[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Too much freedom isn't the problem. Too much freedom with too little accountability is the problem.

The arbiter of what is worthy of this accountability must themselves be subject to it or its application is lame.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

But we were talking about liberals and conservatives. Republicans are certainly capable of liberalism and were promptly removed from office for it. This current Congress is running not to Republicanism, but to Conservatism in order to maintain their seats.

No, we're talking about people who call themselves liberals or conservatives. Why they do so likely has very little to do with how well it actually describes their ideals, and much more to do with which label their party has chosen to claim.

Conservatism itself isn't something that ebbs and flows contingent upon the societal norm of the day. For example, a fiscal conservative will generally advocate a lower tax rate to encourage economic freedom of people while limiting the scope of government in conflict with the status quo of a higher tax rate that traditionally funds more government intrusion. A Conservative is not defined by a status quo.

A social Conservative will oppose Roe V Wade for example because of course the default norm when pregnant is still to have the baby. There are those who would seek to enact government policy to merely ease the symptoms of societal ill, but it is the plight of the Conservative to "rake from the ashes what scorched fragments of civilization escape the conflagration of unchecked will and appetite."[/QUOTE]

In fact, it is. If conservatism is successful, then you're correct that it won't change. If there is no gay marriage, and your goal is to keep it that way, then your goal is conservative. As long as gay marriage doesn't come about, then that remains the case. However as soon as gay marriage is enacted, your position vis-a-vis the law has changed. The law has changed, that means your relative position to it has also changed. Modern 'conservativism' is predicated on the idea that things are currently bad and that, as you say, we should 'seek to enact government policy to merely ease the symptoms of societal ill'. The only difference between them and other liberals is that 'conservatives' look to return to what they perceive as a pristine past rather than trying to build a future based on new ideas.

The 'plight of the conservative' is nothing so romantic as you say. The 'plight of the conservative' is to always be fighting against the inevitable march of time and changing social norms.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The arbiter of what is worthy of this accountability must themselves be subject to it or its application is lame.

Absolutely. The yin/yang of freedom and accountability needs to play out in all forums.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

No, we're talking about people who call themselves liberals or conservatives. Why they do so likely has very little to do with how well it actually describes their ideals, and much more to do with which label their party has chosen to claim.

This ignores the wealth of Conservatives who opposed Bush's policies for example or the number of Liberals that have made their presence known to Obama. There are still root ideals. I took issue with how the root ideal; Conservative was defined, not by how it is represented.

In fact, it is. If conservatism is successful, then you're correct that it won't change. If there is no gay marriage, and your goal is to keep it that way, then your goal is conservative. As long as gay marriage doesn't come about, then that remains the case. However as soon as gay marriage is enacted, your position vis-a-vis the law has changed.

It is not inconsistent with Conservatism to suggest that perhaps the government has no business in marriage in the first place; advocating instead civil unions for all letting the churches "marry" whomever they deem fit. The demographic of our country plays a part in this. For example, most of the country is centre-right and most of the country is Christian. It merely follows that fiscal Conservatism and social Conservatism would have found common interests in one of two political parties. It beats having no say at all. These battles are weighed by their perceived importance as evidenced by our own President.

The law has changed, that means your relative position to it has also changed. Modern 'conservativism' is predicated on the idea that things are currently bad and that, as you say, we should 'seek to enact government policy to merely ease the symptoms of societal ill'. The only difference between them and other liberals is that 'conservatives' look to return to what they perceive as a pristine past rather than trying to build a future based on new ideas.

I think you've misread my point. I suggested that it is liberals who seek to address societal ills by merely easing their symptoms through government legislation. Legalized abortion for example has sought to allow the elimination of what must be construed as nothing more than the unfortunate result of irresponsible sex, while doing nothing to mitigate the problem. Conservatives, the pragmatists that they are, know that there is no "new idea" under the sun and that a careful examination of history in tandem with a well-rounded understanding of human nature is in order for the establishment of sensible governance. Otherwise, the "new ideas" from centuries gone by will once again rear their ugly heads.

The 'plight of the conservative' is nothing so romantic as you say.

No and this has been the most unfortunate fact for Conservatism IMO. It is not near romantic enough to compete with Liberalism; not nearly as fun or fashionable.

The 'plight of the conservative' is to always be fighting against the inevitable march of time and changing social norms.

... because of course the other option is an ideal that continues to lead its "inevitable" march in circles.

[Big Mac]

I think nonhuman paints the generic term conservatism with too broad a brush. There is more than one type of conservative, but I know it is easy to lump them together.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I think nonhuman paints the generic term conservatism with too broad a brush. There is more than one type of conservative, but I know it is easy to lump them together.

There is more than one type of liberal too, and probably more than one type of Libertarian.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There is more than one type of liberal too, and probably more than one type of Libertarian.

Yes, that's correct. If we're going to use political labels, we should be precise in how we're defining them.

[Buckaroo]

Mr. Obama (notice that everyone calls him Mr. instead of President) has made a huge mistake. If he would have reached out and tried to invite the Republicans for a compromise, he would have stood a chance of maintaining a large portion of his Democrat's in the House and Senate. He has taken the exact opposite stance and it will hurt him more than ever. The American people will see him for what he is a loser.

Mr. Obama has asked his former campaign manager, David Plouffe, to oversee House, Senate and governor’s races to stave off a hemorrhage of seats in the fall. The president ordered a review of the Democratic political operation — from the White House to party committees — after last week’s Republican victory in the Massachusetts Senate race, aides said.

Obama Moves to Centralize Control Over Party Strategy - NYTimes.com

For a good president, it should not make any difference which party has majority in the House and Senate. If he was really good, he'd lead. Obama has done more to split America apart than any other president ever.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

For a good president, it should not make any difference which party has majority in the House and Senate. If he was really good, he'd lead. Obama has done more to split America apart than any other president ever.

Comedy gold! You obviously were asleep during the last two Presidential terms.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This ignores the wealth of Conservatives who opposed Bush's policies for example or the number of Liberals that have made their presence known to Obama. There are still root ideals. I took issue with how the root ideal; Conservative was defined, not by how it is represented.

It doesn't ignore them at all. I (and many others) consider George W. Bush to be quite liberal regardless of how he is presented by himself or his supporters.

It is not inconsistent with Conservatism to suggest that perhaps the government has no business in marriage in the first place; advocating instead civil unions for all letting the churches "marry" whomever they deem fit. The demographic of our country plays a part in this. For example, most of the country is centre-right and most of the country is Christian. It merely follows that fiscal Conservatism and social Conservatism would have found common interests in one of two political parties. It beats having no say at all. These battles are weighed by their perceived importance as evidenced by our own President.

I would say that it is inconsistent, as the government has been involved in marriage for a very long time now. I believe that the government should stay out of marriage, and I consider that to be a liberal position not only in the sense that it's a move away from the status quo, but also in the traditional sense of liberalism as desiring greater freedom (hence the phrase 'liberal democracy' or the goal of 'liberalizing' countries like Saudi Arabia).

I think you've misread my point. I suggested that it is liberals who seek to address societal ills by merely easing their symptoms through government legislation. Legalized abortion for example has sought to allow the elimination of what must be construed as nothing more than the unfortunate result of irresponsible sex, while doing nothing to mitigate the problem. Conservatives, the pragmatists that they are, know that there is no "new idea" under the sun and that a careful examination of history in tandem with a well-rounded understanding of human nature is in order for the establishment of sensible governance. Otherwise, the "new ideas" from centuries gone by will once again rear their ugly heads.

I didn't misread it. I agree with you that liberals seek to 'address societal ills by merely easing their symptoms through government legislation'. This is exactly what the Republicans do (as well as the Democrats, of course), which is the whole point I've been trying to make: they're liberal.

You're correctly identifying the division here: conservatives fear change, liberals embrace it.

However if you're correct that there is 'no "new idea" under the sun', then it's only my definitions of liberal and conservative that make sense! If there are no new ideas, then what could liberalism possibly be than a move away from the status quo? If all ideas have been thought of in the past, then liberalism must be simply about trying new combinations of old ideas.

If you are correct about the lack of new ideas and you are correct that the difference between liberals and conservatives are that conservatives are the ones who draw on old ideas, then ipso facto everyone must be a conservative under your definition in which case it lacks value as a label and should instead be used to refer to something else; I have a suggestion as to what.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I think nonhuman paints the generic term conservatism with too broad a brush. There is more than one type of conservative, but I know it is easy to lump them together.

You're right, conservatism is a broad bush! That's why there's more than one type!

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Comedy gold! You obviously were asleep during the last two Presidential terms.

Apparently you didn't get cable in that old nursing home you live in. Bush worked with both sides of the fence from day one.

Obama's Approval Most Polarized for First-Year President



I realize I'm going to have to explain this graph to you, so listen carefully. Don't worry, you won't have to turn up your hearing aid.

This graph shows the average difference between Republicans and Democrat approval ratings. When the graph show 65% that is horrific.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Comedy gold! You obviously were asleep during the last two Presidential terms.

Now I realize alzheimer's might be hitting you pretty hard about now, but I recall when the Republicans took over the House and Senate many years ago, they went out of their way to reach across the aisle and gave some committee chairman positions to Democrats even though they didn't have too.

The Democrats are the most aragonite and selfish "dictators" ever. Their only goal in life is to control others and hold power to dictate their warped view on everyone else. They will NOT listen to anyone else's view, and that is 100% Obama's problem.

[Lint Police]

The Progressives have eaten the party alive. These problem children are not traditional Democrats.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

The Progressives have eaten the party alive. These problem children are not traditional Democrats.

You are right. I was a Democrat at one time. I bailed ship very young after witnessing Carter and his house of disrepute. I can not believe anyone could be worse than Carter. Obama almost makes me wish Clinton was still in office. j/k

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Mr. Obama (notice that everyone calls him Mr. instead of President).

Everyone calls him that eh?

Did you read that in a newspaper, or did you just grab it directly out of your ass?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Mr. Obama (notice that everyone calls him Mr. instead of President)

Common practice in referring to the president (note, different from addressing the president).

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Mr. Obama (notice that everyone calls him Mr. instead of President)

That's the way to refer to the American president. The Times referred to Bush the same way.

[The Final Dakar]

I refer to him as "The Islamic Shock" per his birth certificate.

[Buckaroo]

I suppose Despot Obama would be more appropriate, but I'm not sure what the exact title for Despot should be. I suppose I could look it up in the dictionary, but I'll leave that to someone else to rant on about.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Everyone calls him that eh?

Did you read that in a newspaper, or did you just grab it directly out of your ass?

I should have been more clear. I have no idea what everyone calls him, I just happen to notice that in many newspaper articles that they refer to him as Mr. Obama instead of President Obama. That's all. Do you have a problem with that?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

I suppose Despot Obama would be more appropriate, but I'm not sure what the exact title for Despot should be. I suppose I could look it up in the dictionary, but I'll leave that to someone else to rant on about.

I believe the usual title for a despot is "King."

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I believe the usual title for a despot is "King."

Like in ML King ?

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

I like George Washington's original title as President: "His High Mightiness, the President of the United States and Protector of their Liberties." He'd know how much freedom we need and/or can do without!

In case it isn't obvious, this post is sarcastic.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Like in ML King ?

-t

hmmmmmm. NO!!!!! Like in DESPOT King.

I was wrong. despot isn't the right word. What was Hitler? Was he a dictator . . . forget Hitler.

You know dictator is a better fit. What is the title for dictator?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

What was Hitler?

Führer und Reichskanzler

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

It doesn't ignore them at all. I (and many others) consider George W. Bush to be quite liberal regardless of how he is presented by himself or his supporters.

Now you're ignoring the wealth of liberals who've made their presence known to Obama. Obama is not a Conservative. Again, I did not take issue with how an ideology is represented, but how it was defined.

I would say that it is inconsistent, as the government has been involved in marriage for a very long time now. I believe that the government should stay out of marriage, and I consider that to be a liberal position not only in the sense that it's a move away from the status quo, but also in the traditional sense of liberalism as desiring greater freedom (hence the phrase 'liberal democracy' or the goal of 'liberalizing' countries like Saudi Arabia).

The bond of marriage is a sacrament that cannot be granted or legitimized by a government institution. Given its incredible failure rate, it could be argued that this is yet another well-intentioned government action gone bad. There is no compelling reason why government would need to legislate personal relationships of any kind. Again, perfectly consistent with an interest in a more limited role of government; Conservatism. Conservatism has often been mistaken with a distaste for change when this couldn't be further from the truth. Conservatism is interested in preserving that which is good and changing that which is bad. It is not interested in untested, radical, undisciplined, expensive, and reckless change for the sake of it and it is most vehemently opposed to the failed ideals of yesterday.

You're correctly identifying the division here: conservatives fear change, liberals embrace it.

We agree then. Liberals use revisionist history to placate a short attention span and are not interested in good as much as they are change. Conservatives often try to temper them like a parent must move the excitable child away from fire. Conservatives don't fear change, they fear liberal change.

However if you're correct that there is 'no "new idea" under the sun', then it's only my definitions of liberal and conservative that make sense! If there are no new ideas, then what could liberalism possibly be than a move away from the status quo? If all ideas have been thought of in the past, then liberalism must be simply about trying new combinations of old ideas. If you are correct about the lack of new ideas and you are correct that the difference between liberals and conservatives are that conservatives are the ones who draw on old ideas, then ipso facto everyone must be a conservative under your definition in which case it lacks value as a label and should instead be used to refer to something else; I have a suggestion as to what.

Conservatives = Change for the sake of improvement, Liberals = Change for the sake of something fun and expensive for the government to do.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Conservatism is interested in preserving that which is good and changing that which is bad.

Wow, that sounds great! Does Conservatism get to claim baby smiles and puppy dogs too?

I think most people, regardless of political affiliation, are interested in preserving that which is good and changing that which is bad. Where they differ is in what they put in each bucket.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

hmmmmmm. NO!!!!! Like in DESPOT King.

I was wrong. despot isn't the right word. What was Hitler? Was he a dictator . . . forget Hitler.

You know dictator is a better fit. What is the title for dictator?

Godwin's Law in three threads. Not bad.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Conservatism has often been mistaken with a distaste for change when this couldn't be further from the truth. Conservatism is interested in preserving that which is good and changing that which is bad.

It may have at one time, but now it, sadly, seems to stand for opposing anything that is liberal (and most cases Democrat).

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

It may have at one time, but now it, sadly, seems to stand for opposing anything that is liberal (and most cases Democrat).

I think it appears that way only because liberals (in most cases Democrats) have completely shut them (and most Americans) out of the process.

"No" is a lot easier to say when those proposing "Yes" can't tell you how or why.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Wow, that sounds great! Does Conservatism get to claim baby smiles and puppy dogs too?

Did you happen to catch the post I was responding to? Just checkin'. Of course there are plenty of baby smiles and puppy dogs to go around.

I think most people, regardless of political affiliation, are interested in preserving that which is good and changing that which is bad. Where they differ is in what they put in each bucket.

... really, it's more contingent upon how much of someone else's resources they're willing to gamble, but otherwise I agree.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Now you're ignoring the wealth of liberals who've made their presence known to Obama. Obama is not a Conservative. Again, I did not take issue with how an ideology is represented, but how it was defined.

I'm not sure what you're getting out here. I never claimed that Obama is a conservative, I claimed that Bush is a liberal. I think that Obama and Bush are very similar—in their policies, if not their statements—so it stands to reason that I would consider Obama to be liberal as well.

The bond of marriage is a sacrament that cannot be granted or legitimized by a government institution. Given its incredible failure rate, it could be argued that this is yet another well-intentioned government action gone bad. There is no compelling reason why government would need to legislate personal relationships of any kind. Again, perfectly consistent with an interest in a more limited role of government; Conservatism. Conservatism has often been mistaken with a distaste for change when this couldn't be further from the truth. Conservatism is interested in preserving that which is good and changing that which is bad. It is not interested in untested, radical, undisciplined, expensive, and reckless change for the sake of it and it is most vehemently opposed to the failed ideals of yesterday.

As an atheist, clearly I disagree that 'the bond of marriage is a sacrament'. I do, however, agree that it 'cannot be granted or legitimized by a government institution'. My wife and I did get a marriage license, but only because of the legal conveniences and protections that it provides (and we did it in Massachusetts where all of my friends would be eligible for those same conveniences and protections).

I am all in favor of limited government. This is the position of classical liberalism, Jeffersonian liberalism, libertarianism, &c.

We agree then. Liberals use revisionist history to placate a short attention span and are not interested in good as much as they are change. Conservatives often try to temper them like a parent must move the excitable child away from fire. Conservatives don't fear change, they fear liberal change.

Now you're just playing word games to make your 'side' seem superior. Everyone uses 'revisionist history', there is no other kind.

Conservatives = Change for the sake of improvement, Liberals = Change for the sake of something fun and expensive for the government to do.

If you actually believe this, then I have no interest in further participating in this discussion. Everyone, liberal and conservative alike, believes that their ideas are going to improve things. And I'm not talking about the politicians here, they're just selfish and corrupt.

[andi*pandi]

In other news, Scott Brown is going on Leno.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

If you actually believe this, then I have no interest in further participating in this discussion. Everyone, liberal and conservative alike, believes that their ideas are going to improve things. And I'm not talking about the politicians here, they're just selfish and corrupt.

Originally Posted by nonhuman

You're correctly identifying the division here: conservatives fear change, liberals embrace it.

In case you hadn't noticed, I became disenchanted with this discussion quite a while ago.

[OldManMac]

A lot of people are making more out of this Scott Brown guy than need be.

Republicans Aren’t Sitting As Pretty As They Think | The New Republic

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

A lot of people are making more out of this Scott Brown guy than need be.

Republicans Aren’t Sitting As Pretty As They Think | The New Republic

What a load of crap.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

A lot of people are making more out of this Scott Brown guy than need be.

Republicans Aren’t Sitting As Pretty As They Think | The New Republic

I can quote partisan rags too.



Move on, nothing to see here.

[olePigeon]

Republicans didn't gain support so much as Democrats lost voters. Brown's win was largely supported by Independent votes, not Republican. While I disagree with the reason provided by the story above, I do agree that it's a hallow victory. Voters are getting sick and tired of both parties, and Conservative Republicans are only fooling themselves if they think this is an indication of any real political shift.

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I have no idea what he, or really anybody here, actually means when they refer to "freedom" in a political context.

It means "French". But the word alone is dirty and traitorous, so us proud Amaracans don't use it.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I like George Washington's original title as President: "His High Mightiness, the President of the United States and Protector of their Liberties."

The story of how that came to be is interesting. V.P. Adams was apparently obsessive about titles and had a Congressional committee propose and determine various titles for the office. Of the bunch that came out of committee, that was the one Washington preferred. However, once people mentioned to him that it sounded like a royal title, he wanted nothing to do with it.

James Madison is credited with working the House over to change the title to "Mr. President", and that became the official title 30 days after Washington took office.

Revolutionary characters: what made ... - Google Books

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

... Conservative Republicans are only fooling themselves if they think this is an indication of any real political shift.

It's an indication that people are becoming more informed and not necessarily voting straight-line Democrat in the bluest of blue states.

As for trends in ideological identification, there are some recent metrics that contradict your conclusion. Obviously, these things change over time, but as it stands now...



Conservatives Finish 2009 as No. 1 Ideological Group

[OldManMac]

Looks like Scotty is pissing off some people who supported him.

Scott Brown: Is The Honeymoon Over? | TPM LiveWire

[sek929]

I don't see how this surprises anyone considering the last governor of Massachusetts was a Republican Mormon.

Despite being fairly socialy liberal, this state has a lot of wealthy people, and wealthy people vote Republican.

[andi*pandi]

Seems to prove he's not a republican party puppet. Independents would like that, and they are purported to be the source of his victory.

Yay for independent thinking...

Someone also once said that a republican in Massachusetts is similar to a Democrat in Florida.