Page 1 of 3 [ 45 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

08 Feb 2012, 8:42 am

In America, the words are essentially euphemisms for two packages of often unrelated ideas, one pushed by the Democratic Party and the other by the Republican Party.

'Liberals' are supposedly pro-welfare, pro-abortion, pro-environment, pro-feminism, pro-immigration, anti-war (though increasingly less so as the anti-war movement is incredibly weak in America), anti-death penalty, anti-capitalism (though again, less and less so), anti-racism, and anti-religion.

'Conservatives' are supposedly pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-capitalism (even to the point of defending cronies), racist or at least nationalist, religious, anti-welfare, anti-abortion, anti-environment, anti-feminist, and anti-immigration.

My beliefs are most definitely closer to liberal, but I am anti-abortion, skeptical of feminism though not opposed to it, and anti-racist but not to the point that I don't even think races exist because to some extent I do think there is a reality to the concept of race.

Some of these packaged values are inconsistent imo. For example, if you are against abortion, imo you should also oppose the death penalty and war. I actually don't see any of the 'life issues' as being inherently liberal or conservative, I think that's quite a different spectrum. While liberals tend to be closer to pacifists, the Amish are extremely conservative yet are more pacifistic arguably than any other culture on the planet. Likewise, there are liberal movements that are very militant.

I also don't consider socialism or capitalism inherently liberal or conservative, aside from in the sense that capitalism is largely supported because of the conservative concept of humans being moral islands and complete personal responsibility. The irony is that capitalism is largely justified on the very atheistic Darwinian evolution concept of survival of the fittest, I would say that socialism is actually a much more 'Christian' form of economics and many Christians are indeed socialists.

I would say that liberals tend to support throwing out traditions while conservatives tend to cling to them stubbornly, and moderates tend to be skeptical of traditions but keep the ones that are good.



donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

08 Feb 2012, 8:44 am

In sum I think it has to do with how traditional and conventional one's beliefs are. Liberals of course, being less traditional and less conventional, and conservatives more.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Feb 2012, 10:25 am

donnie_darko wrote:
In America, the words are essentially euphemisms for two packages of often unrelated ideas, one pushed by the Democratic Party and the other by the Republican Party.

.


These days both parties are Statist, i.e. they believe the government is the main engine of society. They differ on the degree of government involvement in the private lives of people and they differ somewhat on emphasis. The Democrat Liberals look to equalize income and status and the Republicans favor the interests of the business folk. Which is not unreasonable. Poor folks do not create jobs. People with money to invest do.

ruveyn



DC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,477

08 Feb 2012, 10:45 am

Politics is no longer fit for purpose.

In the past power in society was exercised by using group dynamics, if you joined this one group you had to believe everything it believed and act the same way as all the other members of the group.

Then we all became 'individuals'.

It is ok to belong to multiple groups. It is ok to pick and choose what you buy or what you believe in.

Unfortunately our politics hasn't kept up, if anything in the US it has become tribal in the extreme.

An interesting site was done in the run up to the UK general election, it simply asked you which topics you were interested and then presented you with six policy statements on each issue, you didn't know which party had written each statement until you finished going through all the topics of interest.

Practically nobody ends up supporting a single party on all issues they care about, in reality almost everybody has a mixed opinion on different topics that range from far left to far right but in this age where you can walk into a sandwich shop and express your choice on what constitutes a good sandwich down to the tiniest detail your political freedom is still restricted to sticking a single X in a box once every few years to cover something as complex as running a country.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Feb 2012, 10:48 am

DC wrote:
Politics is no longer fit for purpose.

In the past power in society was exercised by using group dynamics, if you joined this one group you had to believe everything it believed and act the same way as all the other members of the group.

Then we all became 'individuals'.

It is ok to belong to multiple groups. It is ok to pick and choose what you buy or what you believe in.

.


Cafeteria Politics. Choose one from column A and two from Column B.

Would you prefer everything to be monolithic?

ruveyn



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

08 Feb 2012, 11:19 am

I would break it down into social, fiscal and environmental policies.

Social Conservatism:
Pro preservation of cultural and religious values, anti individual liberties (other than weapon ownership in the USA, and the right to be greedy), anti-immigration
Social Liberalism:
Pro individual liberties, pro separation of church and state, anti governmental control of the individual, pro-multiculturalism

Fiscal Conservatism:
Anti government regulation of the market economy, pro individual fiscal responsibility (i.e., screw the poor), anti public sector & infrastructure spending, pro military spending
Fiscal Liberalism:
Pro corporate & market regulation in order to protect consumers and workers, pro social equality and welfare, pro public sector & infrastructure spending, anti military spending

Environmental Conservatism
Screw the environment, who gives a damn
Environmental Liberalism
Pro corporate & market regulation in order to protect the environment

Some people take different positions on different subjects. Libertarians, for example, are often fiscal and environmental conservatives but social liberals.

This also shows how pointless the "big versus small government" discussion is. Conservatives promote a big government when it comes to restrictive social policies and military spending, but oppose it in regard to market regulation, welfare and public sector spending. Liberals advocate the exact opposite, which makes a lot more sense in my opinion. The current state of the US economy was caused by an unregulated banking industry, not by gay marriage :D



Last edited by CrazyCatLord on 08 Feb 2012, 11:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

08 Feb 2012, 11:24 am

ruveyn wrote:
... The Democrat Liberals look to equalize income and status and the Republicans favor the interests of the business folk. Which is not unreasonable. Poor folks do not create jobs. People with money to invest do.


People with money to spend create jobs. It doesn't matter if those people are consumers, employers or investors. But there is no money to make for employers and investors without sufficient consumer wealth, so the entire economy ultimately rests on the shoulders of the working class. If they have no money to spend on goods and services... well, just look at the current state of the US economy.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

08 Feb 2012, 1:20 pm

donnie_darko wrote:
In America, the words are essentially euphemisms for two packages of often unrelated ideas, one pushed by the Democratic Party and the other by the Republican Party.

'Liberals' are supposedly pro-welfare, pro-abortion, pro-environment, pro-feminism, pro-immigration, anti-war (though increasingly less so as the anti-war movement is incredibly weak in America), anti-death penalty, anti-capitalism (though again, less and less so), anti-racism, and anti-religion.

'Conservatives' are supposedly pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-capitalism (even to the point of defending cronies), racist or at least nationalist, religious, anti-welfare, anti-abortion, anti-environment, anti-feminist, and anti-immigration.

My beliefs are most definitely closer to liberal, but I am anti-abortion, skeptical of feminism though not opposed to it, and anti-racist but not to the point that I don't even think races exist because to some extent I do think there is a reality to the concept of race.

Some of these packaged values are inconsistent imo. For example, if you are against abortion, imo you should also oppose the death penalty and war. I actually don't see any of the 'life issues' as being inherently liberal or conservative, I think that's quite a different spectrum. While liberals tend to be closer to pacifists, the Amish are extremely conservative yet are more pacifistic arguably than any other culture on the planet. Likewise, there are liberal movements that are very militant.

I also don't consider socialism or capitalism inherently liberal or conservative, aside from in the sense that capitalism is largely supported because of the conservative concept of humans being moral islands and complete personal responsibility. The irony is that capitalism is largely justified on the very atheistic Darwinian evolution concept of survival of the fittest, I would say that socialism is actually a much more 'Christian' form of economics and many Christians are indeed socialists.

I would say that liberals tend to support throwing out traditions while conservatives tend to cling to them stubbornly, and moderates tend to be skeptical of traditions but keep the ones that are good.


The Democratic Party and even most "ultra-liberal Democrats" were never anti-capitalist. Most supported some framework of regulated capitalism stronger than what America's historically had but a lot weaker than what the social democracies of Fenno-Scandinavia have.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Feb 2012, 2:30 pm

CrazyCatLord wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
... The Democrat Liberals look to equalize income and status and the Republicans favor the interests of the business folk. Which is not unreasonable. Poor folks do not create jobs. People with money to invest do.


People with money to spend create jobs. It doesn't matter if those people are consumers, employers or investors. But there is no money to make for employers and investors without sufficient consumer wealth, so the entire economy ultimately rests on the shoulders of the working class. If they have no money to spend on goods and services... well, just look at the current state of the US economy.



Before spending (as in consumer spending) there must be investment. How much do the Poor Folks invest? Capital goods have to be created and deployed before there is production and commerce.

ruveyn



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

08 Feb 2012, 3:28 pm

ruveyn wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
... The Democrat Liberals look to equalize income and status and the Republicans favor the interests of the business folk. Which is not unreasonable. Poor folks do not create jobs. People with money to invest do.


People with money to spend create jobs. It doesn't matter if those people are consumers, employers or investors. But there is no money to make for employers and investors without sufficient consumer wealth, so the entire economy ultimately rests on the shoulders of the working class. If they have no money to spend on goods and services... well, just look at the current state of the US economy.



Before spending (as in consumer spending) there must be investment. How much do the Poor Folks invest? Capital goods have to be created and deployed before there is production and commerce.

ruveyn


Investment in what exactly? Without consumer demand and consumer purchasing power, you can't sell any goods and services. Consumer wealth and demand is what drives business investment.



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

10 Feb 2012, 12:57 am

CrazyCatLord wrote:
This also shows how pointless the "big versus small government" discussion is. Conservatives promote a big government when it comes to restrictive social policies and military spending, but oppose it in regard to market regulation, welfare and public sector spending. Liberals advocate the exact opposite, which makes a lot more sense in my opinion. The current state of the US economy was caused by an unregulated banking industry, not by gay marriage :D

Are you sure? Consider this:
Quote:
Gay marriage is the vanguard of a culturally subversive set of "progressives" who wish to destroy this country from the inside out by deliberately, insidiously eroding the moral authority of our Lord and Savior. By destroying the sanctity of marriage, they've signaled to Americans that anything goes and God's law should be disobeyed. So freeloaders take out mortgages they know they can't pay back. and then want a bailout from responsible, God-fearing citizens Their recklessness caused by moral turpitude brings down the whole economy.



TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

10 Feb 2012, 1:06 am

CrazyCatLord wrote:
I would break it down into social, fiscal and environmental policies.

Social Conservatism:
Pro preservation of cultural and religious values, anti individual liberties (other than weapon ownership in the USA, and the right to be greedy), anti-immigration
Social Liberalism:
Pro individual liberties, pro separation of church and state, anti governmental control of the individual, pro-multiculturalism

Fiscal Conservatism:
Anti government regulation of the market economy, pro individual fiscal responsibility (i.e., screw the poor), anti public sector & infrastructure spending, pro military spending
Fiscal Liberalism:
Pro corporate & market regulation in order to protect consumers and workers, pro social equality and welfare, pro public sector & infrastructure spending, anti military spending

Environmental Conservatism
Screw the environment, who gives a damn
Environmental Liberalism
Pro corporate & market regulation in order to protect the environment

Some people take different positions on different subjects. Libertarians, for example, are often fiscal and environmental conservatives but social liberals.

This also shows how pointless the "big versus small government" discussion is. Conservatives promote a big government when it comes to restrictive social policies and military spending, but oppose it in regard to market regulation, welfare and public sector spending. Liberals advocate the exact opposite, which makes a lot more sense in my opinion. The current state of the US economy was caused by an unregulated banking industry, not by gay marriage :D


This is a good break-down, but your bias is showing. You may want to cover yourself.


_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.


Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

10 Feb 2012, 1:21 am

Quote:
Gay marriage is the vanguard of a culturally subversive set of "progressives" who wish to destroy this country from the inside out by deliberately, insidiously eroding the moral authority of our Lord and Savior. By destroying the sanctity of marriage, they've signaled to Americans that anything goes and God's law should be disobeyed. So freeloaders take out mortgages they know they can't pay back. and then want a bailout from responsible, God-fearing citizens Their recklessness caused by moral turpitude brings down the whole economy.


:lol:


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

10 Feb 2012, 10:28 am

Quote:
anti-war (though increasingly less so as the anti-war movement is incredibly weak in America)

Yes, I did notice a sudden and dramatic drop in anti-war sentiments when Obama took office even though we were still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and would be for some time. I guess war is just fine as long as your man is at the helm……..
:roll:

Quote:
Conservatives' are supposedly pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-capitalism (even to the point of defending cronies), racist or at least nationalist, religious, anti-welfare, anti-abortion, anti-environment, anti-feminist, and anti-immigration.


Pro- war: More like readiness for war since they do indeed happen. Also, if we’re going to hold the world’s hand all the time then we obviously need a force that is capable of being the sword point of that global interest.

Pro-death penalty: Sure, why not? Do you have any idea what kind of people we have praying on the innocent?

Pro-capitalism: Or what, communism?

Racist or at least nationalist: Racist because we don’t believe in affirmative action as it is currently practiced? Because we don’t believe that we should have to apologize for the wrongs of the past to people that did not experience the past? I’ve known many black, Hispanic, Asian, etc. conservatives.

Religious: Too ambiguous of a term.

Anti-welfare: In principal, yes. However, a country this size needs some kind of social safety net. That net should never be allowed to be used as a lifetime resting place, though.

Anti-abortion: Generally against it but it may be a necessity in some (read that very few) cases. I won't call it murder in its true sense but it sure as hell is akin to it. I always find it ironic that those who screech the loudest in support of abortion also screech the loudest against the death penalty.

Anti-environment: More like realizing that we have to stay on the industrial and economic map and have sources of income. We can’t very well just live in the jungle and make the rich pay for all of our needs through taxation. Industry and the environment have to co-exist which means sustainable compromises for both.

Anti-feminist: In all fairness I have to support equal rights but that means equal in its pure form. I can’t see what good has come from femi-nazism, though.

Anti-immigration: EVERYONE’S ancestors came from somewhere else. What we’re against is illegal immigration. There’s a reason for screening incoming foreigners and culling some of them out. ANY nation has a right to protect its borders.
If I had ever crossed a border illegally (incliding the US border) and got caught I would have accepted my fate even if they'd put me against a wall and shot me.


I could chew on some more of this but I have other things to do today.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

10 Feb 2012, 10:53 am

In case you haven't noticed: the Repugnican Party, ever since Ronald Reagan, has pronounced itself to be stridently anti-abortion. But, once they get elected, they never actually do anything about it. It is nothing more than a ploy to get votes from Evangelicals and Catholics. All that the Repugnicans really care about is plunder.

Our last president who was an honest Christian was Jimmy Carter.