Do you think the liberal/conservative stuff is BS?

Page 2 of 2 [ 17 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,571

18 Jun 2011, 4:21 pm

Bipartisanship is evil. It's a one-party state de facto. Obama's obsession with bipartisanship is disturbing. He just loves oligarchy.



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,280
Location: The end of the northwest passage

18 Jun 2011, 4:29 pm

TheSnarkKnight wrote:
The problem with the political arena in the US (I can't say what it's like for the rest of the world) is that the most active/vocal components aren't liberal or conservative, at all. People assume that a conservative is a person who is opposed to change, but that's not the case. A conservative is a person who thinks change should only come if it is absolutely necessary, or that change should be allowed to happen naturally and need not be compulsory. Conservatives also tend to be highly critical of social policies that they see as futile or wasteful. The movement to end the War on Drugs was originally proposed by conservatives. A person who is fervently opposed to change is called a reactionary.

Likewise, a lot of people see liberals as those who want to subvert the status quo and implement radical changes that they believe will benefit the greater good of society, at the cost of our personal freedoms. That's not a liberal, that's an idealist. Liberals view change as a social experiment that is constantly happening, and are willing to abandon their policies if they cause more harm than good, or if they can come up with better solutions than the ones they already have. The establishment of public education was a liberal movement. Both liberals and conservatives aim to maximize personal freedom and the best quality of life people can enjoy, it's just that they don't always agree on how to do so. What makes liberals and conservatives different from idealists and reactionaries is that the former are capable of compromise and rational discourse, while the latter are extremely partisan and chauvinistic.

Now, about the reactionaries and the idealists: the problem with them is their ideas only have their interests in mind (or their children's interests), and nobody else matters. Their ideas are often simplistic and almost never based upon reality. The reactionary mindset assumes that if any social change comes about, their whole way of life will be destroyed (i.e. saying allowing gays to marry will cause society to spiral down into moral decadence). The idealist mindset assumes that imposing certain changes will automatically solve certain social problems (i.e. gun control will lead to less crime). They cling to their ideas with an almost religious devotion.

But in spite of the fact that reactionary and idealistic factions tend to be the most vocal components of the political arena, the actual policymakers (at least the ones in Washington) tend to be neither--because they're plutocrats that only represent the interests of their campaign financiers.


This says it well.

I also agree with xenon13, in part. I want Obama to fight those evil SOBs he'd rather accomodate.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade