First, a little about myself. Like you, I lift weights. I chase women. I like porn. I like watching and playing sports. I get into the occasional scrape.
However, I’m what you would call a Liberal. I belong to the ACLU. I’ve been a member of Greenpeace. I’ve contributed to Hand Guns USA, which wants to impose tighter gun laws. I give substantial amounts of money to the Democratic Party and like-minded organizations. I’ve only voted for a conservative once in my life.
I’m also what you’d consider well-to-do.
I’d sincerely like to start a dialogue with the “loyal opposition” because I feel that most conservatives have stereotypic notions about what liberals think and believe (and the opposite is true, too).
Here’s what I’m proposing: let’s define our beliefs and differences. I’m asking that you post questions and/or make statements about your political positions. Let’s see if there’s any common ground, or if one or both of us are the demons we’re sometimes made out to be by the other party.
In an effort to keep this civil, I’m promising right now that I will not respond in anger to anything you might say to me. I will not attempt to insult you, regardless of anything you might write.
Let’s start this out by some of you defining what you think a liberal believes.
Less Government
Does the bill tend to reduce government regulations, size of government, eliminate entitlements, or unnecessary programs?
Lower Taxes
Does the bill promote individual responsibility in spending, or reduce taxes or fees?
Personal Responsibility
Does the bill encourage responsible behavior by individuals and families and encourage them to provide for their own health, safety, education, moral fortitude, or general welfare?
Individual Freedom
Does the bill increase opportunities for individuals or families to decide, without hindrance or coercion from government, how to conduct their own lives and make personal choices?
Stronger Families
Does the bill enhance the traditional American family and its power to rear children without excessive interference from the government?
Domestic Tranquility, National Defense
Does the bill enhance American security without unduly burdening civil liberty?
First, a little about myself. Like you, I lift weights. I chase women. I like porn. I like watching and playing sports. I get into the occasional scrape. [/quote]
Same here. Played rugby in college. Used to chase women, but I finally caught one. You’d probably be a good guy to grab a beer with.
I’m a registered Republican, though I would vote Libertarian more often if they had a snowball’s chance in hell of winning anything. I’m a member of the Federalist Society – I was actually VP of our chapter at Vanderbilt Law School. I’ve shot guns a little, but don’t own any – but I want one, and apparently it will be much easier in VA versus MA. I was editor of my college paper at UC San Diego and used to write a conservative/libertarian editorial column that got hate mail, as well as a Bar Review column which did not. I was interviewed on the radio when our editorial board supported Prop 209 and endorsed Harry Browne for President in 1996.
All I know is that I pay too much in taxes.
[quote]I’d sincerely like to start a dialogue with the “loyal opposition” because I feel that most conservatives have stereotypic notions about what liberals think and believe (and the opposite is true, too).
Here’s what I’m proposing: let’s define our beliefs and differences. I’m asking that you post questions and/or make statements about your political positions. Let’s see if there’s any common ground, or if one or both of us are the demons we’re sometimes made out to be by the other party.
In an effort to keep this civil, I’m promising right now that I will not respond in anger to anything you might say to me. I will not attempt to insult you, regardless of anything you might write.
Let’s start this out by some of you defining what you think a liberal believes.
Thanks!
Turbo T33[/quote]
Sounds good.
What are your top priorities in foreign policy?
Here’s a list from which to choose, from a recent Pew survey (I’ve listed them in order of my rough preferences):
Stop spread of weapons of mass destruction –
Protect against terrorist attacks –
Insure adequate energy supplies –
Reduce dependence on foreign oil –
Improve relationships with allies –
Reduce spread of AIDS & other diseases –
Distribute costs of maintaining world order –
Protect groups threatened with genocide –
Promote human rights abroad –
Promote democracy abroad –
Improve living standards in poor nations –
Deal with problem of world hunger –
Combat international drug trafficking –
Strengthen the United Nations –
Promote U.S. business interests abroad –
Deal with global warming –
Reduce U.S. military commitments –
Solve Israeli/ Palestinian conflict –
Protect jobs of American workers –
I’m what I would consider a conservative. I believe that government should exercise limited power over things that can be handled by individuals, and complete control over things that can’t. This is, clearly, a conservative approach to the amount of power a government can have. (The libertarian approach and the liberal approach occupy the extremes, in my mind.)
For example, on the gun question, I don’t think we need tighter gun laws on the federal level. I think the gun laws in Detroit, Michigan ought to be significantly different from the gun laws in Medford, Oregon. In Detroit, guns are most often used to settle arguments. In Medford, they are most often used to stock the freezer. So I don’t think the federal government can make one law that is fair to both communities; I think state and local governments can do a much better job. In some areas, I even think the local government ought to just stay out of it, and let people do pretty much whatever they like.
But there are a lot of things where the federal government does need to step in. The military is the most common example; fifty state militias are simply not going to be properly coordinated and uniformly trained to the degree that would be necessary to defend our nation’s borders.
This basic idea is what drives most of my opinions. In any given issue, my first question is: why does the government need to do this, and can it do this fairly?
For example, federal laws about sexual or marital matters (including gay marriage and abortion, REGARDLESS of their dictated position) are just plain wrong. Even if we accept that the government has some business getting involved with your family life, a position with which I do NOT agree, there are sufficient differences from state to state and location to location that make a federal-level ruling completely unfair.
About the only thing I support at all levels of government is explicit statements that there will be no mandate on an issue at this level of government. I’d like the federal government to make such a statement on gay marriage and abortion, for example… along with just about every issue related to marital status, fidelity, and sexuality.
My major concern with the Liberal stance is that I see it as proposing that government should make firm laws about everything, and dictate the way we live our lives as individuals. I think that’s a dangerous precedent to set.
The Libertarian stance, on the other hand, concerns me because it seems to have the opposite idea: that government should shut the fuck up and make no laws at all. In the time I’ve spent studying community formation and development, I’ve developed the belief that communities beyond a certain size cannot self-regulate and become incredibly irresponsible. I think this danger is very real in the Libertarian philosophy.
My priorities in foreign policy match yours almost exactly. I imagine we might differ in our approaches.
Stop spread of weapons of mass destruction –
I probably would have handled this differently than Bush. I have a couple of friends who are XO’s in Special Forces and the SEALS and they maintain that had we asked Turkey to stop leaning on the Kurds, we could have easily incited a Civil War in Iraq in the hopes that it would have gotten rid of Hussein.
Protect against terrorist attacks –
I’d prefer to spend more money at home, most notably in increased inspection of cargo crates that go onto planes. As I understand it, 98% aren’t inspected. I’d also like to increase hiring and training of CIA operatives who are fluent in Arabic languages.
Insure adequate energy supplies –
I recently read that in California, almost 40% of increasing energy demands have been met by conservation alone. As I understand it, the current admin has backed off from supporting efficiency programs such as the ACEEEE. The 2004 budget all but wiped out spending to improve efficiency and the 2005 budget chops it again. New appliance standards have not been issued.
Reenacting those programs might help things.
Reduce dependence on foreign oil –
Again, conservation seems to be one step in doing that. I really think that American ingenuity could easily make an SUV that gets 50 miles to the gallon, if the incentives were there.
Improve relationships with allies –
Absolutely.
Reduce spread of AIDS & other diseases –
Of course.
Distribute costs of maintaining world order –
You betcha.
Protect groups threatened with genocide –
I would have liked for the US to intervene in Rwanda, where over a million lost their lives. You can bet that if Rwanda were in Europe and populated by white people, they would have gotten all the help they need.
Promote human rights abroad –
Absolutely.
Promote democracy abroad –
If possible.
Improve living standards in poor nations –
If you’ve got the means, you should always help your neighbors.
Deal with problem of world hunger –
Yep.
Combat international drug trafficking –
Sure.
Strengthen the United Nations –
Yes.
Promote U.S. business interests abroad –
Without a doubt.
Deal with global warming –
I wish more people accepted it, or at least were open minded to its existence.
Reduce U.S. military commitments –
Amen.
Solve Israeli/ Palestinian conflict –
I wish.
Protect jobs of American workers – [/quote]
Right on.
And yeah, we do pay too much taxes. I’d like to see some sort of equitable tax. Having said that, Bush’s tax reduction helped me since I’m in the upper 1 or 2%, but I’d gladly give it back to help fund programs or to help middle income families.
Interesting take on gun laws. I’ve never thought too much about that part of the argument.
However, I don’t think that there’s been any legislation proposed that would curb a hunter’s right to bear arms. Please let me know if I’m wrong.
I just think too many assholes have access to handguns. Wouldn’t you like to be able to walk in a bar with the knowledge that you can stick up for your woman or your friend against some drunk by doing what’s necessary without having to worry about whether he’s going to go out to his car, get his gun, and plug you?
That might be a silly argument but that’s the kind of stuff I worry about.
Regarding liberals and their affinity for lots of laws, yeah, I see your point. Extreme leftys get carried away. That being said, I have to cop to the stereotype that a lot of liberals are elitist. I am elitist. I think I know better. I think YOU know better, but do I think the average Joe knows what’s best for his city and state? No. The average guy can’t even handle a checking account; can’t raise a kid; can’t keep a woman.
So I don’t mind the gov intervening with education and a select number of other matters on a Federal level.
I absolutely agree with you on the Government keeping its nose out of the bedroom, but you have to admit, that’s what a lot of people who lean to the right seem to want–an Amendment defining marriage.
And, it seems that the liberals get more worked up about laws infringing on free speech. Case in point, the FCC’s heavy fines against broadcasters who use what the Feds define as obscenity. If conservatiives are for individual rights, it seems they should be consistent (of course, who is?).
It’s nice to have some intelligent discussion on this board rather than flaming.
I’m like you guys–why else would I be here? I love exercise, nutrition, sports, beer with my boys, and my beautiful wife. I’m a fourth year medical student who will in all probability someday be a sports medicine physician.
I have no political affiliation. I am definitely more on the liberal side of the fence, mainly for social reasons. I would not join a political party out of principle, however. I’m an individual, not a sheep.
Sometimes there’s a lot of misinformation about what characterizes “liberal” and “conservative.” Just to clarify, liberals tend to support bigger government involvement and more taxes, not the reverse. They also tend to support individual decision making on lifestyle issues, etc. While on the former point I can certainly entertain arguments either way, I don’t understand how anyone can call themselves American and disagree with the latter point.
This country’s first flag read, “Don’t Tread On Me.” We are built on the ideals of individual freedom. When the government attempts to legislate morality, that’s when I get pissed and that’s when I vote the other way. So when you have Republicans banning gay marriage, passing the PATRIOT Act, infringing on my civil liberties, using state money to set up Christian programs (and I’m Christian, btw!), and things like that…that’s where I strongly differ with the Republican viewpoint.
However, on the economic front, I can certainly see the pitfalls of government overinvolvement. It’s a balance.
The intent of my post is in the spirit of the thread: It’s obvious that the majority of people on this board are staunchly conservative, and maybe this will give you some basic insight into a more liberal mind.
I have an inkling you may be correct. Also, I don’t necessarily think all the items on the list are proper goals for foreign policy – they were just all on the list from the Pew study:
Percent considering each a ?top priority? (July 2004)
Protect against terrorist attacks – 88
Protect jobs of American workers – 84
Reduce spread of AIDS & other diseases – 72
Stop spread of weapons of mass destruction – 71
Insure adequate energy supplies – 70
Reduce dependence on foreign oil – 63
Combat international drug trafficking – 63
Distribute costs of maintaining world order – 58
Improve relationships with allies – 54
Deal with problem of world hunger – 50
Strengthen the United Nations – 48
Protect groups threatened with genocide – 47
Deal with global warming – 36
Reduce U.S. military commitments – 35
Promote U.S. business interests abroad – 35
Promote human rights abroad – 33
Solve Israeli/ Palestinian conflict – 28
Promote democracy abroad – 24
Improve living standards in poor nations – 23
…
This observation about the shift in attitudes since October 2001 is also interesting (p. 19 of the study):
The shift in public priorities since the fall of 2001 is largely a consequence of growing divisions along partisan lines. While Republicans and Democrats had similar lists of foreign policy priorities in October 2001, they are increasingly focused on different issues today.
Protecting the U.S. against terrorism is by far the leading priority among Republicans, with more than nine-in-ten (93%) rating that goal a top priority. By comparison, about as many Democrats cite protecting U.S. jobs as a major priority as mention terrorism (89% vs. 86%). And while Republicans are more focused on preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and reducing America?s dependence on imported oil, Democrats are more concerned about reducing the spread of AIDS and combating international drug trafficking.
[quote]Stop spread of weapons of mass destruction –
I probably would have handled this differently than Bush. I have a couple of friends who are XO’s in Special Forces and the SEALS and they maintain that had we asked Turkey to stop leaning on the Kurds, we could have easily incited a Civil War in Iraq in the hopes that it would have gotten rid of Hussein.[/quote]
Interesting. I’m definitely not maintaining Bush handled things perfectly - at least in terms of planning for the occupation and reconstruction, or in terms of planning for how to deal with enemy troops (letting them run away hasn’t turned out well).
However, as to Turkey, I may have to respectfully disagree with your friends. First, the main reason we had problems getting the Turks to help at all with Iraq was concerns over the Kurds. We couldn’t even get them to agree to let us use their airspace, so I’m not sure how much persuasion could have been done there. Second, I’m not sure how much the Kurds could have been prodded by us either, given how we abandoned them last time we goaded them into an uprising. [I’m presuming you’re talking about an uprising of the Kurds].
[quote]Protect against terrorist attacks –
I’d prefer to spend more money at home, most notably in increased inspection of cargo crates that go onto planes. As I understand it, 98% aren’t inspected. I’d also like to increase hiring and training of CIA operatives who are fluent in Arabic languages.[/quote]
We need more money for that, and more money for inspection of ship containers, and more money for guarding the borders – but I imagine we would differ on which programs to cut to get the money. The “guns and butter” attitude we’ve had thus far is unsustainable.
[quote]Insure adequate energy supplies –
I recently read that in California, almost 40% of increasing energy demands have been met by conservation alone. As I understand it, the current admin has backed off from supporting efficiency programs such as the ACEEEE. The 2004 budget all but wiped out spending to improve efficiency and the 2005 budget chops it again. New appliance standards have not been issued.
Reenacting those programs might help things.[/quote]
I’m unfamiliar with the program your referencing?
Efficiency is definitely a good thing – we should encourage it.
Of course, this would likely mean construction of new power plants, processing plants, nuclear facilities and other ideas that have been blocked, in addition to further utilization of “green” power. New plants are more efficient than old plants.
[quote]Reduce dependence on foreign oil –
Again, conservation seems to be one step in doing that. I really think that American ingenuity could easily make an SUV that gets 50 miles to the gallon, if the incentives were there.[/quote]
If you believe Gregg Easterbrook, all the ingenuity has gone toward increased horsepower, because that’s what consumers wanted. [Combined with incentives for automakers to sell SUVs and minivans vs. stationwagons, due to their classification under federal regulatory standards].
This could be done – I don’t have a preferred mechanism at the moment.
However, we also need to allow for more drilling in the U.S., more processing plants, and more nuclear power plants – these would all help as well.
[quote]Improve relationships with allies –
Absolutely.
Reduce spread of AIDS & other diseases –
Of course.
Distribute costs of maintaining world order –
You betcha.
Protect groups threatened with genocide –
I would have liked for the US to intervene in Rwanda, where over a million lost their lives. You can bet that if Rwanda were in Europe and populated by white people, they would have gotten all the help they need.
Promote human rights abroad –
Absolutely.
Promote democracy abroad –
If possible.
Improve living standards in poor nations –
If you’ve got the means, you should always help your neighbors.
Deal with problem of world hunger –
Yep.
Combat international drug trafficking –
Sure.
Strengthen the United Nations –
Yes.
Promote U.S. business interests abroad –
Without a doubt.[/quote]
This is where I start pulling back on whether I think it should be a foreign-policy priority.
[quote]Deal with global warming –
I wish more people accepted it, or at least were open minded to its existence.[/quote]
I think my main problem here is just in what has been proposed to deal with it thus far. Kyoto would be an unmitigated disaster for our economy.
[quote]Reduce U.S. military commitments –
Amen.[/quote]
I don’t want to reduce just to reduce, which is how I interpreted this. I want to reduce in areas in which there are no longer problems.
[quote]Solve Israeli/ Palestinian conflict –
I wish.[/quote]
I’m pretty well ready to give up on this as a pipe dream. The two sides have only hated each other for a few thousand years now…
[quote]Protect jobs of American workers –
Right on.[/quote]
I’m of a free-market bent when it comes to trade - I wouldn’t want “protectionism” per se, although I find nothing wrong with intiatives to maximize our competitiveness.
Flat tax is what I would want. As far as it goes, I wouldn’t mind sacrificing some income for programs that helped the middle class either – I just don’t think the government is generally capable of such programs. Most government programs are temples to inefficiencies, and become funnels for money to special interests.
“Bush’s tax reduction helped me since I’m in the upper 1 or 2%, but I’d gladly give it back to help fund programs or to help middle income families.”[/quote]
Oh really? What programs would you like to fund? And why would you like to give up your hard earned money to people in the middle class? Do you think that they need it? Do you feel guilty for making so much?
You can solve all of your tax problems by writing a check to your favorite charity in the amount that President Bush saved you. Just do it.
There are two great books to read if you’re interested in the topics of Liberalism and Conservatism in America.
The first is “The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America” by John Micklethwait and Adrian Woodridge. I believe this book will give you the kind of insight you’re interested in-- as in, what are conservatism’s motivations, what is its appeal, and where is the ‘movement’ headed in the future. The ultimate conclusion of Micklethwait and Woodridge is that the Conservatives have won, because they’ve set the agenda. Even if the Democrats win, America is far, far more conservative than any other industrialized country.
The second book to read, immediately after you’ve finished “Right Nation” is “Reason” by Robert Reich. It’s interesting because you really get the feel that Micklethwait’s conclusion is right-- the Conservatives HAVE set the agenda, and Reich’s book documents it. If anything, Reich is voicing the frustrations that stem from having to always play catch-up to the Conservatives. He spends more than half of the book trying to REACT to the issues that Conservative America has put forward.
As you probably know, the main challenge in any argument is establishing WHAT the issues are. An example (and this is only an example) is how the competing camps in the abortion issue describe themselves-- for one side, the abortion issue is “Choice,” where for the other side, the issue is “Life.”
For the last 20+ years (since the Reagan revolution), Conservative America has set the issues. Liberals have been playing catch-up ever since.
I know this isn’t entirely responsive, but I think those books are good reading for anyone involved.
I agree with almost everything you proposed. And I’m a supporter of Germany’s Green Party. Actually, I think we only disagree on how we are supposed to reach these goals.
BTW - In my native language (German), a “liberal” nowadays is actually someone who promotes a less regulated approach in most matters (especially on economic issues) paired with a strong foundation on personal freedom and responsibility. Hence, I sometimes have trouble understanding why “liberal” is such a dirty word for many Americans, as from our perspective, many Americans have often made quite “liberal” choices.
My basic belief - as a liberal with green issues - is that you should let people live the way they choose, as long as it does not impede with the lifestyle and choices of others; with a continuous vigilance for our own faults and the willingness to take care of others who need help - if they accept it.
Nice job with this thread Turbo, and great contributions from CDar., erp, and, of course, BB.
Very informative and civil.
I know many people around here (not necessarily on this thread) think I’m extremely left, but the truth is that I’m not extreme anything and I appreciate threads such as this. Indeed, I’ve started a few myself – a few of which DIDN’T dwither away into pissing contests!
(I suspect my presence alone on this thread might lead to its eventual demise, even though I’ve taken no positions on any of the issues…if so, sorry).
I am a conservative. Most definetly conservative on fiscal issues. Somewhat less on social issues.
You strike me as the kind of liberal I grew up with. Civil. Actually out to improve the life of others. Most importantly reasonable. Unfortunately, in my opinion the Democratic Party, in my opinion has become hateful and Liberal in a radical sense. It became of no use to me unfortunately about 1977.
Best of luck to you. This forum needs a literate liberal to argue with. Somebody who can actually argue a point factually instead of emotionally and without degenerating into insults. Should be fun.
BTW - In my native language (German), a “liberal” nowadays is actually someone who promotes a less regulated approach in most matters (especially on economic issues) paired with a strong foundation on personal freedom and responsibility. Hence, I sometimes have trouble understanding why “liberal” is such a dirty word for many Americans, as from our perspective, many Americans have often made quite “liberal” choices.
[/quote]
Every westerner in the world is pretty much a liberal in the classical sense of the word. The problem is that especially in america, Liberalism has become the antonym of conservatism, even though conservatism is often times identical to classical liberalism. Its bad language on our part frankly since conservative has just become another term for republican while liberal has become another term for democrat…
Anyway, I think 80 percent of people agree on the broader picture of what we want as a society (there are those outside the mainstream on both sides and unfortunately those are the ones I have to tell with everyday in my job)What we all disagree on is how it should be accomplished. My basic belief is that modern day liberals have done almost nothing good for american society as it stands now, and too often play the entitlement card, the race card, class warfare, and above all, government expansion over personal responsibilty. THere are certain things that can only be done by the government, national defense, foreign policy etc…everything else can be done and should be done by the government that is closest to the people. This is how our system was set up and it makes sense. Now I am sure someone will come on here talking about civil rights and how its the governments job to ensure equality and the expansive power of the commerce clause and equal protection etc has been used to radically expand the fedeal government. In many instances this was the fair thing to do, but now liberals look at government as the be all and end all, and have beomce dependent on it, and see expansion of the government as the only way to solve things…thats simply not the case.
I actually seem to agree with BB and CDarlock - I thought you guys were more conservative. I consider myself a libertarian. Like BB, I’ll generally vote Republican because Libertarian candidates just don’t have a snowball’s chance to win. I generally agree with the Republican stance on economic issues. I get tired of their preaching on family values. Why you ask? Is it because I’m against families? Of course not. If you have any doubts, go read my posts under the Steroids Diary thread. I basically blasted that guy for not thinking of his family when making the choice to use steroids. The thing is, I don’t think you can legislate morality or family values - a person either has these qualities or they don’t, and if they don’t, all the laws in the world won’t change that type of person. In fact, I think that laws that try to promote “stronger families” have the opposite affect. For example, many people who oppose rights for gays think they are promoting stronger families because giving gays rights will allow gays to “recruit” straight people who otherwise would have entered into a traditional marriage and had a family. This is silly - I don’t know what causes someone to “go gay,” but I think it would take more than a recruiting poster and a motivational speech. But let’s just say for the sake of argument that a person could be recruited to turn gay. A person who can be so easily manipulated to switch their sexual orientation is probably very weak and insecure and has no business raising a family in the first place.
I’m certainly a liberal; I won’t go through my litany of beliefs as Turbo has certainly touched on them for the most part. In theory I’m more of a libertarian in that I believed in unfettered freedom with very little government intrusion, although I am ultimately a pragmatist. How so? Well, I don’t want to pay high taxes, but at the same time, I do believe everyone bears social responsibility, and if my “sacrifice” is to pay more in tax, well…I can deal with that. My problem in aligning myself with any political party or ideology lies in my resistance to our two party system - I’m sick to death of having to choice between the evil of two lessers in elections in choosing which party has the issue I find most important. For instance, perhaps I might approve of the Republican party’s fiscal conservatism, but I know as it stands now I could never vote for a candidate that forces his or her version of family values down my throat, promotes constitutional amendments banning marriage between gays, or tries to censor my music simply because it uses the word “fuck” too much.
Of course, I know that if a multi party system would ever come to fruition in America it won’t be in my lifetime, so these musings are ultimately pointless.
Hey turbot33. This is interesting, a discussion without attacks? Can it be done?
[quote]turbot33 wrote:
And yeah, we do pay too much taxes. I’d like to see some sort of equitable tax. Having said that, Bush’s tax reduction helped me since I’m in the upper 1 or 2%, but I’d gladly give it back to help fund programs or to help middle income families.[/quote]
Ah, here is the one difference in my mind. If you want to give the money back, just do it. I am fairly certain the government accepts donations.
But you could instead take advantage of that wealth, and put it to good use. Decide exactly what it is you truly support, or want to help with. And either donate, or even start a foundation. An ever growing trust that gives larger and larger amounts of money to good causes.
But hoping the government takes it back is like hoping the Red Cross just pops into your house and takes your blood, instead of going there yourself.
True wealth is helping others, not just getting another Hummer. (I’ll let you decide which.) But it is best if it is up to you, not decided for you.
And now
ON TO MY BELIEFS
First of all I believe that most people who are interested in politics have a basic interest in making things better. To improve the world somehow. But, as stated previously, what better is, and how to get there is a matter of debate.
Conservative and Liberal is actually simple to define. First, it has nothing to do with the “real” definitions. In fact I used to believe I was a liberal when I first heard about it being applied to politics. It was years later when I started taking an interest in politics that I truly started to understand.
For a while I refused to accept any label, preferring to be above it all. But once I knew a little more about the definition, I knew I had to be conservative.
The basics are that Liberals believe that the government should be there to help people. Conservatives believe that the government gets in the way, and should not be a Nanny.
So the simplest definition is Liberal believes in more government, and Conservatives believe in less.
To say you are neither means you think things are perfect already.
When it comes to politicians, you start dealing with people who are interested in power. Some are there in an attempt to benefit society though, but they are hard to find. All politicians should not be taken at face value, and you should not trust anything stated about them.
The things that annoys me is how some liberals seem to assume that conservatives are bigots, and that they put money above people.
I have also found a lot of hate for Christians. I think this is the scariest aspect that has infiltrated the Liberals. And the fact that these people don’t even recognize their prejudices is dangerous. (No I am not saying all, or even most.)
Another thing people need to think about is the truth. If you ever need to lie, or fudge the truth a little, to support you position then you had better rethink that position. Winning an argument doesn’t mean a thing if you are actually wrong.
If you actually believe in less government intrusion, that would make you a liberal.
While I am conservative myself, I do not align with any ideology. I will never believe that any political party is correct all the time.
All of my beliefs are seriously thought through. And sometimes I ask myself if I might be wrong. This has opened my eyes, and has caused me to change my beliefs more then once.
I do not look at the political parties, and politicians, as choosing the “lesser of two evils”, but instead as which do I believe will be better for the country. I know that no matter what, one has to be better then the other. And just because their beliefs don’t jive with mine, (hey, never used the word jive before,) does not make them evil. Mostly I believe the politicians have become blinded by ideology.
As far as all this crap about gay marriage, I cannot believe the argument. The right says they are fine with a “civil union” with all the same rights as marriage, just not the word. Then what is the difference? Then the Left says they want the right to use the word. Why does it matter if you can have all the rights?
Just a stupid argument about a word.
Now don’t forget who was the force behind music censorship years ago. Tipper Gore.
I must admit that I often am prejudiced against conservatives. Here is why: I grew up in Germany’s most conservative state - Bavaria. The Christian Social Union (the Bavarian equivalent to former Chancellor Helmut Kohl’s Christian Democratic Union) has been ruling there since 1962 (!) and it shows: Admittedly, economically the state is still in pretty good shape, but the morals of politics there are often simply grotesque.
Against an attitude of “we are successful, hence we have moral superiority and are right on all issues”, I have found it very hard to adapt there, initially coming from a northern state.
So from early days on, it was mostly people who defined themselves as conservative, whom I have seen display willingness to censor, to critise and interfere with other’s lifestyles in order to defend “family values” and stomp out alternative (legitimate) beliefs - while at the same time not living up to their own (laughably defined as “christian”) ethics, and whining about injustice, when caught in a scandal (and often getting away).
To me, this has associated “conservatism” to a certain degree with intolerance and bigotry. I know that this is not the case in most conservative people, but it is sometimes hard to overcome a lifetime of experience.
Makkun
PS: Left there 2 years ago and feel much better for it.
Your post further emphasizes in my mind what I have seen in my own neighborhood.
I live in an affluent community. I have a physician/attorney team right accross the street that are liberals. They spend alot of money on the appearance of their homes. He drives a 7 series, she drives an S class. They both look polished all the time.
Yet based on alot of discussion I have had with them, they clearly feel some level of social guilt for having financial success. This is something I have noticed about liberals who have achieved a level of financial success.
Similar to your emphasis on financial status, to the point of making it a seperate line item in your initial post and revisiting it in a taxation comment, they want to make sure everyone around them has a sense they have a good income, yet in a strange aberration of the same behavior, they fret about how they aren’t taxed enough, etc.
There is a simple solution to this, yet I rarely see it come about.
I have positioned it in my own mind as a stupid form of attention mongering.
I am proud of my success, pay my share of taxes per federal and state guidelines, and get on with my life.
I guess what I am saying is that at the core, I think most liberals think that other people care about them and what they do alot more than is the reality and this drives alot of their decisions.