Umm, anti-Islamic left-wing liberal? 
sorry, this is GD, I shouldn’t be snarky.
Ha ha ha ha ha this is a joke, right? Putting those two items right next to each other. That’s pretty good. Oh man, gum you crack my shit up.
Other than “against Islam” those are all firmly Liberal positions.
In a sense, I would say that “Conservative” does, to a certain extent, exactly what it meant 50 years ago. Strong belief in religeon, country, self-determination. America is number one. God is great. And of course long live the dominance of white anglo-Christian hetero culture. Maybe it made sense 50 years ago when white anglo-Christian hetero was in fact the unquestioned dominant culture. However we are a much more diverse society today and clinging to those beliefs now seems quaintly ignorant at best and facist at worst.
Big business is associated with “Conservative”. Probably as an offshoot of the working class belief that hard work pays off. I’m not sure if resistance globalization is a conservative or liberal belief. Traditionally conservative working class people in fear of losing their jobs have resisted globalization, but I believe liberals are also against it because they view it as big government oppressing the poor around the world.
Ironically, it seems to me that trust in government to take care of everything is a conservative value. Liberals tend to distrust the government because they often see it as a force stripping away human rights. This is ironic because liberals often favor sweeping programs designed to help people that in fact make govermnent bigger and more powerful. But it seems to me that it’s the conservatives who are pro-military, pro law enforcement and pro “government should do whatever it takes to secure me”.
A good rule of thumb is that liberals tend to be more “hey, everyone just do whatever the hell you want” while conservatives tend to be more “everyone should ascribe to the white anglo-Christian model of house, car, 2.4 kids and little league games on the weekend”.
To some degree, yes. But the vast majority of “forcing” comes from the right. I always hear about gay marriage, abortion, etc. being “forced” on the public (i.e. “judicial activism”), when in fact, neither of these issues force anyone to do anything. They simply reserve private freedoms for individuals.
Take away as in co-opt? Or take away as in remove any possibility of the Democrats accopmlishing their agenda? Becasue I don’t see the GOP espousing any Democratic social values.
Sadly, this is entirely true. All of the progressives I know are profoundly disappointed in the Democratic party. For some reason, the Dem leadership seems to think that the way to win elections is to appeal to Republican voters, as if they could lure them away (Dean’s appearance on the 700 Club, for example; general talk of abandoning women’s issues “for now” because they scare away conservative voters). The thing is, conservatives already have a party to vote for and just being “Republican Lite” isn’t going to attract them, and will actively piss off the base you should be listening to.
I think if the Dem’s showed a backbone of any kind, if they stood up for things normally considered to be poltical death (SSM, abortion, evolution in science classrooms, etc) and said, “Hey, we’re for these things and here’swhy you should be, too. Now let’s move on to the really important issues that will actually affect your lives”, they would get a groundswell of formerly underwhelmed base support.
I don’t think they’ve automatically opposed anything the GOP has done. If anything, they’ve rolled over for it time and again. They are, at the moment campaigning on the idea of what they are not (Bush), when they should be promoting what they are.
However, that is not the same as rooting against your country. We are on a path to ruin. Somebody has to point that out.
[ confused old man ]Who shot who in the what, now?[/ confused old man ]
I love the GOP tactic of being underhanded, cheating bastards and then, when caught at it, saying “Aw, you whiners are just sore losers who aren’t good enough to play the game”, while winking at the American people, who seem to love a good, old-fashioned sumbitch.
Again, this is all too true. If Democrats won’t listen to their base, I wish they would at least listen to their opponents. Truth is, we’re probably going to lose, but let’s at least lose while standing for what was right.
Allow me to invite you to vist the South.
Basically you are a fiscal/political conservative with libertarian leanings. Welcome to the club. 
I too voted for Reagan…last Republican I voted for in fact.
I think it really started in the '80’s…at least thats when I began to become seriously disquited by the Republican right wing religous nutballs. Unfortunately those nutballs eventually took the day and the party and I think a LOT of former Republicans are either unhappily holding on in the hopes that eventually the nuts will run their course and be done or that they are completely discredited and that the fiscal/political conservatives will be able to pick up the pieces (after spending a few years playing second fiddle to the Dems). The other Republicans, such as myself left the party and became Independants.
Easy answer…because Bush is NOT a fiscal conservative. He’s a social conservative. He’s really almost a tax and spend liberal wrt social spending and other policies (he just created the largest ocean national monument in Hawaii for instance), who ALSO is an advocate of high military spending. But at his core its the social conservatism that drives the man…not concern with having a smaller government and decreasing spending.
Well, this isn’t exactly unique to Bush. In times of war and threat civil liberties are usually the first things sacrificed for security…even it the security is illusion. Its unfortunate but true. WE, as citizens, need to be watchful and not allow the government to do the easy thing and start down the slippery slope. Unfortunately, in many cases its the very citizens who are calling for such actions…for the government to DO SOMETHING™!! I have to say, at least at this time period, that its been our liberal bretheren who have been the major check on this…though I suspect that in many cases its simply because they are opposed to ANYTHING Bush does. Still, its a damn good thing they are doing what they are doing and that they are so damn loud about it.
Easy…its expedient. Its a time of ‘war’. Its a time of ‘threat’. And at the core, these bozo’s are just politicians after all. Its not like they REALLY believe all that stuff.
Also, as I said earlier, Bush is a SOCIAL conservative…not really a fiscal or policital conservative. And he doesn’t (seemingly) have a libertarian bone in his body (in fact, I’ve heard rumors he’s an invertebrate 
).
Call yourself a fiscally conservative libertarian and have John Mace sign you up for the news letter (just joking :))…there are a few of us about here.
Spot on.
-XT
I know I’m in over my head here, but wouldn’t much of the problems encountered be best addressed by enacting strong campaign finance laws that limit donations from organizations and also removing the tax exempt status of churches who insist on politicizing themselves? This would seem to me to be able to drastically cut the influence of fringe groups upon policy decisions.
Well, I was talking about what my personal views on conservativism are (I think I mentioned upthread that whether or not the Republican party embodies these ideas is another story altogether). I consider myself a classical liberal. I do not, however, feel that the current definition of “liberal” fits this idea. Libertarianism fits it better, so I guess I am really more of a libertarian. But, when it comes to modern politics I don’t choose to align myself with that party, and a lot of people don’t know exactly what a libertarian is, so I use the word conservative because I think it will give people a better idea of what my political opinions are than calling myself a liberal would.
Basically, I am a fiscal conservative. Socially, I personally am pretty conservative, but I believe for the most part that the government should just stay out of personal matters, and everyone would be a lot better off. I live in a town that is extremely liberal. The fact that there are all kinds of lifestyles represented doesn’t bother me in the least…I live my life, everyone else lives theirs, it’s all good. The thing that DOES bother me are the insanely high taxes, the idea that all government meddling works towards the public good, the regulation of every damn thing in the world, including the local ordinance that doesn’t allow you to put a “For Sale” sign in front of your house if you want to sell it, the amazing amount of money they throw at social problems that never seem to improve much less get solved, the fact that there is very little respect for private property, to the point where they seem to believe that eminent domain is just another tool to use in order to develop & “improve” the town the way they desire. It’s a mess. This town went over 90% for Kerry in the last election, so that tells you where their personal politics lie…I’m not a very good Republican, but I can sure tell you I make a lously Democrat.
I’ve gotta disagree with the contention that Bush is a “social conservative”. He’s not. He doesn’t care at all about those issues. Sure, he’s “against” gay marriage, he’s against flag burning, he’s antiabortion, he’s against drugs, he’s for God and prayer. But he doesn’t care much about those issues. As Andrew Sullivan points out, Bush and Cheney and his team are all closet tolerants. Sure, they’re willing to bash gays and complain about abortion if that gets them votes, but they have no interest themselves in bashing gays or outlawing abortion, they just think that by throwing the religious right a scrap now and then will keep their approval numbers high.
Thing is, Bush isn’t motivated in the slightest by ideology. He’s more of a throwback to old-school machine politics, where the important thing is to hold office for the sake of holding office, doling out perks and patronage and government contracts, and getting your picture in the paper. He doesn’t want to be president to accomplish anything, he just wants to be president. So, spend money and the people who get that money are happy. Cut taxes and the people whose taxes are cut are happy. Make noises on social issues and the people who care about that are happy. Kick the ass of some third world scumbags, and people who like to kick ass are happy. Simple, really. Except it only works for a while, because eventually things have to balance. Except Bush will be out of office before that happens.
I agree, although one might argue: what’s the difference if the result is the same?
You couldn’t be more wrong about that. He is adamantly ideological about his Iraq policy, for one. If he weren’t, he’d be cutting and running faster than you can say John Murtha.
Though it doesn’t happen often, I have to disagree with you and John on this. I think Bush IS a social conservative…i.e. he wants to maintain the status quo wrt things like abortion and gay marriage. He may not be rabid about it (in fact, he probably isn’t), but they do form part of his overall political makeup. And as John Mace pointed out “what’s the difference if the result is the same?”
I would agree with this…in fact it was my own assessment when Bush was first elected. However, 9/11 had a rather profound effect on ole GW and I think that post-9/11 you would be wrong. Oh, certainly some of that is true…but he IS ideologically motivated, at least wrt his War on Terror and the war in Iraq. If not there is no way we’d still be there…he would have had us out of there before the last elections reguardless of the effect that would have had on Iraq. Had us out with victory parades and the whole 9 yards…and now be spinning it that WE did our part but that the Iraqi’s obviously didn’t want freedom enough, blah blah blah.
-XT
Thanks!
Yeah, I thought it kinda funny too. Considering islam discriminates everyone who isn’t a muslim.