceit surrounding Weapons of Mass Destruction? It's a bit disingenuous to tweak the definition every time a name crops up that you wouldn't like to see in the list. Likewise, I can't see how Reagan's deceit surrounding Iran-Contra can be classed as run-of-the-mill political lies. That also seems to imply that you're willing to accept a politician who lies to you, in a run of the mill way?[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 15:28, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::: Perhaps you also think it was [[deceit]] for Bush to claim to have won the 2000 election?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::: Why would I think that? True, it did get messy before the final result was announced, but that was as much Gore's fault as anything. At the end of the day the candidate with the most votes won, fair and square. Now, snide remarks aside, shall we get back on topic?[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 15:51, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::::: Uh oh, you'd better watch yourself, or you won't have any [[liberal friendship|liberal friends]] any more. ''Gore won the most votes, not Bush!''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)

<-- Steering back on track, we have two examples that need to be considered:
* Nixon stating "I am not a crook" and then defending this statement
* Bush stating there were WMD's without evidence, and continuing this belief

I know nothing about the first, and not as much as others about the second. As for Bush winning the 2000 election, this has nothing to do with deceit, and instead with the American election system. Bush did not win because he lied about the outcome. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 16:08, 8 March 2008 (EST)

: Bush still claims he won in 2000. Some liberals would say this deceit has been going on for nearly 8 years. Do you think we should include that also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::Of course not. He won. No deceit involved. Whereas Nixon clearly exemplifies "embraced deceit". I now understand why Enron has been deleted, given that it was a case of simple deceit in the form of theft, not an attempt to influence people's political opinions etc. But surely Nixon... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:20, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::Bush ''did'' win in 2000, even though he still got less votes the way the American political system is structured allowed him to claim victory. While some extreme leftists may view this as deceit, others view it as a reason to change rather than an example of a blatant lie. I don't think anyone here is actually claiming Bush winning the election was an example of deceit, perhaps we could concentrate on the two issues others have raised. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 16:22, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::: OK, then why the obsession with Nixon? Clinton lied and was impeached. We haven't included him, why do you think there was [[embraced deceit]] by Nixon that is so much stronger than Clinton's?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::::(speaking just for myself, obviously) - I am not obsessed with Nixon, but he was once mentioned on the site and was deleted, and I queried the reason for that deletion. As far as I am aware (I haven't checked all the page history) Clinton has never made an appearance here. I am arguing against the removal of Nixon, not against the addition of Clinton. Adding Clinton might indeed be appropriate, for sure. And no doubt many other politicians of all political hues and persuasions. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:32, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::::::Any standard used on Nixon would create a horde of politicians who could be included as well. The key is to find behavior that is out of the ordinary so as to set the actions of the individual apart from his peers. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:44, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

You all seem to be forgetting something. The list says deceit, therfore any1 can be put on it including nixon. If you want it to only be an article on liberals have the guts to call it liberal deceit. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:57, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:I seem to recall it used to be called [[Liberal deceit]], but they changed it because some vandals and malcontents kept saying there should be an article for [[Conservative deceit]]. They failed to understand that [[Real Conservatives]] never lie. It's just that occasionally their true statements are non-operative in the reality-based community world at this point in time fnord.
:I've taken the liberty of adding [[Scooter Libby]] to the list. If a conviction for perjury doesn't qualify as Deceit, I'm curious what does. (oh, yeah--ANYTHING a Liberal says.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:42, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Not all convictions are necessarily just, and this one was particularly controversial. You are right however that perjury qualifies as deciet. However, I think it is best to stick to more widely accepted examples. I'm moving the scooter libby example to the talk page for further discussion. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 12:48, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Admittedly there are several other controversial examples on te page. I'll see what I can do about them. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 12:52, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

on second thought, the current examples are pretty good. However you may feel free to suggest any examples that you think are appropriate. Personaly I have nothing against exposing non-liberal deciet. I don't approve of deciet in general. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:00, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

== Umm, right ==

This article is stupid. Instead of actually giving information about deceit it just lists heaps of people who are apparently evil liberal liars. Why not actually provide information (like encyclopedias should) rather than listing "examples".

If the admins of this place want it to replace Wikipedia as the Internets main source of info, a good way to start would be to actually provide information. [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 22:28, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

: Fred, try opening your mind a bit and recognize the well-documented cases of [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Ok, I would like to insult you for your supposedly "open minded" idea of deceit, but I won't.
I'm just saying, rather than listing supposed cases of deciet, shoulden't an encyclopedia describe what deciet is and explain why and how it is used rather than just saying "all these things are eebul liberal lies!!11!" Examples are good, but they should not be the main part of an article on an encyclopedia. [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 22:07, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

As no one's replying, can I assume its ok for me to start drafting a replacement article with more emphasis on explaining dicete rather than exposing "eebul liberal lies!!11!" [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 23:59, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

==Scooter Libby==

This example has been suggested. please discuss.

# [[Scooter Libby]], convicted in court of Obstruction of Justice, Making a False Statement, and [Perjury]], for intentionally deceiving the grand jury about how he learned, and “disclosed to the media,” information about Valerie Plame Wilson’s employment by the CIA.

::Yes, that's deceit all right! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:07, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Sounds good to ME, but I'm the one who posted it, so I'm biased. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:36, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: There is no end to the list if we start posting political figures. There were many convictions among Clinton cronies also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

==Examples of deceit==

I realize that this page contains many true and valid example's of deciet, however i don't see how such a list is what we're looking for in an encyclopedia. I think this list has only proved itself a can of worms. I say we only include a description of what deciet is and perhaps one or to more classical examples of deciet such as ananias and saphira. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

:I agree. Large laundry lists don't belong in an encyclopedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:51, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

::Encyclopedia's and all reference works, can teach not only by defining a term, but showing it as well. There is an old rhyme about how a person would rather see a sermon, than hear one. By not only defining the term, but providing examples and comparisons, the job this ''conservative encyclopedia'' does is greatly improved, IMO. I do realize that to many in today's world, it seems "out of step" in a society where teaching "right" and "wrong" is held to be archaic. Remember fine counsel is often confused, but examples are always clear! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:33, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::So you agree with Ben (and I) then? I think a few in-depth, well known examples would be much more beneficial to ''any encyclopedia'' that what we have now. Deceit is a pretty simple concept, why explain it with 15 examples? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:16, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: We disfavor deleting information unless a [[rule]] violation is identified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:44, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

HelpJazz, I was saying just the opposite of what you (apparently) were saying. That good examples, which actually demonstrate, are a far better learning aid than just a litany of "facts". I would note that it appears many are overly concerned, ''albeit perhaps a well intentioned concern'', with truncating articles in CP that are "uncomfortable" to some in their uncompromising examples of [[liberal deceit]]. We see that in many places today, a few seeking to redefine, blur or minimize anything that points out uncomfortable facts about the left, and liberals in particular. Why even a factual statement about liberal thinking is branded by some now as ''ad hominem arguments'', which seems to be a new phrase introduced to truncate any and all discussion or disagreement with liberals! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:11, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:I didn't say anything about being uncomfortable, liberal deceit, minimizing criticism of the left, or ad hominem arguments, so I'll just address the relevant portion of your post.
:We are obviously both in agreement (along with Ben, who started this thread) that examples can help explain a concept. I love examples, and try to add them to new articles I create. But don't you agree that a couple of good, solid examples are better than a list of every example we can find? I think this is a more concise and more informative way to make an encyclopedia entry.
:Deceit is a simple concept; at some point all these examples stop being about deceit and start being about denegrating those who are being used as examples (both liberals AND conservatives, as can be seen in the suggestion in the section below). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:00, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I think I have dealt with the latest twist in liberals trying to shut down discussion by claiming "ad hominem arguments" elsewhere. That argument (liberal fact) is rejected by conservatives outright, and as this is a conservative wiki, has no place here. If you need the link, I think I can find it.

::As for the idea of using fewer examples, I think Andy Schlafly succinctly answered that no, removal of examples showing liberal deceit/bias is not favored. No caveats were provided, correct? I do however think such articles could stand formatting and stylistic improvement, making them easier to read, and highlighting salient points in an improved way. I stand ready to assist anyone wanting to improve Conservapedia's articles, by offering suggestions/examples/ideas as to what is acceptable to conservatives and what is not. Ed Poor, Karajou, Crocotite, Conservative, TerryH and Andy himself are a few others I know who are qualified to provide that information. If someone feels unfairly excluded, please forgive an older person a lapse in memory or familiarity with their work. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:18, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

=="The War in Iraq Is Going Well"==
Isn't that a form of embraced deceit? It's clearly ''not'' going well, and yet the Bush administration refuses to backtrack from its original position, that the war would be and essentially was won in a matter of days. We all know that's false now. Why do they not come out and say it?-[[User:Historian|Historian]] 16:31, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

: Politics is filled with issues like that. There are just as many -- if not more -- examples on the Democratic side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:42, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::True. It's no secret that politics is dirty on all sides. But if your goal with this article is to prove that no conservatives ever embrace deceit, then, I think this example should be included. Feel free to stack in as many other examples of Democrats doing the same thing as you want.-[[User:Historian|Historian]] 16:55, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::So what? We don't let Charles Manson out of jail just because Pol Pot killed more people, and misdeeds by Democrats '''DO NOT EXCUSE misdeeds by Republicans'''. If you seriously want people to believe that Conservatives have higher moral standards than Liberals, then giving "your" "side" a free pass when they've verifiably done something egregious does not help your case. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 19:01, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::"Going well" as compared to what? The Iraq situation, as compared to the more rampant random violence of months ago, is going better. The "surge", whatever one wants to call it, has improved security, and has been admitted so doing by even former Generals and the like who opposed the war. So clearly saying that isn't a deceit, as measured by military experts, not civilians. Let's not intertwine arguments for or against the American police actions in going into Iraq, or the failings of the democratically elected government of Iraq, with the much narrower discussion about the "surge". And, I think someone needs to reaffirm what Andy just posted above: Someone citing what they believe to be a deceit, doesn't negate or disprove another. Therefore, the entire purpose of the post above, has no basis in logic, and appears to be yet another argumentative ''Red Herring'', something thrown out for just the sake of argument, when that is something more appropriate for a ''Discussion Group or Board'', but does nothing to add content to an encyclopedia project. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:24, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::there is a very large diffrence between going well, and going better. your argument is like saying that since someone in a hospital is dying slower, they are doing well. and the refrence point should be... compared to just after we won the actual war (with the army) in iraq-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:32, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Let's see, we enter a country that had no connection to the 9/11 attacks and yet claim they did. That's not the liberals talking, that's the CIA. We are met with hostility and yet claim that they love us. We abuse them, and yet cry when one of our guys is killed. It is never going to be well for the States in Iraq, ever.--[[User:LordKira|LordKira]] 21:32, 15 December 2008 (EST)

== "Public schools, in contrast, do not teach that deceit is wrong." ==

I beg your pardon? Is there any evidence for this outrageous statement? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:The [[burden of proof]] is on you, and it should be a light one if you have an example in mind already. "I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::Er, that's not true. The burden of proof lies upon the one who makes the statement, in this case [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]].

'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 13:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:That's what I just said: H made the claim that the statement is outrageous and so the burden of proof is upon him. Do I have to make it a [[writing assignment]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::The burden of proof is on the person who posts the statement in the article, not on the one who queries it on a talk page. I refer you to Commandments #1 and #5 - the article should ''not be personal opinion'', and it should ''be verifiable''. So it's not me that needs the writing assignment. I agree that the word "outrageous" was an expression of my personal opinion, but that is expressly allowed on a talk page (Commandment #5). If it helps, though, I'll happily withdraw it: "Public schools, in contrast, do not teach that deceit is wrong." Is there any evidence for this <s>outrageous</s> statement? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:16, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::: BenjaminS claims it to be fact, AND since everything here must be VERIFIED, it is upon Benny to prove that his broad accusation has merit. As far as disproving it, I ask all public-school educated people to remember the time their first grade teacher taught them that lying is bad.
:::PBS (PUBLIC broadcasting) does teach this with the help of the good monsters of Sesame Street (I remember it back when it used to be a good neighborhood). '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 13:22, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Frankly, I prefer Ed's guideline. Not requiring proof of a factual assertion, and instead putting the burden on any naysayers to disprove a fact, will make writing articles much easier.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:00, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Is that a joke? Seriously, that's the worst methodology I've ever heard of. I'm going to go start an entry about the real-life Mighty Morphin Power Rangers which live on another planet at the other end of the galaxy. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:37, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Aschafly, you've reverted Lib1089's deletion of the sentence without adding any additional information. This is made worse because he expressly cited Conservapedia's first commandment in his edit summary: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". You've run roughshod over that. Please reconsider your edit and either revert it or add information that substantiates the claim. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:20, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Still awaiting a citation, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:46, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

This strikes me as a bit odd. Perhaps my public school system was more conservative than most, but we most certainly were taught that deceit was wrong. In an academic setting, that of course took the form of bans on plagiarism and cheating, which were expressly forbidden, as I imagine they are at most any public school. I would also think that some public schools have honor codes, much like the liberal elite universities all do, that stress honesty and integrity. Finally, there is no evidence that public schools specifically condone deceit, is there? [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 00:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

I just removed that statement. I'm a bit new here but I'm assuming that a statement of that magnitude, not backed up with any references, is an act of vandalism. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:24, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Boris Johnson==
Aschlalfy, you have twice reverted factual, sourced, material about Boris Johnson. Why? I didnt state he was conservative so you cant say I was trying to smear conservatives. You will notice his mistress had an abortion to rid themselves of a potentially embarrasing love child. How is this not deceit?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:57, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

== Al Gore ==
Took this one out because there was no evidence of deceit, just factual inaccuracy. Gore botched more than a few facts in that film, but there's no reason to chalk that up to anything more than his incompetence. Although, if you can prove an intent to deceive, then by all means, please revert. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 00:00, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

==Richard Nixon==
Added a rather obvious example. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:26, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==M Scott Peck==
I removed his book from the further reading list because it is not about deceit as such, but about psycopathy (Evil, in common parlance). [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 10:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== Nixon, Libby, and Enron ==

What specifically about those named above and their actions qualifies them as not being deceitful? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 12:50, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

: One-sided and opinionated examples of alleged deceit by a president or corporation do not have sufficient quality to be included in this high-quality entry, which typically consisted of significant, prolonged, embraced and admitted or proven deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:58, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
::I think Nixon's deceit was significant and prolonged. Libby was significant simply for being a high-profile person, and his deceit was prolonged. And Enron's deceit was very significant, costing hundreds of people their savings. All three had their deceit proven in one way or another. It's pretty deceitful to claim otherwise. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 13:03, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:...is it because they're not liberal...? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:06, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:I was about to post here yesterday, but I had just added the entires in question back and [[User:Bugler]] blocked me for it. The answer is that yes, of course, you will find as you continue to edit this 'encyclopedia' that examples of conservative deceit are not allowed. What I recommend is browing the edit list of [[User:Aschlafly]]. He's the owner and founder and essentially disagreeing with him is a sin. If you like that idea feel free to stick around.
:Of course, it's a blatant disregarding of the principles of Conservapedia (see [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]) but hey, he's in charge. What are you going to do? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 19:42, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Could the Bush administrations false statements be counted as deceit? [[User:Ekeegan]]

==Public school deceit==
It's not a required course, but in "Journalism" students were taught about the evils of slander, deceit, and malice. your apathetic neighborhood public schooler [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 16:43, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

==Inherit the Wind==

LearnTogether, unless you have a reference showing where Inherit the Wind is shown in public school science classes, my removal of that entry should stand. I studied it in ''Drama'' in high school, and even in that context it was never presented as "science" or the reality of the Scopes trial. In fact, the teacher used that play as an example of drama based on (then) recent events to attract interest, much as the ''Law & Order'' episodes that are "Torn from the headlines" do today. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 08:26, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:My high school showed it in science class. In discussions in college with cross sections of students from across the United States, their experiences had been the same. Recent discussions on debate boards left current high school students amazed when I pointed out to them just how far apart the movie was from the reality of the event, a film they had just seen in their science classes. I am glad your school was more enlightened. Many are not. It stays. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:51, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

::Wow, that's sad that your school and others did that (and ironic, because mine was in "Liberal" NYC). I'm not going to challenge your anecdotal evidence, but maybe a reference could be added to state that "This occurred in XYZ H.S. in NameOfState during the 19xx's, and in several other public high schools based on discussions with college students at ABC University in the 19xx's".

::Also, I'd ask that you change the following, "Both completely lied about the facts in order to harm Christianity, misleading students who read or enact the play and everyone who saw the movie.", to something like "The changes in dramatizing the story altered significant facts, misleading students who relied on the film or play as their sole reference for what happened in the actual Scopes trial." Unless you have a valid source that shows the intent of the dramatic changes was to purposefully harm Christianity, then that's just an opinion. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:35, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

==John Edwards==

Should lying about his affair go here? On the one hand, he's certainly a liberal, and it's certainly deceit; on the other hand, a lot of people would likely argue that it's part of a larger pattern of dishonesty among politicians in general ("Never admit to wrongdoing unless you have no choice.")--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:44, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

== Changes ==

Alright so I did some editing for the sake of clarification (morally wrong has much stronger connotations than simply wrong, which can be argued as to having varying degrees of severity).

Also you ought add more historical information, Plato comes to mind as they dealt with the art of sophistry fairly regularly.

I removed the comment about public schools, not necessarily because I disagree with it, but more because it was out of place and lacked any context. Indeed, secular institutions don't teach morality (a non-secular entity) unless you take a class on the subject, but even then it is conducted more in an informative matter than anything else (students are nto expected to take a stance on the issue).

Some of the examples (such as Al Gore) aren't wrong really, Gore believes some dumb things, yet deceit carries with it the connotation of WILLFULLY professing untrue things. Indeed, striking as it is, people do not have a habit of professing things they do not actually believe. Other examples could use some sources, such as the ending sentence about liberal endorsement of lying: people /were/ angry about his behavior, but they also got over it. This is not the same thing as being ok with lying.

I won't touch the scopes monkey trial example, though I will say you need some pretty concrete sources for those assertions: just because something is made to look bad doesn't mean that was intentional, sometimes the facts are arranged and interpreted incorrectly due to error and misunderstanding, not because someone is out to get you.

Otherwise this article needs some work: I suggest expanding the example section to include more historical examples of deceit, a section dedicated to analyzing the moral implications of deceit, and perhaps more about deceit from a Biblical perspective. That's all I can think of now, but I am sure there is more we can add. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 17:59, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

- Ah yes! Almost forgot: about my modification of the Evolution reference, it is within their sincere belief that $_experiment verifies the theory of evolution to varying degrees, so to claim that they are being deceitful is rather baseless unless you can cite a source of all evolutionary scientists willfully deceiving the entire world by professing something that is not. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:12, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

-- I would also prefer you'd /say something/ instead of randomly reverting peoples edits, founder of Conservapedia or not. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 20:34, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

== Bible ==

I added some insightful references from the Good Book. Is that a good decision? I'm new here.
--American78

== Jacob example ==

Is there any reason for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deceit&diff=next&oldid=512709 this revert] in particular? I don't see why the example of Jacob isn't a reasonable example of how deceit can land you in trouble. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]]

==Huckabee and Wayne DuMond==

Doesn't this classify as deceit? He vehemently denied any involvement in DuMond's release, but tantamount evidence shows otherwise, and he still denies it. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 10:45, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

== Examples ==

When possible, we want prominent examples of deceit where it is evident the individual knew what they were doing without question. So Huckabee would not be a good example, as it is unclear that he directly talked with the women or had reviewed their paperwork. Subordinates often handle much of that work and how things are presented to the governor. If a person is directly responsible, then that is different. Bill Clinton wagging his finger on TV while he talked about Monica Lewinsky is direct involvement where he obviously knew what he was doing. (In this case it was decided at an earlier time not to include that example in this article, so I am using it for display purposes only.) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:45, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:You might be right, but there's really no evidence to support that he didn't know anything about it. At a minimum, he was dishonest about disclosing the records:
::"Huckabee has refused to release his gubernatorial administration's records on the matter, saying that he was concerned for the privacy of Dumond's victims and that the records contain sensitive law enforcement information.
::...But most of the women assaulted by Dumond and interviewed for this story say that Huckabee could have made information public while guarding their privacy. Law enforcement authorities also scoffed at the idea that anything in the records would have harmed an ongoing investigation since Dumond is no longer alive ."
:And this seems to suggest two-way correspondence from Huckabee himself:
::"The records revealed in this story -- including correspondence between Dumond's victims and Huckabee, as well as the governor's own file regarding Dumond -- were provided to me in the fall of 2002 by a Republican staffer to then-Gov. Huckabee."
:I don't think we can' write this off so easily, especially when there are really weak cases, like the Michael Moore example. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:33, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::Huckabee knew what he was doing - he took the parole board into a private meeting and pushed for DuMond's release. Victims sent letters, and he ignored them. He still denies having no involvement in DuMond's release, however, which is deceit. If you'd like, I'll search for multiple sources. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 14:52, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I haven't followed this article closely and I can see it has changed over time. Our general philosophy was to note strong examples with an understanding that too many examples would water down the article itself. A choice was also made to be careful with politicians, as a case can be made for almost anyone that they were deceitful, except in the case of undeniable evidence of purposeful deceit. So questions I would have with Huckabee would be in the why arena. Are we saying the man purposely wanted to get a rapist out of prison with the knowledge he was likely to rape again? And that somehow the parole board agreed? I would imagine that based on the information presented that it appeared to be the proper thing to do at the time or else he - and the board - would not have made that decision. You'll also see that I removed reference to deceit for another politician, as I believe the reference failed to merit inclusion based upon the same standard. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:09, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:I completely agree with you in principal. I think I've said before (and if not said, I've at least thought it very hard) that there shouldn't be a list at all for a multitude of reasons. But since we have one, I think this might be a good one to go on it. I reread the article and discovered that apparently the reason that Huckabee wanted the prisoner released was that it was a major issue with his conservative voterbase, who thought that the charges were trumped up and that the victim was related to Bill Clinton (a distant cousin). According to [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/05/former-aide-contradicts-h_n_75519.html this] article that I just found, Huckabee himself did actually ask the parole board to release the prisoner. Or his aide could be lying, but there's no evididence for that either.

:So do whatever you think is right, Learn together. It sounds like I'm committed on keeping this example in, but really I just want to make sure it gets a fair read, lest it look like we are censoring conservative examples of deceit (and I completely doubt that's what you are trying to do here!!) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:40, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

== Public schools ==

[[Public schools]] do not teach that deceit is wrong. Don't censor that fact from this entry, and watch how public school students and graduates behave here to see illustrations of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:00, 1 January 2009 (EST)

== Michael Moore and Cafferty Examples ==

The last two examples are clearly not deceit. Detestable and low-class, yes, but not at all deceitful. Michael Moore's is a great example of [[hypocrisy]], not deceit. The Cafferty example may be an case of bias or stacking the deck, but again where's the deceit?

Seeing as any mention of Jack Abramoff or Nixon or Scooter Libby gets deleted because it doesn't meet the admins' strict definition for deceit, the list should be free of any weaker examples like Moore and Cafferty. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 16:15, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

*In your own, not very humble, liberal opinion, eh? Try reading more, with an open mind, the truth. It will set you free. Abramoff was a crook, giving bribes to Democrats and Republicans. Nixon's "great deceit" was a single lie, protecting underlings, when you boil it all down. Libby? Claiming he was guilty of deceit is a stretch beyond fairness. I better go look and see if Nancy Pelosi is on the list! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:25, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

::Thanks for replying. Do you want to answer the question about Michael Moore and Cafferty examples? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 18:27, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

::*Maybe. I'm still trying to figure out why this is such an issue to a student in Austria, as well as the 2010 Census, unless they are merely trolling. Moore is a propagandist, a socialist one, who uses lies to distort other's opinions, or the quality of Cuban health care. that makes him deceitful. Cafferty, did you look at the links and do your own research? Or did you just visit the Daily Kos? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:47, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

:::I read all of the links in the article. Did you read the beginning of my post? I'm completely in agreement that Michael Moore uses deceit and poor logic in his filmmaking. But by definition, the example in this article is of hypocrisy, not deceit.

:::As for the Cafferty, how is reading only mail critical of Limbaugh an example of deceit? Like I said in the original post, it's definitely [[liberal bias]], [[liberal style]], and general nasty behavior, but doesn't match the other examples.

[[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 19:20, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

::::Perhaps the best solution, then, is to suggest some better examples of deceit by Moore and Cafferty. If they do a better job of illustrating how dishonest they are, I'm sure nobody will object to adding them to the article. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:12, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

Yes, Ben, that is indeed what I am used to, rather than a picky debate over what constitutes a better reference, if an editor has a problem, find a better one! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:20, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

== Eden: The serpent and God ==

The serpent doesn't actually deceive Eve. In Genesis 3:22 God acknowledges that "the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil". Compare that to what the serpent claims in Genesis 3:5: "ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil". God even speaks of himself as "us", corresponding to the serpent's "gods". If anything, there's deceit by God: He wrongly claims eating the fruit is lethal (Genesis 2:17: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.") in order to prevent man becoming god-like. (I'm aware of the claim that God refers to the separation of Adam from God, but that seems to be a matter of interpretation; God doesn't say "you will be exiled", as he easily could have said. Anyway, exile is not a direct consequence of eating the fruit, it's a preventative measure by God that he need not have taken.) [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 22:11, 27 November 2009 (EST)

:Excellent point, but the serpent did overstate the reward from eating the fruit, wouldn't you say?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:19, 27 November 2009 (EST)

::I see no overstatement by the serpent. The serpent's prediction precisely matches God's later assessment. Whether this "becoming as gods" actually corresponds to the common view of God is debatable, of course, but since the serpent qualifies its "be as gods" statement, man probably was to become as gods in this regard only - without obtaining omniscience or omnipotence. Anyway, I find the reference to John a little dubious when Genesis is the primary source for events in Eden. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 23:38, 27 November 2009 (EST)

:::You make interesting and provocative points. I have an open-mind about it, and will consider further. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 27 November 2009 (EST)

==Muslim Obama==

"There are claims that president [[Barack Obama]] is a Muslim. If true, this would be a massive deceit of the American public. See the evidence on his biography page."

If we have to qualify one of our example's with the words "if true," does it really deserve to be in this section? Such examples are hardly illustrative. Can we stick to examples that are generally agreed upon as true?--[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 20:18, 28 November 2009 (EST)
:Unfortunately, many examples of deceit are so widespread that there is no consensus that they ARE deceit. For example, Conservapedia recognizes global warming as deception, but the mainstream media, and a significant portion of the American public, don't realize it. Similarly, just because some people think Obama is not a muslim, doesn't mean we should cave to their liberal pressure. Given the evidence for Obama being a muslim, I think it certainly belongs here. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:25, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Jacob,

::To take your example of global warming, yes, I agree that global warming is a gigantic deception. However, the purpose of this page is not to expose specific examples of deception. We can do that quite effectively on our global-warming page. The purpose of this page is to give the reader a clear idea of what deception is. It is therefore counter-productive to give examples of deception that the reader will quite possibly/probably disagree with. The same applies to Obama. We have quite thoroughly alleged that he is a Muslim on our Obama page. However, that ought not be our purpose on this page. Our purpose is to illustrate the concept of deceit, and that is best done with widely recognized examples. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 20:35, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::You make an excellent point. I think the "if true" qualifier should cover this. If a user reads this page who believes Obama is a Christian, surely they can still agree that if he was a muslim claiming to be Christian, this would constitute an enormous deceit. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:38, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::::While what you say is true, doesn't the "if true" qualifier make this statement meaningless. I could say "There are those who believe the country is run by aliens. If true, this would be a huge example of deception." Well....duh. I just said something that is true, but it was a meaningless statement. --[[User:PAZda09|PAZda09]] 21:25, 3 March 2010 (EST)

==Slander==

I think examples 17 and 18 should be moved our [[Slander]] page. They are poor examples of deceit, and good examples of slander. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 20:50, 12 December 2009 (EST)

== Deceit of public schools ==

Mr. Schlafly made [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words&diff=prev&oldid=731939 this] comment the other day. Might this be a good example of liberal deceit? The liberals in charge of the public schools deceive Americans by pretending that they are educating students, when in fact they are pushing a liberal agenda. Maybe someone else can word it more eloquently that I could? [[User:TobyG|TobyG]] 13:49, 15 December 2009 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

I appreciate the liberal desire to find some comparable conservative examples, but any additions must be '''comparable''' in significance to the existing ones, and not simply a "tit for tat." There is no reason to expect perfect symmetry by liberals and conservatives with respect to deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:10, 27 December 2009 (EST)

== Number 6 ==

Website cited for Biden example (www.famousplagiarists.com) does not exist. [[User:ArthurFredrickson|ArthurFredrickson]] 20:50, 13 March 2011 (EDT)

Chernobyl

2011-03-13T03:01:04Z

ArthurFredrickson:

[[Image:Chornobyl radiation96.jpg|200px|right|thumb|Radiation-affected areas from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant as of 1996]]
In April 1986, '''Chernobyl''' (Chornobyl in Ukrainian) was an obscure city on the Pripiat River in north-central [[Ukraine]]. Almost incidentally, its name was attached to the V.I. [[Lenin]] Nuclear Power Plant located about twenty-five kilometers upstream.

On April 26, the city's anonymity vanished forever when, during a test at 1:21 A.M., the No. 4 reactor exploded and released thirty to forty times the radioactivity of the [[atomic bomb]]s dropped on [[Hiroshima]] and [[Nagasaki]]. Thirty- one lives were lost immediately. The world first learned of history's worst nuclear accident from [[Sweden]], where abnormal radiation levels were registered at one of its nuclear facilities.

Though hardly ranking as one of the greatest industrial accidents of all time, the impact of Chernobyl disaster was wildly exaggerated. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians, [[Russia]]ns, and Belorussians were forced to abandon entire cities and settlements within the thirty-kilometer zone of extreme contamination. Billions of rubles have been spent to relocate communities and decontaminate the rich farmland.

The biggest documented health problem has been depression due to people fearing the worst of predictions. <ref>Alongside radiation-induced deaths and diseases, the report labels the mental health impact of Chernobyl as “the largest public health problem created by the accident” and partially attributes this damaging psychological impact to a lack of accurate information. These problems manifest as negative self-assessments of health, belief in a shortened life expectancy, lack of initiative, and dependency on assistance from the state. [http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident]</ref>

Estimates vary, but it is likely that some 3 million people, more than 2 million in [[Belarus]] alone, are still living in contaminated areas. The city of Chernobyl is still inhabited by almost 10,000 people.

Chernobyl has become a metaphor not only for the horror of uncontrolled nuclear power but also for the collapsing Soviet system and its reflexive secrecy and deception, disregard for the safety and welfare of workers and their families, and inability to deliver basic services such as health care and transportation, especially in crisis situations. The Chernobyl catastrophe derailed what had been an ambitious nuclear power program and formed a fledgling environmental movement into a potent political force in Russia as well as a rallying point for achieving Ukrainian and Belorussian independence in 1991. The Chernobyl plant was in partial operation from 1986 until it was fully shut down in 1993.

==Notes==

<references/>

==References==
*[http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/n3const1.gif Document of construction flaws, pt. 1, signed by Yuri Andropov (Library of Congress)]
*[http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/n3const2.gif Document of construction flaws, pt. 2 (LOC)]
*[http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/n2constr.html English translation of the above documents (LOC)]

==Links==
*[http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fschernobyl.html U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission report on the accident]
*[http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/earthshots/slow/Chernobyl/Chernobyl Changes in landscape at Chernobyl, from the U.S. Geological Survey]

[[Category:Ukraine]]
[[Category:Disasters]]
[[Category:European Cities and Towns]]

User:ArthurFredrickson

2011-03-13T02:50:52Z

ArthurFredrickson: Created page with "I do not have much experience with the wikis, but I have heard about Conservapedia and I look forward to contributing!"

I do not have much experience with the wikis, but I have heard about Conservapedia and I look forward to contributing!

Democratic Party

2011-03-13T02:43:31Z

ArthurFredrickson:

{{AmericanPoliticalParty
| party_name=Democratic Party
| party_articletitle = Democratic Party (United States)
| party_logo = [[Image:democraticpartyusalogo.png|200px]]
| website = [http://www.democrats.org www.democrats.org]
| headquarters = 430 South Capitol Street SE [[Washington, D.C.]] 20003
| chairman = [[Tim Kaine]]
| houseleader = [[Nancy Pelosi]]
| senateleader = [[Harry Reid]]
| foundation = 1832
| ideology = range from extreme [[leftist]] to [[moderate]]
| fiscalpolicy = [[Socialist]]/[[Liberal]]
| socialpolicy = center-liberal
| colors = Blue (unofficial)
| footnotes =
}}
The '''Democratic Party''' is one of the two major political [[parties]] in the [[United States of America]]. It is the [[pro-abortion]], higher taxes party, while the [[Republican Party]] is the [[pro-life]], lower taxes party. President [[Barack Obama]] and other Democrats are [[liberal]] / [[Progressive]] leftists.

Members of the Democratic Party are known as Democrats. In the 19th century the party was sometimes called "The Democracy." Today Republicans sometimes call it the "[[Democrat Party]]" as a term of ridicule. There are Democrats who claim to be more [[conservative]] than typical liberals, called the "[[Blue Dogs]]" in [[Congress]], but they often behave like "lapdogs" for the [[liberal]] party leadership when there is a controversial vote.

In the doldrums after 2000, the party roared back with major gains in 2006, which it expanded in 2008 to sweep control of the national government, and leave the GOP in a state of confusion and decline. The GOP bounced back in 2009, with near-unanimous opposition to contentions Democratic policies, especially as stimulus spending and health care reform. Polls show Obama's popularity began to sink in the summer of 2009.

The Democrats currently control the White House and hold a slim majority in the Senate, but in the 2010 midterm elections, the Republican party won decisive control of the House of Representatives; suburbs and rural areas are still more likely to be in Republican hands.<ref>[http://www.multistate.com/Site.nsf/Elections2006PostMaps?OpenPage Multistate.com] Post-Election 2006 Maps</ref> Polls show 50% of voters identify themselves with the Democratic Party as opposed to 35% for the Republican Party.<ref>[http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312 Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007] Pew Research Center, 22 March 2007</ref> The Democratic-majority Congress currently has a 55% negative approval rating, with only 31% expressing approval.<ref> [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html]</ref>

==Policies and criticism==
The views of individual Democrats sometimes diverge from the party's official stance as expressed in its national platform, however unlike the Republican party, the Democratic National Committee has not allowed dissenting opinions to share the podium on matters such as abortion at National Conventions. <ref>[http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php] , http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php, March 6, 2005</ref>

===Economic policy===
[[Image:Unemployment.jpg|thumb|241px|right|''Source: Bureau of Labor Statisitcs'' [http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2009/07/anti-stimulus-in-pictures-any-questions.html]]]
In the field of economic policy, Democrats tend to favor high progressive taxes, more regulation, and higher government spending.

The Democratic Party has historically had ties to [[labor union|organized labor]].<ref> http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/913wopoz.asp Paying Dues - The Democrats settle up with their union bosses, [[Weekly Standard]], July 25, 2007 </ref>

The [[National Education Association]],<ref>[http://www.nea.org/index.html National Education Association homepage]</ref> the largest union of public school teachers, is a backbone of the party, supplying the largest number of delegates to its national conventions.

Democrats typically state that they want to help low-income Americans, however they usually seek to accomplish this by increasing the tax burden on the wealthiest Americans.

Since passage of the Economic Recovery Act of 2009, [[unemployment]] has increased from below 7% to slightly under 10%.

===Foreign and military policy===
According to its platform, the Democratic Party has the objective of strengthening America. Democratic national leadership has been accused of being ambivalent about terrorism<ref>[http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=22045 "Democrats, ACLU Outraged Over Traveler Terrorism Screening Program"] C. Johnson, Associated Press</ref> and insufficiently patriotic.<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/01/smn.19.html CNN Saturday Morning News]Transcript: December 1, 2001 </ref> A poll conducted by [[Fox News]] released in October 2007 found that 1 in 5 Democrats – nearly 10 million voters – think the world will be better off if the [[United States]] were to lose the [[War in Iraq]].<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299374,00.html Nearly 1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War], FOX News Poll, October 04, 2007.</ref> The poll found this sentiment 3 to 4 times higher among Democrats than among moderate, centrist, and Republican voters.

===Education===
An organization affiliated with the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] called the [[Progressive Policy Institute]] claims a long-standing opposition to school vouchers.<ref>21st Century Schools Project Bulletin: Special Edition [http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900001&contentID=250630 ''Putting Vouchers in Perspective''], PPI E-newsletter 2 July 2002</ref> Jonathan Alter of ''Newsweek'' warned that opposition to vouchers might alienate some traditional Democratic voting blocs:
:"Can wealthy white liberals - many of whom send their kids to private school - really say to poor parents: 'We can have choices, but you must not?'...This is a glaring hypocrisy sitting at the heart of the liberal opposition to targeted vouchers… Right now, Democrats are in a highly compromised position on education."<ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=newsLetter&sectionID=29&NLissueID=4&articleID=11&altCol=2 Center For Education Reform, Monthly Letter to Friends No. 75], Back to School 2002.</ref>

===Environment vs Labor===
Two other important coalition groups also find themselves in direct conflict with each other within the Democratic party coalition--[[Environmentalist]]s and Labor Unions. While environmentalists support efforts like clean air and alternative fuels, for example, this creates tension with the workers of American automobile manufactures whose jobs are threatened by environmental policies such as increasing regulations and high costs. Such policies can lead to cutbacks and layoffs. Balancing these issues is difficult because some sacrifices of interests must be made by both sides.

===Healthcare===
Democratic leaders have endorsed various [[Democratic Health Care Plans]]; the question in 2009 was whether a new trillion dollar plan could pass in a time of economic crisis. On March 21, 2010, [[ObamaCare]] was passed by Congress into federal law.

Many argue that there may be some advantages to a universal health care system. Democrats generally regard [[universal health care]] to be a priority because of the appeal to poorer voters without any kind of [[health insurance]].

===Gay Rights===
White Democratic leaders --but not blacks or Latinos--consistently favor measures such as the establishment of [[same-sex civil union]]s. They mostly reject [[gay marriage]].

===Other Policies===
Democrats frequently support the minimum wage, workplace protections, the right of women to choose to have an [[abortion]], [[gun control]], gay marriage, and the separation of church and state.

==Religion==
In the United States, there is some correlation between religious and political affiliation, though people of all faiths and denominations can be found among the supporters of each of the main parties.

Historically [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] voters have had a tendency to identify with the Democratic Party; in recent decades there has been little difference. However Catholic politicians are mostly Democrats, including Speaker of the House [[Nancy Pelosi]]. However, several general ideals of the Democratic Party's platform - most notably, the party's overall support for the legality of [[abortion]] - are contrary to the position of the [[Catholic Church]].

With regard to Protestants, members of [[Evangelical]] churches in recent years have voted about 70-80% Republican. However, the large majority of Democratic Party members are Protestants. One unusual feature of the Democratic Party, however, is that it draws substantial support both from committed African-American Protestants (most of whom are Baptists) and from secular and atheist voters. The strong opposition to [[homosexuality]] found among many Black Protestants contrasts strikingly with the support frequently shown by other Democrats for the [[homosexual agenda]]. One reason for this contrast could be the Democrats' strong support for minority rights.

Democrats also generally believe that religion should be separate from public life, and as such are typically supported by the ACLU. For example, in 1999 the Congress took up a bill to protect the display of the [[Ten Commandments]]. In the House of Representatives, over 3/4ths of the Democratic party members voted to remove the display.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/18/gun.rollcall/ten.commandments.html</ref>. The measure did not pass the Legislature, and as a result when Justice [[Roy Moore]] posted a [[Ten Commandments]] display in his courthouse, the ACLU was able to have the display removed.

==History==
[[File:Dem-leaders.jpg|thumb|300px|Clockwise from far left: presidents Carter, Kennedy, Clinton, Wilson, Johnson, Truman, Jackson, Roosevelt]]
===First Party System===
Democrats claim the [[Thomas Jefferson]] founded their party in 1793 at the start of the [[First Party System]]. The [[Democratic-Republican Party]] was a political party established during the 1790's under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson and [[James Madison]]. It was generally called the Republican Party, but it had no relation to today's Republican Party, founded in 1854. By about 1816, the Federalist Party had broken up as a national organization. With its decline, the Democratic-Republican Party split into several groups. [[Andrew Jackson]] emerged as the candidate of one of these groups and was elected President in 1828.

===Origins===
Most historians regard Jackson's 1832 campaign organization as the beginning of today's Democratic Party. The Democratic Party itself traces its origin to Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party.<ref>[[World Book]]</ref> A few Democratic-Republicans, such as [[John Quincy Adams]] and [[Henry Clay]], created the [[National Republican Party]]. Adams supporters called themselves National Republicans, antecedents of the Whig and later the Republican parties.<ref>William DeGregorio, ''The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents'', Gramercy 1997</ref>

The modern Democratic party was formed during 1828-34, under the national leadership of Jackson and Van Buren, with organizations in all the states comprised of local political leaders. This became the era of [[Jacksonian Democracy]]. The Jacksonians resembled the [[Jeffersonian Democracy|Jeffersonians]] especially in terms of anti-elite rhetoric of opposition to "aristocracy" (that is, wealthy old families), distrust of banks (and paper money), and faith in "the people." By his extensive use of federal [[Spoils system|patronage]], President Jackson removed old office-holders to make way for party loyalists. With the emergence of the Whig Party, the nation now had a new party system, the [[Second Party System]], which lasted until 1854.

The party held its first national convention in 1832 to choose a new running mate for Jackson; it nominated Martin Van Buren for vice president and endorsed the reelection of Jackson. Jackson easily defeated Clay in 1832. In the political realignment of 1828-32, some of Jackson's supporters from the election of 1828, especially businessmen and bankers, switched to the opposition Whig Party as Jackson crusaded against the [[Second Bank of the United States]]. The name "Democratic Party" became common by the mid-1830s.

== Jacksonian Democracy: 1832-1854 ==
[[image:donk1837.jpg|thumb|300px|1837 cartoon shows Democratic Party as donkey ]]
The new party dominated the [[Second Party System]] (as political scientists call it; historians call it "Jacksonian Democracy", 1832-54. After 1832, the Democratic Party drew support from a cross section of the country; every group was represented. However the vast majority of rich merchants, bankers and plantation owners were Whigs, as were most evangelical Protestants. The party was strongest among traditionalistic farmers, frontiersmen, unskilled workers, Irish Catholics, and local or state political leaders. It was weakest in [[New England]], where industrialization turned most factory workers and white collar workers into Whigs, but was dominant in all other regions. The key issues it promoted were opposition to elites and aristocrats, popular democracy (in terms of voting rights and access to government patronage jobs) and opposition to the [[Bank of the United States]] (Jackson vetoed its charter renewal in 1832). The policies were known as [[Jacksonian Democracy]]. [[Image:Jackson1832.jpg|thumb|300px|left]]

Banking and tariffs were the central domestic policy issues from 1828 to 1852. The Democrats favored the [[Mexican-American War]]; Whigs opposed it. Democrats attracted Catholic Irish and German immigrants and denounced anti-immigrant nativism. Both the Democrats and Whigs were divided on the issue of slavery.

In the 1830s the [[Loco-Focos]] in New York City were radically democratic, anti-monopoly, and proponents of [[laissez-faire]]. Their chief spokesman was writer [[William Leggett]]. At this time labor unions were few; some were loosely affiliated with the party.

The economy went sour in the late 1830s with Van Buren getting the blame; he lost reelection as president in 1840 to the Whig [[William Henry Harrison]]. The Democrats gained the White House back in 1844 with [[James K. Polk]]. He had a successful term, then retired. The Democratic National Committee was created in 1848 at the convention that nominated General [[Lewis Cass]], who lost to General [[Zachary Taylor]] of the Whigs. In state after state the Democrats gained small but permanent advantages over the Whigs, until by 1852 the Whig Party was fatally weakened by divisions regarding the issue of slavery and they soon vanished.

The Democratic party dominated the North from the 1840s to 1854. Northern Democrats opposed banks, criticized corporate practices, and preached the ideals of a free society. They called for rapid territorial expansion of the United States, saying that in territorial expansion lay a means for thwarting the pretensions of the [[Slave Power]].

[[Franklin Pierce]] of New Hampshire was elected president in 1852, followed by [[James Buchanan]] of Pennsylvania in 1856. They proved poor presidents who lost control of the slavery issue, and the party, as the nation broke apart and fought the [[American Civil War]].

==Third Party System: Civil War, Gilded Age: 1854-1896==
During the [[Third Party System]] (1854-1896) the Democrats became the minority in the face of the newly formed Republican Party, which controlled nearly all northern states by 1860, bringing a solid majority in the Electoral College. A powerful Republican issue was the allegation that northern Democrats, including "Doughfaces" like Pierce and Buchanan, and advocates of popular sovereignty like [[Stephen A. Douglas]] and [[Lewis Cass]], were accomplices to the [[Slave Power]]. The Republicans meant by Slave Power the conspiracy of slaveholders to seize control of the federal government and block the progress of liberty.

[[Image:DEM1860.JPG|200px|thumb|left|To vote for Douglas in Virginia, a man had to deposit the ticket in the official ballot box.]]
In 1860 the Democrats were unable to stop the election of Republican [[Abraham Lincoln]], even as they feared his election would lead to civil war. The party split in two. The northern wing nominated Douglas, and the southern wing nominated Vice President [[John C. Breckinridge]]. Douglas campaigned across the country and came in second in the popular vote, but carried only Missouri. Breckinridge carried 11 slave states.

The Republican Party was beginning a 50-year era of dominance (1858-1910). During the war, Northern Democrats divided into two factions, [[War Democrats]], who supported the military policies of President Lincoln, and [[Copperheads]], who strongly opposed them. Historian Kenneth Stampp has captured the Copperhead spirit in his depiction of Democratic Congressman [[Daniel W. Voorhees]] of Indiana:
<blockquote>There was an earthy quality in Voorhees, "the tall sycamore of the Wabash." On the stump his hot temper, passionate partisanship, and stirring eloquence made an irresistible appeal to the western Democracy. His bitter cries against protective tariffs and national banks, his intense race prejudice, his suspicion of the eastern Yankee, his devotion to personal liberty, his defense of the Constitution and state rights faithfully reflected the views of his constituents. Like other Jacksonian agrarians he resented the political and economic revolution then in progress. Voorhees idealized a way of life which he thought was being destroyed by the current rulers of his country. His bold protests against these dangerous trends made him the idol of the Democracy of the Wabash Valley.<ref>Stampp, 211.</ref></blockquote>

The Democrats lost consecutive presidential elections from 1860 through 1880 (but 1876 was in dispute); 1884 was their next victory. The Democrats were weakened by their record of opposition to the Civil War but nevertheless benefited from white Southerners' resentment of Reconstruction and consequent hostility to the Republican Party. The [[Redeemers]] gave the Democrats control of every Southern state; the disenfranchisement of black voters in most of the South took place 1890-1900. From 1880 to 1960 the "[[Solid South]]" voted Democratic in all presidential elections (except 1928). After 1900 the key election in southern states was the Democratic primary; victory in the that primary was "tantamount to election" because the GOP was so weak.

Though Republicans continued to control the White House until 1912 (except 1884 and 1892), the Democrats remained competitive in the states, especially in the mid-Atlantic and lower Midwest, and controlled the House of Representatives for most of that period. In the election of 1884, [[Grover Cleveland]], the conservative Democratic Governor of New York, won the presidency, a feat he repeated in 1892, having lost in the election of 1888.

[[Image:1893cleveland-typewriter.jpg|thumb|350px|Typewriters were new in 1893 and this Gillam cartoon from ''Puck'' shows that Cleveland can't get the Democratic "machine" to work as the keys (key politicians) won't respond to his efforts.]]

Cleveland was the leader of the [[Bourbon Democrats]], the conservative wing of the party. They represented business interests, supported banking and railroad goals, promoted capitalism, opposed imperialism and U.S. verseas expansion, opposed the annexation of [[Hawaii]], fought for the [[gold standard]], and opposed [[Bimetallism]]. They strongly supported reform movements such as [[Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act|Civil Service Reform]] and opposed corruption of city bosses, leading the fight against the [[Tweed Ring]]. The leading Bourbons included [[Samuel J. Tilden]], [[David Bennett Hill]] and [[William C. Whitney]] of New York, [[Arthur Pue Gorman]] of Maryland, [[Thomas F. Bayard]] of Delaware, [[William L. Wilson]] of West Virginia, [[John Griffin Carlisle]] of Kentucky, [[William F. Vilas]] of Wisconsin, [[J. Sterling Morton]] of Nebraska, [[John M. Palmer]] of Illinois, [[Horace Boies]] of Iowa, [[L.Q.C. Lamar]] of Mississippi, and railroad builder [[James J. Hill]] of Minnesota. A prominent intellectual was [[Woodrow Wilson]]. The Bourbons were in power when the [[Panic of 1893]] hit; it was a deep depression and they took the blame. A fierce struggle inside the party ensued, with catastrophic losses for both the Bourbon and agrarian factions in 1894, leading to the showdown in 1896.
[[Image:Dead-dem1880.jpg|thumb|550px|In 1880 when General Hancock (right) became the presidential nominee of the Democrats, Republican cartoonists showed the Democratic party history as a horror chamber featuring atrocities in the Civil War era; the donkey" shows the party as a coalition of the rear end of the South joned to the rear end of the North]]

===Ethnocultural voting: pietistic Republicans versus liturgical Democrats===
Religious lines were sharply drawn.<ref>Kleppner (1979).</ref> Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other pietists and evangelicals in the North were tightly linked to the Republican Party. In sharp contrast, liturgical groups, especially the Catholics, Episcopalians, and German Lutherans, looked to the Democratic Party for protection from pietistic moralism, especially prohibition. Both parties cut across the class structure, with the Democrats more bottom-heavy.

Cultural issues, especially prohibition and foreign language schools became important because of the sharp religious divisions in the electorate. In the North, about 50% of the voters were pietistic or evangelical Protestants who believed the government should be used to reduce social sins, such as drinking. Liturgical churches (Roman Catholics, German Lutherans, Episcopalians) comprised over a quarter of the vote and wanted the government to stay out of the morality business. Prohibition debates and referenda heated up politics in most states over a period of decade, as national prohibition was finally passed in 1918 (and repealed in 1933), serving as a major issue in the North between the wet Democracy and the dry GOP.<ref>In the South the Democrats were mostly on the dry side. Kleppner (1979).</ref>

==The Bryan Movement==
[[Image:Mark Hanna 1896 election.jpg|thumb|290px|right|Democratic attack ad in 1896 against GOP National Chairman [[Mark Hanna]]; cartoon by Davenport depicts Hanna as a slave driver; from Hearst's ''New York Journal'']]
[[Grover Cleveland]] led the conservative, pro-business [[Bourbon Democrat]]s but as the [[Panic of 1893|depression of 1893]] deepened his enemies multiplied. The Panic of 1893 started in February 1893, a full month before Cleveland became president. Convinced that the [[Sherman Silver Purchase Act]], passed under the administration of [[Benjamin Harrison]], was largely responsible for the alarming drain on federal gold, President Cleveland called Congress into special session to urge its repeal. Congress consented, but only after bitter debate that divided the Democratic party into two hostile camps-the eastern "goldbugs" and the silver wing of the West and South that was to propel young [[William Jennings Bryan]] to the fore in 1896.<ref>William DeGregorio, ''The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents'', Gramercy 1997</ref> At the 1896 convention the silverite-agrarian faction repudiated the president, and nominated the crusading orator [[William Jennings Bryan]] on a platform of inflation through "free" silver. The idea was that minting huge numbers of silver dollars would flood the economy with cash and end the depression. Eastern Democrats, unable to accept the party's free-silver platform and unwilling to support McKinley for his tariff views, nominated their own candidate, John M. Palmer of Illinois and called themselves the National, or Gold, Democrats.<ref>William DeGregorio, ''The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents'', Gramercy 1997</ref> The [[Gold Democrats]] attracted politicians and intellectuals (including [[Woodrow Wilson]] and [[Frederick Jackson Turner]]) who refused to vote Republican.

Bryan, an overnight sensation because of his phenomenal "Cross of Gold" speech, crusaded against the gold standard. Crisscrossing the Midwest and East by special train, he gave over 500 speeches to audiences in the millions. In St. Louis he gave 36 speeches to workingmen's audiences all over the city, all in one day. Most Democratic newspapers were hostile (except [[William Randolph Hearst]]'s ''New York Journal'') but Bryan seized control of the media by making the news every day, as he hurled thunderbolts against Eastern monied interests. The rural folk in South and Midwest were ecstatic, showing an enthusiasm never before seen. Ethnic Democrats, especially Germans, however, were alarmed and frightened by Bryan. The middle classes, businessmen, newspaper editors, factory workers, railroad workers, and prosperous farmers generally rejected Bryan's crusade. Bryan was overwhelmed by [[William McKinley]] in the most exciting race in national history.<ref> Refuting Bryan's charges, historians have discovered there was little coercion of workers.</ref> McKinley promised a return to prosperity based on the gold standard, support for industry, railroads and banks, and pluralism that would enable every group to move ahead. Bryan did however, win the hearts and minds of a majority of Democrats. The election of 1896 was a political realignment. The victory of the Republican Party marked the start of the "Progressive Era," from 1896 to 1932, in which the GOP usually was dominant.

==Fourth Party System: Bryan, Wilson, Progressivism: 1896-1932 ==
The [[Fourth Party System]] began with the 1896 election, a realignment during which the GOP controlled the presidency for 28 of 36 years. The GOP dominated most of the Northeast and Midwest, and half the West. Bryan, with a base in the South and Plains states, was strong enough to get the nomination in 1900 (losing to McKinley) and 1908 (losing to Taft). [[Theodore Roosevelt]] dominated the first decade of the century—and to the annoyance of Democrats "stole" the trust issue by crusading against trusts.

[[Image:Steal~trust.JPG|thumb|250px|[[Theodore Roosevelt]] steals the anti-trust issue from the Democrats, 1904]]

Anti-Bryan conservatives controlled the convention in 1904, but they faced a [[Theodore Roosevelt]] landslide. Bryan dropped his free silver and anti-imperialism rhetoric and supported mainstream progressive issues, such as the income tax, anti-trust, and direct election of Senators. He backed [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912, was rewarded with the State Department, then resigned in protest against Wilson's non-pacifistic policies in 1916. Northern Democrats were progressive on most issues, but generally opposed prohibition, were lukewarm regarding woman's suffrage, and were reluctant to undercut the "boss system" in the big cities.

Taking advantage of a deep split in the GOP, the Democrats took control of the House in 1910, and elected the intellectual reformer [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912 and 1916. Wilson successfully led Congress to a series of Progressive laws, including a reduced tariff, stronger antitrust laws, the [[Federal Reserve System]], hours-and-pay benefits for railroad workers, and outlawing of child labor (which was reversed by the Supreme Court). Furthermore, constitutional amendments for prohibition and woman suffrage were passed in his second term. In effect, Wilson laid to rest the issues of tariffs, money and antitrust that had dominated politics for 40 years. Wilson led the U.S. to victory in the World War, and turned his attention to foreign affairs. He wrote parts of the [[Versailles Treaty]], especially the new [[League of Nations]]. But in 1919 Wilson's political skills faltered, and suddenly everything turned sour. The Senate rejected Versailles and the League, a nationwide wave of strikes and violence caused unrest, and Wilson's health collapsed. The GOP came roaring back in a landslide in 1920, as [[Warren G. Harding]] defeated a Democratic ticket memorable for having [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] as the vice presidential nominee.

[[Image:D-Edge-Congress.JPG|thumb|300px|Before 1932 Republicans usually controlled Congress; after 1932 the Democrats usually were in control]]

At the 1924 Democratic National Convention, the big fight was over a resolution denouncing by name the [[Ku Klux Klan]]; it was pushed by New York governor [[Al Smith]] and Alabama Senator [[Oscar W. Underwood]] in order to embarrass the front-runner, [[William McAdoo]] of California. After furious debate, the resolution failed by just a single vote. The KKK faded away soon after, but the deep split in the party over cultural issues, especially Prohibition, facilitated Republican landslides in 1920, 1924 and 1928. However [[Al Smith]] did build a strong Catholic base in the big cities in 1928, and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]'s election as Governor of New York that year brought a new leader to center stage.

== Fifth Party System: The New Deal ==
[[Image:509px-FDR in 1933.jpg|thumb|left|180px|President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)]]
The [[Wall Street Crash 1929|stock market crash of 1929]] and the ensuing [[Great Depression]] set the stage for a more progressive government and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] won a [[landslide victory]] in the [[U.S. presidential election, 1932|election of 1932]], campaigning on a platform of "Relief, Recovery, and Reform." This came to be termed "[[New Deal|The New Deal]]" after a phrase in his acceptance speech. The Democrats also swept to large majorities in both houses of Congress, and among state Governors. Roosevelt altered the nature of the Party, away from laissez-faire capitalism, and towards an ideology of economic regulation and insurance against hardship. Conservative Democrats were outraged; led by [[Al Smith]] they formed the [[American Liberty League]] in 1934 and counterattacked. They failed and either retired from politics or joined the GOP. A few of them, such as [[Dean Acheson]] found their way back to the Democratic Party.

After making gains in Congress in 1934 Roosevelt moved left and embarked on an ambitious legislative program called "The Second New Deal." It was characterized by building up labor unions, nationalizing welfare by the [[WPA]] (which 2 million employed unemployed men), setting up [[Social Security]] and raising taxes on business profits.<ref> In general the New Deal, 1933-40, did not raise taxes, except for the Social Security tax that went into effect in 1937.</ref>

Roosevelt's [[New Deal]] programs focused on job creation through public works projects as well as Social Security. In the name of "reform" it imposed strong regulations on the banking and financial system, transportation, communications, stock markets and labor-management relations.

Roosevelt successfully built up the "[[New Deal Coalition]]", a powerful coalition of voters and interest groups that supported liberalism. Key components included big city machines and labor unions. Key voter groups included traditional Democrats, white Southerners, Catholics, Jews, and liberals, as well as many blacks. This united voter base allowed Democrats to be elected to Congress and the presidency for much of the next 30 years.

After a sweeping landslide reelection in 1936--losing only Maine and Vermont--Roosevelt stunned the nation, and his party, by calling for legislation to enlarge the Supreme Court by five new members. A firestorm of opposition erupted, led by his own vice president [[John Nance Garner]]. Roosevelt was defeated by an alliance of Republicans and conservative Democrats, who formed a [[Conservative coalition]] that managed to block nearly all liberal legislation. (Only a minimum wage law got through.) Angry with the conservative wing of his own party, Roosevelt tried to destroy it. In 1938, he actively campaigned against five incumbent conservative Democratic senators; all five senators won re-election.

Under FDR, the Democratic Party became identified closely with modern liberalism, which included the promotion of social welfare, unions and regulation of the economy. Civil rights were not on the party agenda at this time.

==Truman to Kennedy: 1945-1963==
Harry Truman took over unexpectedly in 1945, and the rifts inside the party that Roosevelt had papered over began to emerge. Former Vice President [[Henry A. Wallace]] denounced Truman as a war-monger for his anti-Soviet programs, the [[Truman Doctrine]], [[Marshall Plan]], and [[NATO]]. By cooperating with internationalist Republicans, Truman succeeded in defeating isolationists on the right and pro-Soviets on the left to establish a [[Cold War]] program that lasted until the fall of Communism in 1991. Wallace supporters and fellow travelers of the far left were pushed out of the party and the CIO in 1946-48 by young anti-Communists like [[Hubert Humphrey]], [[Walter Reuther]], and [[Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.]]. [[Hollywood]] emerged in the 1940s as an importance new base in the party, led by movie-star politicians such as [[Ronald Reagan]], who at this point in time strongly supported Roosevelt and Truman.<ref> Reagan became a conservative around 1960, saying the Democratic party had left him.</ref>

On the right the Republicans blasted Truman’s domestic policies. "Had Enough?" was the winning slogan as Republicans recaptured Congress in 1946. Many party leaders were ready to dump Truman, but they lacked an alternative. Truman counterattacked, pushing [[J. Strom Thurmond]] and his [[Dixiecrats]] out, and taking advantage of the splits inside the GOP. He was reelected in a stunning surprise. However all of Truman’s Fair Deal proposals, such as universal health care were defeated by the [[Conservative Coalition]] in Congress. His seizure of the steel industry was reversed by the Supreme Court.
In foreign policy, Europe was safe but troubles mounted in Asia. China fell to the Communists in 1949. Truman entered the [[Korean War]] without formal Congressional approval—the last time a president would ever do so. When the war turned to a stalemate in 1951 he fired General [[Douglas MacArthur]], a hero to conservatives. Republicans blasted Truman's failure to stop Communist gains in Asia. A series of petty scandals among friends and buddies of Truman further tarnished his image, allowing [[Dwight Eisenhower]] and the Republicans in 1952 to crusade against "Korea, Communism and Corruption." Truman dropped out of the presidential race early in 1952, leaving no obvious successor. The convention nominated [[Adlai Stevenson]] in 1952 and 1956, only to see him overwhelmed by two Eisenhower landslides.

[[Image:1952-32.jpg|thumb|480px|right|Stevenson and labor unions warn against a return of the Republican policies of Herbert Hoover in 1952 campaign poster]]

In Congress the powerful duo of House Speaker [[Sam Rayburn]] and Senate Majority leader [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] held the party together, often by compromising with Eisenhower. In 1958 the party made dramatic gains in the midterms and seemed to have a permanent lock on Congress. Indeed, Democrats had majorities in the House every election from 1930 to 1992 (except 1946 and 1952). Most southern Congressmen were conservative Democrats, however, and they usually worked with conservative Republicans. The result was a [[Conservative Coalition]] that blocked practically all liberal domestic legislation from 1937 to the 1970s, except for a brief spell 1964-65, when Johnson neutralized its power.

The nomination of [[John F. Kennedy]] in 1960 energized the Catholic population, which jammed motorcades and turned out in heavy numbers (over 80% voted for Kennedy), while also causing a backlash among white Protestants (over 70% of whom voted for Republican candidate [[Richard Nixon]]. Reaching beyond the traditional Irish, German, Italian and Polish Catholic ethnics, Viva Kennedy set out to mobilize the previously passive Latino vote, and it perhaps provided the margin of victory for Kennedy in Texas and New Mexico. Kennedy's victory reinvigorated the party. His youth, vigor and intelligence caught the popular imagination. In foreign policy he was strongly anti-Communist, and promptly launched an invasion of casto's Cuba; it failed badly. A few new programs like the Peace Corps harnessed idealism. In terms of legislation, Kennedy was stalemated by the [[Conservative Coalition]], and anyway his proposals were all cautious and incremental. In three years he was unable to pass any significant new legislation.

Kennedy's election did mark the coming of age of the Catholic component of the New Deal Coalition. After 1964 middle class Catholics started voting Republicans in the same proportion as their Protestant neighbors. Except for the Chicago of [[Richard J. Daley]], the last of the Democratic machines faded away. His involvement in Vietnam proved momentous, for his successor Lyndon Johnson decided to stay, and double the investment, and double the bet again and again until over 500,000 American soldiers were fighting in that small country.

==Civil Rights, Riots, War and collapse of the New Deal Coalition==
[[Image:LBJ-64.jpg|280px|left|thumb|President Lyndon Johnson ran for reelection in the shadow of Kennedy]]

The New Deal Coalition began to fracture as union and religious leaders demanded support for [[civil rights]], upsetting the party's traditional base of conservative Southern Democrats. After Harry Truman's platform showed support for civil rights and anti-segregation policies during the 1948 Democratic National Convention, many Southern Democratic delegates decided to split from the Party and formed the "[[Dixiecrats]]," led by [[South Carolina]] governor [[Strom Thurmond]] (who, as a Senator, would later join the Republican Party). Over the next few years, many conservative Democrats in the "[[Solid South]]" drifted away from the party. By 1940 most northern Blacks had shifted to the Democratic Party due to its New Deal relief programs and support for civil rights.

The party's dramatic reversal on civil rights issues culminated when Democratic President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] signed into law the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]]. The new laws ended segregation and also ended the main argument Democrats had used to block Republican gains in the South (that is, only the Democrats could protect segregation). The South became competitive in presidential politics in the 1970s and 1980s, giving strong support to Republican Ronald Reagan and rejecting the liberal northern candidates. The Democrats responded by nominating Southerners (Carter in 1976 and 1980, Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Gore in 2000). Few southern states were won by Democratic presidential candidates from the North (Humphrey in 1968, McGovern in 1972, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, Kerry in 2004). At the state and local level the Republicans made slow, steady gains, especially among upscale middle class whites and migrants from the North. By the 1990s the GOP was competitive at the state and local level throughout the South. The Democrats made gains in the west, converting California to a Democratic stronghold and gaining in fast-growing Arizona and Nevada. The Northeast became more and more a Democratic enclave, especially after 2006 when numerous Republican moderates were defeated for reelection. the Midwest remained a battleground. The Democrats made strong gains in Illinois, but slipped a little in Minnesota.
[[Image:Demfight1968.jpg|thumb|290px|By 1968 Democrats were bitterly fighting over Vietnam and the failures of the Great Society]]

==1968 to 1999==
The Democratic party split five ways in 1968 and became the minority party in presidential elections for decades; after 1964 they won a majority of the presidential vote only in 2008.

[[Image:Carter.jpg|thumb|right|180px|Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976 and defeated in 1980.]]
In 1972, the Democrats nominated Sen. [[George McGovern]] (SD) as the presidential candidate on a platform which advocated, among other things, U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam and a guaranteed minimum income for all Americans. McGovern's forces at the national convention ousted Mayor [[Richard J. Daley]] and the entire Chicago delegation, replacing them with insurgents led by [[Jesse Jackson]]. After it became know that McGovern's running mate, [[Thomas Eagleton]], had received electric shock therapy, McGovern said he supported Eagleton "1000%" but he was soon forced to drop him and find a new running mate. With his campaign stalled for several weeks McGovern finally selected [[Sargent Shriver]], a Kennedy-in-law who was close to Mayor Daley. On July 14, 1972, McGovern appointed his campaign manager, Jean Westwood as the first woman chair of the Democratic National Committee. McGovern was defeated in a landslide by incumbent [[Richard Nixon]], winning only Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. The [[Watergate affair]] of 1973-74 made corruption a central issue, especially after [[Gerald Ford]] pardoned Nixon in September 1974. The Democrats made major gains in the 1974 off-year elections.

In 1976, mistrust of the administration, complicated by a combination of economic recession and inflation, sometimes called ''[[stagflation]]'', led to Ford's narrow defeat in 1976 by [[Jimmy Carter]], a former governor of Georgia.

Carter represented the total outsider, who promised honesty in government. He had served as a naval officer, a farmer, a state senator, and a one-term governor. His only experience with federal politics was when he chaired the Democratic National Committee's congressional and gubernatorial elections in 1974. Some of Carter's major accomplishments consisted of the creation of a national energy policy and the consolidation of governmental agencies, resulting in two new cabinet departments, the [[United States Department of Energy]] and the [[United States Department of Education]]. Carter also successfully deregulated the trucking, airline, rail, finance, communications, and oil industries, bolstered the [[social security]] system, and appointed record numbers of women and minorities to significant government and judicial posts. He also enacted strong legislation on environmental protection, through the expansion of the [[National Park Service]] in [[Alaska]], creating 103 million new acres of land. In foreign affairs, Carter's accomplishments consisted of the [[Camp David Accords]], the [[Panama Canal Treaties]], the creation of full diplomatic relations with the [[People's Republic of China]], and the negotiation of the [[SALT II]] Treaty. In addition, he championed human rights throughout the world and used human rights as the center of his administration's foreign policy.

Even with all of these successes, Carter failed to implement a national health plan or to reform the tax system, as he had promised in his campaign. Inflation was also on the rise. Abroad, the Iranians held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days, and Carter's diplomatic and military rescue attempts failed. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan later that year weakened the perception Americans had of Carter. Even though he had already been defeated for re-election, Carter fortunately was able to negotiate the release of every American hostage. They were lifted out of Iran minutes after Reagan was inaugurated and Carter served as Reagan's emissary to greet them when they arrived in Germany. In 1980, Carter defeated liberal champion [[Edward Kennedy]] to gain renomination, but lost to conservative [[Ronald Reagan]] by a landslide. The Democrats lost 12 Senate seats, and for the first time since 1954, the Republicans controlled the Senate. The House, however, remained in Democratic hands.

===1980s: Battling Reaganism===
Instrumental in the election of Republican [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980, were Democrats who supported many conservative policies. Among legislators, one of the most prominent of these consevative Democrats was Georgia congressman and second chairman of the [[John Birch Society]], [[Larry McDonald]], who was a passenger on [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] shot down by the Soviets near [[Moneron Island]] on Sept. 1, 1983. The "Reagan Democrats" were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterward, but they voted for [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980 and 1984 (and for [[George H. W. Bush]] in 1988), producing their landslide victories. They were mostly white ethnics in the Northeast who were attracted to Reagan's social conservatism on issues such as abortion, and to his strong foreign policy. They did not continue to vote Republican in 1992 or 1996, so the term fell into disuse except as a reference to the 1980s. The term is not used to describe southern whites who became permanent Republicans in presidential elections. Stanley Greenberg, a Democratic pollster analyzed white ethnic voters, largely unionized auto workers, in suburban Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for Kennedy in 1960 and 66 percent for Reagan in 1984. He concluded that Reagan Democrats no longer saw Democrats as champions of their middle class aspirations, but instead saw it as being a party working primarily for the benefit of others, especially African Americans and the very poor. Bill Clinton targeted the Reagan Democrats with considerable success in 1992 and 1996.

[[Image:Liberal1984.jpg|thumb|350px]] The failure to hold the Reagan Democrats and the white South led to the final collapse of the [[New Deal coalition]]. Reagan carried 49 states against former Vice President and Minnesota Senator [[Walter Mondale]], a New Deal stalwart, in 1984. Massachusetts Governor [[Michael Dukakis]], running not as a New Dealer but as an efficiency expert in public administration, lost by a landslide in 1988 to Vice President [[George H. W. Bush]].

In response to these landslide defeats, the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] was created. It worked to move the Party rightwards to the ideological center in order to recover some of the fundraising that had been lost to the Republicans due to corporate donors supporting Reagan. With the Party retaining left-of-center supporters as well as supporters holding moderate or conservative views on some issues, the Democrats became generally a "big tent" or "catch all party" with widespread appeal to most opponents of the Republicans.

===The South Becomes Republican===
In the century after the end of [[Reconstruction]] in 1877, the white South identified with Democratic Party. The Democrats' lock on power was so strong, the region was called the [[Solid South]]. The Republicans only controlled parts of the Appalachian mountains, but they sometimes did compete for statewide office in the border states. Before 1964, the southern Democrats saw their party as the defender of the southern way of life, which included a respect for states' rights and an appreciation for traditional southern values. They repeatedly warned against the aggressive designs of Northern liberals and Republicans, as well as civil rights activists whom they denounced as "outside agitators."

However, between 1964 and 2004, the Democratic Party's lock on the South was broken. The long-term cause had to do with the South becoming more like the rest of the nation. It could not long stand apart in terms of racial segregation. Modernization had brought factories, national businesses, and larger, more cosmopolitan cities to the South, as well as millions of migrants from the North and more opportunities for higher education. Meanwhile, the cotton and tobacco economy of the traditional rural South faded away, as former farmers commuted to factory jobs.

Integration and the civil rights movement caused enormous controversy in the white South, with many attacking it as a violation of states' rights. When segregation was outlawed by court order and by the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, a die-hard element resisted integration, led by Democratic governors [[Orval Faubus]] of Arkansas, [[Lester Maddox]] of Georgia, and, especially [[George Wallace]] of Alabama. These populist governors appealed to a less-educated, blue-collar electorate that on economic grounds favored the Democratic Party, but opposed desegregation. After 1965 most Southerners accepted integration (with the exception of public schools). Believing themselves betrayed by the Democratic Party, traditional white southerners joined the new middle-class and the Northern transplants in moving toward the Republican Party. Meanwhile, newly enfranchised Black voters began supporting Democratic candidates at the 80-90-percent levels, producing Democratic leaders such as [[Julian Bond]] and [[John Lewis]] of Georgia, and [[Barbara Jordan]] of Texas. Just as Martin Luther King had promised, integration had brought about a new day in Southern politics, freeing both blacks and whites from old hatreds and fears.

Using issues of cultural conservatism, especially opposition to abortion and homosexuality and support for school prayer, Republicans attracted strong majorities among evangelical Christians. They were nationwide, but strongest in the South; before to the 1980s they were largely apolitical. Exit polls in 2004 showed that Bush led Kerry by 70-30% among Southern whites, who comprised 71% of the voters. Kerry had a 90-9 lead among the 18% of Southern voters who were black. One third of the Southern voters said they were white evangelicals; they voted for Bush by 80-20.<ref> See the exit polls at [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.3.html |date=[[2004-11-02]]|accessdate=2006-11-18]</ref>

===1990s===

In the 1990s the Democratic Party revived itself, in part by moving to the right on economic and social policy. President [[Bill Clinton]], who defeated the incumbent [[George H. W. Bush]] in 1992, implemented a balanced federal budget and [[welfare reform]] (cutting benefits and requiring many recipients to take jobs), traditionally conservative causes. Labor unions, which had been steadily losing membership since the 1960s, found they had also lost political clout inside the Democratic Party: Clinton enacted the [[NAFTA]] free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico over the strong objection of these labor unions, much to the disappointment of those on the left of the party. The [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] took control of both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate after the 1994 election. Clinton was impeached in 1998 and subsequently acquitted in 1999.

When the [[DLC]] attempted to move the Democratic agenda in favor of more centrist positions, prominent Democrats from both the centrist and conservative factions assumed leadership of the party and its direction. Some liberals and progressives felt alienated by the Democratic Party, which they felt had become unconcerned with the interests of the common people and left-wing issues in general. Some Democrats challenged the validity of such critiques, citing the Democratic role in pushing for progressive reforms.

==21st century==
===Election of 2000===
During the presidential election of 2000, the Democrats chose Vice President [[Al Gore]] to be the party's candidate for the presidency. Gore and [[George W. Bush]], the Republican candidate and son of former President George H.W. Bush, disagreed on a number of issues, including abortion, gun control, environmentalism, gay rights, tax cuts, foreign policy, public education, global warming, judicial appointments, and affirmative action. Nevertheless, Gore's affiliation with Clinton and the DLC caused critics—Green Party presidential candidate [[Ralph Nader]] in particular—to assert that Bush and Gore were too similar, especially on free trade, reductions in social welfare, and the death penalty. "We want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them," Nader's closest advisor said.<ref>Harry G. Levinem "Ralph Nader, Suicide Bomber." ''The Village Voice'' May 3, 2004 at [http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0418,levine,53179,1.html] </ref>

Gore won a popular plurality of over 500,000 votes over Bush, but lost in the electoral vote by four votes. In a close election anything can be decisive, but many angry Democrats blamed Nader's third-party spoiler role for Gore's defeat. Controversy plagued the election, and Gore largely dropped from politics for years; by 2005 however he was making speeches critical of Bush's foreign and environmental policies.

Despite Gore's close defeat, the Democrats gained five seats in the Senate (including the election of [[Hillary Clinton]] in New York), to turn a 55-45 Republican edge into a 50-50 split (with a Republican Vice President breaking a tie). However, when Republican Senator [[Jim Jeffords]] of Vermont decided in 2001 to become an independent and caucus with the Democrats, the majority status shifted along with the seat, including control of the floor (by the Majority Leader) and control of all committee chairmanships. However, the Republicans regained their Senate majority with gains in 2002 and 2004, leaving the Democrats with only 44 seats, the fewest since the 1920s.

===2001-2003===
In the aftermath of the [[9-11 Attacks]], the nation's focus was changed to issues of national security. All but one Democrat<ref> Representative [[Barbara Lee]] of Texas</ref> joined the Republicans to authorize President Bush to invade invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. House leader [[Richard Gephardt]] and Senate leader [[Thomas Daschle]] pushed Democrats to vote for the [[USA PATRIOT Act]] and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Democrats were split over entering Iraq in 2003 and increasingly expressed concerns about both the justification and progress of the [[War on Terrorism]], as well as the domestic effects, including supposed threats to civil rights and civil liberties from the PATRIOT Act. Senator [[Russ Feingold]] was the only Senator to vote against the act; it received more resistance when it came up for renewal, but was renewed in 2006.

In the wake of the financial fraud scandal of the [[Enron Corporation]] and other corporations, Congressional Democrats pushed for a legal overhaul of business accounting with the intention of preventing further accounting fraud. This led to the bipartisan [[Sarbanes-Oxley Act]] in 2002. Economic issues did not work well in 2002, as the Democrats lost a few seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. They lost three seats in the Senate. While Democrats gained governorships in New Mexico (where [[Bill Richardson]] was elected), Arizona ([[Janet Napolitano]]) and Wyoming ([[Dave Freudenthal]]), other Democrats lost governorships in South Carolina ([[Jim Hodges]]), Alabama ([[Don Siegelman]]) and, for the first time in more than a century, Georgia ([[Roy Barnes]]). The election led to another round of soul searching about the party's narrowing base. The party's miseries mounted in 2003, when a voter recall unseated their unpopular governor of California, [[Gray Davis]], and replaced him which a charismatic liberal Republican [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. By the end of 2003 the four largest states had Republican governors: California, Texas, New York and Florida.

===Election of 2004===
The 2004 campaign began in late 2002, when Gore said he would not run again. [[Howard Dean]], former Governor of Vermont, an opponent of the war and a critic of the Democratic establishment, was the front-runner leading into the Democratic primaries. Dean had immense grassroots support, especially from the left wing of the party. Massachusetts Senator [[John Kerry]], a more centrist figure with heavy support from the [[Democratic Leadership Council]], was nominated because he was seen as more "electable" than Dean. Democrats moved to populist anti-business positions that denounced free trade and the [[NAFTA]] agreement. The party rhetoric attacked the Bush administration rather than propose alternative programs.

In the end, Kerry lost both the popular vote (by 3 million out of over 120 million votes cast) and the [[Electoral College]]. Republicans also gained four seats in the Senate and three seats in the House of Representatives, and for the first time since 1952, the Democratic leader of the Senate lost re-election. In the end, there were 3,660 Democratic state legislators across the nation to the Republicans' 3,557. Democrats gained governorships in Louisiana, New Hampshire and Montana. However, they lost the governorship of Missouri and a legislative majority in Georgia, which had long been a Democratic stronghold.

There were many reasons for the defeat. After the election most analysts concluded that Kerry was a poor campaigner.<ref>Evan Thomas and Staff of Newsweek,''Election 2004: How Bush Won and What You Can Expect in the Future''(2005)</ref> A group of Vietnam veterans opposed to Kerry called the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" undercut Kerry's use of his military past as a campaign strategy. Kerry was unable to reconcile his initial support of the [[Iraq War]] with his opposition to the war in 2004, or manage the deep split in the Democratic Party between those who favored and opposed the war. Republicans ran thousands of television commercials to argue that Kerry had flip-flopped on Iraq. When Kerry's home state of Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, the issue split liberal and conservative Democrats and independents (Kerry publicly stated throughout his campaign that he opposed same sex marriage, but favored civil unions). Republicans exploited the same-sex marriage issue by promoting ballot initiatives in 11 states that brought conservatives to the polls in large numbers; all 11 initiatives passed. Some Democrats argued that flaws in vote-counting systems may also have played a role in Kerry's defeat in Ohio. Other factors include a healthy job market, a rising stock market, strong home sales, and low unemployment.

After the 2004 election, prominent Democrats began to rethink the party's direction, and a variety of strategies for moving forward were voiced. Some Democrats proposed moving towards the right; others demanded that the party move more to the left and become a stronger opposition party. . Rethinking the party's position on gun control became a matter of discussion, brought up by [[Howard Dean]], [[Bill Richardson]], [[Brian Schweitzer]] and other Democrats who had won governorships in states where Second Amendment rights were important to many voters.

===2005 - 2007===
These debates were reflected in the 2005 campaign for Chairman of the [[Democratic National Committee]], which [[Howard Dean]] won. He sought to move the Democratic strategy away from the establishment, and bolster support for the party's state organizations, even in Red states.

When the 109th Congress convened in 2005, [[Harry Reid]], the new Senate Minority Leader, tried to convince the Democratic Senators to vote more as a bloc on important issues; he forced the Republicans to abandon their push for privatization of Social Security. In 2005, the Democrats retained their governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, electing [[Tim Kaine]] and [[Jon Corzine]], respectively. However, the party lost the mayoral race in New York City, a Democratic stronghold, for the fourth straight time.

In 2006, with scandals involving Republican lobbyist [[Jack Abramoff]], as well as GOP House leader [[Tom DeLay]], Ohio GOP governor [[Bob Taft]] and others, the Democrats used the slogan "Culture of corruption." Negative public opinion on the war in Iraq, along with widespread dissatisfaction among conservatives over government spending, dragged President Bush's job approval ratings down to the lowest levels of his presidency. To win control the Democrats had to add 15 seats in the House (they added 30), and 6 in the Senate (they added 6).

The Democratic Party's electoral success has been attributed to running relatively conservative Democrats in close seats, such as the Senate races in Virginia, Pennsylvania and Montana. <ref> Dewan Shaila and Anne E. Kornblut, "In Key House Races, Democrats Run to the Right," ''New York Times,'' 2006-10-30; but compare Rick Perlstein, "Who deserves credit for the Democratic comeback?" ''The New Republic'' 2006-11-08]] at [https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=w061106&s=perlstein110806] </ref> Exit polling suggested that corruption was a key issue for many voters.<ref>CNN, "Corruption named as key issue by voters in exit polls," 2006-11-08 at [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/election.exitpolls/] </ref>

In 2006 Democrats gained a majority of governorships and made gains in many state legislatures. No Democratic incumbent was defeated in any major race.
===2007-2010===
[[File:Obama_approval_index_december_22_2009.jpg‎|thumb|250px]]
House Democrats chose Rep. [[Nancy Pelosi]] of California for Speaker, the first woman ever, but rejected her choice for Majority Leader. Senate Democrats promoted Harry Reid to Majority Leader. Neither have been very effective.

The presidential campaign of 2008 featured a remarkable duel between Obama--the first major black candidate, and [[Hillary Clinton]], the first major woman contender. Obama won with his charismatic oratory and his highly efficient fund-raising and strong organization in the caucus states, while Clinton went downscale to pick up big majorities among poor whites and Hispanics. The contest between Obama and GOP nominee [[John McCain]] was very close until September, when the collapse of the financial system soured the voters on the GOP.

The [[Obama Administration]] got off to a fast start in 2009, especially in vigorous efforts to combat the [[Recession of 2008]] with heavy new stimulus spending, massive loans to banks, increased regulation, and deep intervention in the automobile industry. All those policies were begun by Bush, and had failed to reverse the decline of the economy in late 2008. Whether they will now succeed remains an open question, with the GOP now voting solidly against them and some conservatives like [[Rush Limbaugh]] hoping that the Democrats will fail badly and that the people will again turn to the Republican party. The Democratic Party is feeling the sting from the opposition and many Democrats are beginning to question their own leadership. Liberals are disenchanted with Obama's hawkish position on the [[Afghanistan War]]. The health care reform that consumed most of 2009 remains unsettled, as public opinion has turned against it. Environmentalists now seem resigned to the failure of a [[cap and trade]] program to reduce CO2 emissions. Most of all the recession drags on. The stimulus bill was passed quickly in Feb. 2009 over almost unanimous GOP opposition, but despite promises of "shovel ready" projects, most of the money has not been spent a year later and the economy remains in the doldrums.

The elections in Nov. 2009 in New Jersey and Virginia went badly for the Democrats, as the GOP gained both governorships and many local races, not to mention the Democrats' fifth straight loss for the mayoralty of New York City.

see [[2010 Midterm Elections]]

==Symbols==
The most common symbol for the party is the donkey, although the party itself never officially adopted this symbol.<ref>[http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/06/history_of_the.php History of the Democratic Donkey]. </ref> Some historians suggest the jackass was born 1828 when Jackson was sometimes called a jackass by his opponents as a play on his name. A political cartoon depicting Jackson riding and directing a donkey (representing the Democratic Party) was published in 1837. A political cartoon by [[Thomas Nast]] in an 1870 revived the donkey as a symbol for the Democratic Party. Cartoonists ever since have followed Nast and used the donkey to represent the Democrats, and the elephant to represent the Republicans.

In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Democratic Party in many states was the rooster, as opposed to the Republican eagle.

There is no official color, but since election night 2000 blue has become the identification color of the Democratic Party for maps, while the red has become the color of the Republicans. Increasingly blue is used by Democrats for promotions (e.g BuyBlue, BlueFund) and by the party itself, which in 2006 unveiled the "Red to Blue Program" to support Democratic candidates running against Republican incumbents in the 2006 midterm election.

[[Jefferson-Jackson Day]] annual fundraising celebrations are held by local chapters of the Democratic Party.

The song "[[Happy Days Are Here Again]]" is the unofficial song of the Democratic Party. It was used prominently when Roosevelt was nominated for president at the 1932 Democratic National Convention and remains a sentimental favorite for Democrats today. During the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] era, the [[Fleetwood Mac]] song "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" became a popular song at Democratic events, reflecting the growing prominence of Baby Boomers in the party.

==Democratic Presidents==
* [[Andrew Jackson]] (1829-1837)
* [[Martin Van Buren]] (1837-1841)
* [[James K. Polk]] (1845-1849)
* [[Franklin Pierce]] (1853-1857)
* [[James Buchanan]] (1857-1861)
* [[Grover Cleveland]] (1885-1889) (1893-1897)
* [[Woodrow Wilson]] (1913-1921)
* [[Franklin Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)
* [[Harry S Truman]] (1945-1953)
* [[John F. Kennedy]] (1961-1963)
* [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] (1963-1969)
* [[Jimmy Carter]] (1977-1981)
* [[Bill Clinton]] (1993-2001)
* [[Barack Obama]] (2009 - Present)

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Democrats|Articles about '''Democrats''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Gestapo care]]

==Bibliography==
===Current===
*Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa, ''The Almanac of American Politics 2008: The Senators, the Representatives and the Governors: Their Records and Election Results, Their States and Districts'' (2007) covers all the live politicians with amazing detail. New edition every two years since 1975.
* Brownstein, Ronald. ''The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America''(2007)
* Crane, Michael. ''The Political Junkie Handbook: The Definitive Reference Books on Politics'' (2004) covers all the major issues explaining the parties' positions
*Sabato, Larry J. ''Divided States of America: The Slash and Burn Politics of the 2004 Presidential Election'' (2005).
*Sabato, Larry J. ed. ''The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency'' (1907), in-depth essays by scholars on key states in 2006
* Sabato, Larry J., and Howard R. Ernst eds. ''Political Parties and Elections'' (2007), 540pp; an encyclopedia with 450 entries by scholars; focus is 1945 to present
* Sabato, Larry J. and Bruce Larson. ''The Party's Just Begun: Shaping Political Parties for America's Future'' (2001) textbook.
* Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), long essays by specialists on each time period
* Shafer, Byron and Richard Johnston. ''The End of Southern Exceptionalism'' (2006), uses statistical election data & polls to argue GOP growth was primarily a response to economic change
===Historical===
* ''American National Biography'' (20 volumes, 1999) covers all politicians no longer alive; online and paper copies at many academic libraries.
* Jensen, Richard. ''Grass Roots Politics: Parties, Issues, and Voters, 1854-1983'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/grass-roots-politics-parties-issues-and-voters-1854-1983-by-christopher-c-gibbs-richard-j-jensen-steven-l-piott.jsp online edition]; survey by conservative scholar, with primary sources
* Kennedy, David M. ''Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945'' (2001), synthesis by leading scholar; Pulitzer prize [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=52284041 online edition]
* Kleppner, Paul et al. ''The Evolution of American Electoral Systems'' (1983), essays by scholars (some of them conservatives), 1790s to 1980s.
* Kleppner, Paul. ''The Third Electoral System 1853-1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures'' (1979), analysis of voting behavior, with emphasis on region, ethnicity, religion and class. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24451028 online edition]
* Ling, Peter J. ''The Democratic Party: A Photographic History'' (2003).
* Patterson, James T. ''Grand Expectations: The United States, 1945-1974'' (1997) synthesis by leading scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Expectations-United-1945-1974-History/dp/0195117972/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211911625&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore'' (2005) synthesis by leading scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Restless-Giant-United-Watergate-History/dp/0195305221/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211911625&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Ritchie, Donald A. ''Electing FDR: The New Deal Campaign of 1932'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Electing-FDR-Campaign-Presidential-Elections/dp/0700615504/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195784762&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Rutland, Robert Allen. ''The Democrats: From Jefferson to Clinton'' (1995).
* Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), most recent collection of new essays by specialists on each time period:
**includes: "State Development in the Early Republic: 1775–1840" by Ronald P. Formisano; "The Nationalization and Racialization of American Politics: 1790–1840" by David Waldstreicher; "'To One or Another of These Parties Every Man Belongs;": 1820–1865 by Joel H. Silbey; "Change and Continuity in the Party Period: 1835–1885" by Michael F. Holt; "The Transformation of American Politics: 1865–1910" by Peter H. Argersinger; "Democracy, Republicanism, and Efficiency: 1885–1930" by Richard Jensen; "The Limits of Federal Power and Social Policy: 1910–1955" by Anthony J. Badger; "The Rise of Rights and Rights Consciousness: 1930–1980" by James T. Patterson, Brown University; and "Economic Growth, Issue Evolution, and Divided Government: 1955–2000" by Byron E. Shafer
* Schlisinger, Galbraith. ''Of the People: The 200 Year History of the Democratic Party'' (1992)
* Sundquist, James L. ''Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States'', (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29223022 online edition
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln'' (2005), detailed synthesis by a leading liberal scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Rise-American-Democracy-Jefferson-Lincoln/dp/0393058204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195784940&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Witcover, Jules. ''Party of the People: A History of the Democrats'' (2003)
* Schlesinger, Arthur Meier, Jr. ed. ''History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2000'' (various multivolume editions, latest is 2001). For each election includes a short history by a leading scholar and a selection of primary documents.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.democrats.org/ Democratic Party Official Site]
*[http://www.demconvention.com/assets/downloads/2008-Democratic-Platform-final.pdf 2008 Democratic Platform (pdf download)]

[[Category:United States Political Organizations]]
[[Category:United States Political Parties]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Progressive Era]]
[[Category:Gilded Age]]
[[Category:New Deal]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[category:Jacksonian Democracy]]
[[Category:111th United States Congress]]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2011-03-13T02:37:37Z

ArthurFredrickson:

There are many brilliant -- and popular -- conservative songs.

Here is our growing list:
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L--cqAI3IUI Wouldn't It Be Nice]'', by the [[Beach Boys]]. Pro-marriage.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5RkzbHb-w You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)]''. Abstinence for rock fans. The versions by [[The Supremes]] and [[Phil Collins]] were popular.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl6yilkU1LI Fast Car]'', by [[Tracy Chapman]]. Self-help, free market, division of labor, and a criticism of alcohol.
#''Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road'', by Elton John. The same message as the [[Prodigal Son]]: look objectively at our own lives, and realize that "I should have listened to my old man."
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6yLQRF-cEU Have You Forgotten?]'', by [[Darryl Worley]]. Patriotic response to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]].<ref>http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=15568</ref>
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aMMRes2u4 Still the One]'', by Orleans (1976). A tribute to fidelity in relationships.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHsDa9_HSlA Sweet Home Alabama]'' by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereotyped attacks by [[liberal]] rocker Neil Young.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew Stand By Your Man]'', by [[Tammy Wynette]]. Don't expect [[feminists]] to like that one! Or [[Hillary Clinton]]!
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCqZ-9-lDEo Lee Greenwood's rendition] of [[Battle Hymn of the Republic]]. "As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dFl9OHE-8g The Man Comes Around]'', by [[Johnny Cash]].
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-1_d6bbM1I My Love]'', by [[Petula Clark]]. Christian love in secular form.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4 I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)]''. Its title says it all. The version by [[The Clash]] has a good tempo.
#"You Light Up My Life" by [[Debbie Boone]]. One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].
#"Pomp and Circumstance" ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOcvcBxrfN4 ''Land of Hope & Glory'']) By Freedom gain, by Truth maintain...
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ0oCmDXrVk&mode=related&search= Jerusalem]''. Don't let the sword sleep in the hand.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahd2piIr4Q Brothers In Arms]'', by [[Dire Straits]]. We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeWZhuzFMM8 The Ascent of Stan]'', by [[Ben Folds]]. Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.
#"Starting All Over Again" by [[Petula Clark]]. Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.
#"Thank You My Lord" by [[Petula Clark]]. The title says it all.
#"Brick" by [[Ben Folds Five]]. Shows the regret involved in abortion.
#"Alive" by [[P.O.D]].: About being thankful for the gift of life.
#"Gotta Serve Somebody" by [[Bob Dylan]]. "It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."<ref>http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html</ref>
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU Jesus Take The Wheel]'', by [[Carrie Underwood]]. A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPBwXKgDTdE Mine]'' by Taylor Swift. Talks about how her parents divorced, and how she doesn't want that to happen with the guy she meets, dates, and marries.
#"Red Barchetta" by [[Rush]]. Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.
#"Father of Mine" by [[Everclear]]. A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM The Taxman]'', by [[The Beatles]]. George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes." <ref>http://home.att.net/~chuckayoub/Taxman_Lyrics.html</ref>
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eonyfRet8&feature=related Back in the U.S.A.]'', by [[Chuck Berry]]. A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZVPv9B-ZlM Government Cheese]'', by [[The Rainmakers]]. Humorous spoof of welfare.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPywgiMb4k Angry Young Man]'' by [[Billy Joel]]. The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzU2iJ9qfXg Gimme Back My Bullets]'', by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. The name says it all.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPlGFh6OpQ Spirit In The Sky]'', by [[Norman Greenbaum]].
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38oeBgvbMYA Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun]'', by [[Grand Funk Railroad]]. A father gives his son some sage advice.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=096LhjGNNCk Something For Nothing]'', by [[Rush]]. "You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."
#"Neighborhood Bully" by [[Bob Dylan]]. Israel's right to exist and defend itself.
#"Get It Right the First Time" by [[Louisiana's Le Roux]]. Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.
#"Only The Young" by [[Journey]]. "The shadows of a golden age, a generation waits for dawn, the brave carry on, the bold and the strong". An anthem for the Reagan Generation.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o Yours Is No Disgrace]'', by [[Yes]]. Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.
#"Fair Exchange" and "Sparks of the Tempest" by [[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]. Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.
#"In America" by the [[Charlie Daniels]] Band. Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
#"Storm the Embassy" by the [[Stray Cats]]. Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis.
#"We Must Take America Back" by [[Steve Vaus]]. Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.
#"Renegade" by [[Steppenwolf]]. John Kay's childhood escape from Communist East Germany.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI Capitalism]'', by [[Oingo Boingo]]. There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.
#"Unborn Child" by [[Seals and Crofts]]. This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.
#"Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)" by [[Steve Taylor]]. Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their head in the sand".
#"Last Kiss" by Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders, covered by other artists. "Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when I leave this world"<ref>http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=14</ref>
#"Love Me, I'm a Liberal" by [[Phil Ochs]]. Revealing Liberal hypocrisy for what it is.
#"America USA" by [http://giveagiftofsong.com/products.htm]Joey Sudyka. Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6XZDb045xU Red White and Blue]'', by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]].
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBohsCG8emk Simple Man]'', by [[Charlie Daniels]]. A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.
#"That Smell" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A very strong anti-drug use song by America's most well-known Southern rock band.
#Virtually anything by [[Toby Keith]], but especially "Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)".
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pldyz9VS2yY Under God]'', by [[Pat Boone]].
#"Christmas Shoes" by NewSong - a Christmas song by a Christian band.
#"God Bless the USA" by Lee Greenwood.<ref>http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/proudtobeamerican.html</ref>
#"God Bless America" Words and music by Irving Berlin.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed]'' [[Yes]] "...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you..."
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g Supper'sReady] [[Genesis (band)|Genesis]]''. ''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, "This is the supper of the mighty one", Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoaH0I9UwLI Your Love Is Extravagant]'' Casting Crowns
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnhYE1DhC4 What If His People Prayed]'' Casting Crowns
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBiei21-C8 King Without a Crown]'' by Matisyahu - A Hasidic Jew raps about God as the source of happiness and salvation from the things of this world: "If you're drowning in the waters and you can't stay afloat ask Hashem for mercy and He'll throw you a rope."
#"Take Me Home, Country Roads" by John Denver (and others). Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions.
#"Sin City" by the Flying Burrito Brothers. Attacks modern decadence and predicts divine punishment for sin.
#"I Saw the Light" by Hank Williams (and numerous cover versions). Redemption from sin through faith.
#"No Son of Mine" by Genesis.
#"Don't Stop" (Thinking About Tomorrow) by Fleetwood Mac.<ref>Used by Bill Clinton as his campaign theme song in 1992, but liberals often try to appeal to conservative themes for elections.</ref>
#"Lightning Crashes" by Live. The joy and significance of childbirth.
#"Takin' Care of Business" by Bachman-Turner Overdrive. The work ethic and promoting self-employment.
#"Cat's In The Cradle" by Harry Chapin. The importance of traditional families and responsible fatherhood.
#''[http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6547 The Devil Went Down To Georgia]'', by [[Charlie Daniels]]. A deeper message here, as Daniels explains.
#"Big Money" by Rush - Pro-[[capitalism]]
#"Real American" by Rick Derringer - patriotic anthem, known as [[Hulk Hogan]]'s pre-fight song
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1lSMXE3W8w&feature=related Amazing Grace]'', a Christian hymn written by English poet and clergyman [[John Newton]] (1725–1807), published in 1779.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0&feature=related Go Down Moses]'', performed by: [[Louis Armstrong]]; written by: Sy (Arr) Oliver.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5zEP4kvfnc Walking Contradiction]'' by [[Green Day]]. Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]], here [[Green Day]] mocks the often self-contradictory and inconsistent [[liberal]] ideologies, hence the term "walking contradiction".
#"God and Guns" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A powerful new Skynyrd song that elaborates on the song title.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5zEP4kvfnc Walking Contradiction]'' by [[Green Day]]. Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]], here [[Green Day]] mocks the often self-contradictory and inconsistent [[liberal]] ideologies, hence the term "walking contradiction".
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQtnPOfId0Y Be My Escape]'' by [[Relient K]]. Actually a popular song among non-conservatives too.
#''Staying Alive'', by the Bee Gees. Pro-people and pro-staying alive, and this: "We can try to understand; The [[New York Times]]' effect on man."
#''Sympathy for the Devil'' by the Rolling Stones. Reminds humanity that nobody is perfect and evil is present in the world and needs to be fought.
#''All In'' by Lifehouse.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVsZap7WBm8</ref> Describes a relationship with God as being full of commitment and without reservations.
#"[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5GDvN9_OE The Ballad of the Green Berets]", by Sergeant Barry Sadler. Pro-American and pro-military.
#''Iraq No Phobia'' by Pro-Pain. It is a pro-American, pro-military heavy metal song about the first [[Gulf War]] ''"Mohammed's no match for the great Uncle Sam."''
#''Bus Stop'', by The Hollies. Pro-romance and pro-marriage: "Someday my name and hers are going to be the same."
#''Stranger in Blue Suede Shoes'' by Kevin Ayers. Defends the right of businessmen to choose their customers: "we don't serve strangers in blue suede shoes".
Please add your best conservative picks.

87. Union Sundown - Mr. Bobby Dylan The title said it all.