Originally posted by dueceri think you will find that the more you try to compare the modern day liberal/conservative, the more you will find them alike than different.
They mistake them because the right wants to frame the debate between capitolism, and socialism. A real debate on the issues would expose them for the hypocrates they really are.
Originally posted by whodeyYou got your man in office. Reap what you sow.
So in your opinion it is the fault of the Christian rights struggle to over turn Roe vs. Wade via the Republican party for the fiscal liberal invasion of the Republican party? Well I guess we got the worse of both worlds if this is true. The Christian right has been left disillusioned because their dream has never come about to overturn Roe vs. Wade and the ...[text shortened]... e!! As far as I am concerned, the liberals have owned Washington ever since Reagan left office.
This is the single most confused thread that I've ever read on this site. Perhaps because liberal and conservative are such confused concepts.
The fact is, just about all of the major candidates running for US president right now (and Bush as well) are strongly influenced by the conservative tradition that came out of the Reagan/Thatcher years. This is an ideology that brought together 1) Christian traditionalists, 2) laissez faire economists, and 3) big military foreign policy folks. It is the ideology that has shaped the last thirty years of American politics, and it's entirely incoherent.
1) Big military requires high taxes, 2) laissez faire capitalism is unchristian (charity anyone?) and 3) Christianity is largely (supposedly) non-violent.... No wonder people disagree about what a conservative is! The ‘tent’ is so big, the concept is almost meaningless.
Somehow, the Reagan realignment got these factions to put aside their differences and come together to create a majority coalition, and in time the ideological differences were forgotten. "Conservatism" solidified and seemed like a self-consistent system. Conservatism succeeded because it was able to bring together contradictory factions and get them to ignore their differences. This is why MacSwain's Communism vs. Capitalism schema seems way to simplistic. It emphasizes only one of the crucial aspects of today’s Conservatism (economy).
Conservatism defined itself against the pseudo-socialism of the New Deal coalition and the republicans became the “free-market” party (I don’t think that there’s anything necessarily free-market about conservatism as Burke understood it). Consequently, the opposition (“liberalism&rdquo😉 found itself embracing the antithesis of the three main aspects of Reagan/Thatcher conservatism. Ergo, the democrats lost a lot of elections over the last thirty years defending peacenik foreign policy, a failing welfare system, and alienating religious voters. But, in time, they moved closer to the Reagan ideology. Now, it's hard to tell who's more conservative: Clinton or McCain. And after eight years of Bush (who, by the way, embodies Reaganness to a T), Reagan conservatism doesn't look so great to most people.
It is complicated and incoherent developments like these that have made "conservative" and "liberal" hard terms to pin down. (Would John Lock be considered a liberal today? Would Edmund Burke be considered conservative?)
Now, is conservatism dead? I don't know... I would say that -- since I hear so many conservatives accusing others of not being "true-conservatives" -- Reagan's conservatism is in trouble. The Reagan coalition will either 1) dissolve, and then conservatism will have to become something different (maybe it will drop the religious stuff). Or 2) it might come bouncing back after people forget how horrible of a president George W. Bush has been. I think a lot of people thought that Clinton was going to put an end to Reaganism in '92, but bad ideas die hard.
Conservatism is an ideology that is full of contradictions. So it’s misguided to ask if it’s dead. Of course it will live on, but what survives might not look anything like what we think of as conservatism today. Empty concepts are eternal.
Sorry it’s so long, but this is a lot of stuff to work through.
Originally posted by smw6869I would say that liberalism is a small government ideology because it believes in the fundamental right to property, only limited regulation and no taxation without representation. Also, it favors keeping the government -- for the most part -- out of people’s moral business (abortion, gay marriage etc). The Christian right's temperance policies are essentially big government policies, and liberalism opposes them.
Liberalism embraces small gov't? Could you please explain?
Also, in my other post i should have used the word Social Programs instead of Socialist Programs.
F. Granny.
I know the question wasn't directed at me, but that's why I think liberals are basically for small government.
Originally posted by smw6869Bill Clinton tasked Al Gore with reducing the size of government in an effort to balance the budget, which he did succesfully. That is the only time in American history that the size of government has been reduced, and the first time in I don't know how long, that the budget was balanced.
Liberalism embraces small gov't? Could you please explain?
Also, in my other post i should have used the word Social Programs instead of Socialist Programs.
F. Granny.
The post that was quoted here has been removedI have taken the Political Compass Test only to find out that there is no such thing as Conservatism anymore. They now call it Neo-Liberalism. That would answer the question about how a Liberal (Neo- Liberal) was for smaller gov't. So i guess there's no need in using the word Conservative. Anyway, my test results say that i'am a Libertarian (Anarchism), to the left of Miltin Freedman. Therefore, Dr Stupid, i'am NOT a Fascist....So there. However, GW is a Neo Liberal (right wing) Fascist.
I should now change my first initial to L. ( for Libertarian), but i like the ring of F. (for Fascist), and i shall continue to use it.
Take the test!
F. Granny.
Originally posted by duecerDo you mean Al Gore reduced the size of gov't by reducing the number of gov't jobs, or do you mean he reduced the size of gov't by reducing the number of gov't programs? And if the gov't was reduced in size, why did taxes go up?
Bill Clinton tasked Al Gore with reducing the size of government in an effort to balance the budget, which he did succesfully. That is the only time in American history that the size of government has been reduced, and the first time in I don't know how long, that the budget was balanced.
F. GRANNY.
According to the chart on the Political Test, there is no Liberalism or Conservatism. These are bunched together as Neo- Liberalism. You're either Neo Liberalist or Commie. The Neo- liberals are different in that some are more Authoritative ( Fascist), others are more Libertarian ( Anarchism).
Take the test!
F. Granny.
Originally posted by smw6869Taxes went up on the top 1%, of which you and I are a not a part of.
Do you mean Al Gore reduced the size of gov't by reducing the number of gov't jobs, or do you mean he reduced the size of gov't by reducing the number of gov't programs? And if the gov't was reduced in size, why did taxes go up?
F. GRANNY.
The numbers are difficult to interpret, but I will try and be brief. The actual number of employees per 1000 people decreased over the Clinton administration. All presidents have decreased employees, but only to later add them and more, or reducing them from a previous increase. Ronald Reagan is the only president that comes close with a net reduction of .02% which is negligable. Under Clinton we also saw the budgets being balanced, partly from reducing entitlements (welfare to work) and by ratifying "pay-go", so the government shrank in comparison to the GDP. Clinton was a conservative when it came to running the govt.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou assume I even voted for him. He is not my man. Unfortunatly he has stereotypcally forever linked to fudamentalist Christianity because he pandered to them, but I can't help that now can I? So tell me, what has he done for the Christians? Tell me one thing.
You got your man in office. Reap what you sow.
Originally posted by whodeyfunding for faith based initiatives
You assume I even voted for him. He is not my man. Unfortunatly he has stereotypcally forever linked to fudamentalist Christianity because he pandered to them, but I can't help that now can I? So tell me, what has he done for the Christians? Tell me one thing.
