Ha. It only took 10 minutes for elucidator to prove my point quite nicely.
Well, you don’t seem to be able to.
[nitpick]
No he doesn’t. I can’t find a link right now, but if you saw his interview with Bill Maher a few months ago, they got into this a bit. Maher supports the legalization (or at least the decriminalization) of marijuana. O’Reilly does not.
[/nitpick]
After further review, it appears you are correct. Here are excerpts from O’Reilly interviewing the executive director of NORML (The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws). O’Reilly seems pretty dead set against legalizing or otherwise decriminalizing marijuana.
I see 'luci is in rare form. 
Well, for myself, I USED to be a Republican, but I got sick and tired of the dinasaur faction bringing religion and other bullshit into the party. So, I looked hard at the party and saw that I had many more breaks with them than I had things in common. As the Democrats didn’t appeal to me either, I went Independant around the time Perot was running against Bush I.
During this process, I went from being mildly conservative to something much more moderate, as I through off the last vestiges of the Republican party. Of course on THIS board, I’m probably considered conservative still.
To the OP though, I know a LOT of folks that are ‘conservative’ but have problems with the Republican party. How about Pat Buchanan to name one of those dinasaurs I mentioned earlier. No one in their right mind would say HE isn’t conservative (he only discovered fire last week I hear), but he certainly isn’t a Republican anymore. Unfortunately I’m not a big Fox fan, so I’ve only seen The Factor a few times…however, I’d say, from what little I’ve heard, that O’Reilly probably IS an independant…but one that votes Republican more often than not. In other words, he doesn’t toe the party line, as he has problems with some aspects of it, but when it comes to a choice between 'Crats and 'Pubs, he probably goes with 'Pubs more often than not as they are CLOSER to his own ideology.
Just my 2 cents worth.
-XT
I could swear that I heard O’Reilly say just the other day that he favored decrim.
Maybe that’s just since Rush’s fiasco. 
I’ve noticed it too. I’m right-wing, but not a Republican, although I probably vote Republican about 50% of the time. The other 50% are divided pretty much equally between Democrats and Libertarians.
The thing that keeps me out of the Republican Party is the Religious Right’s influence. I do support the libertarian wing of the party, represented by the Republican Liberty Caucus.
I’ve heard O’Reilly say many times that he is in favor of decriminalizing marijuana.
Since you brought it up, which views might those be?
And why are you using quotes around the word “liberal”?
pander pander pander
Well, legalization of drugs and prostitution, strict seperation of church and state, near absolute freedom of speech/expression, to toss out a few examples.
The quotes around liberal refers to the fact that the labels liberal and conservative are completely meaningless these days (don’t forget that conservatives are also called “classic” liberals). I’ve never met a “liberal” who came close to representing the dictionary definition of a liberal, i.e., someone who’s free-thinking and progressive.
All of this highlights the schism in the Republican party that, at some point, is going to cause it some major problems. It will be not unlike the schism within the Democratic party that has now caused them to all but completely lose what was once a deathgrip on the South.
There are a ton of Republicans out there who want what the party has always stood for: individual rights and small government, without the extremism of libertarians. This is the party of men like Abraham Lincoln, Nelson Rockefeller and Calvin Coolidge. While I do not fully agree with this political philosophy, I think it has good things to offer, and I fully respect those who hold it (and those who do, I’ve found, are almost always very intelligent.) These people are truly conservative.
And then there’s the Christian right. What a group who bases their political philosophy around religion is doing in our system is beyond me. We keep those things separate around here, or at least that was the goal. I guess they aligned themselves with Republicans because the “Protestant work ethic” is a consistency between the two camps. Well, they linked up with Republicans, and have no totally infected the party. It’s sad to say that Gerald Ford was the last real Republican president. A party with such a great history deserves better.
So, there are plenty of very secular Republicans (this does not mean they are not religious, but that they know the place of religion with respect to government) who are probably feeling more and more alienated as time goes on. At some point, this camp will probably split with the Christian Conservative movement, which will probably be to the detriment of both groups. Then again, they might see the current situation for what it is — a marriage of convenience — and keep it going. But my guess is not: Some hugely divisive, irreconcilable debate (abortion? gay rights? drugs?) will eventually come up and drive them apart forever.
The practical effect? I don’t know. When the Democrats had their split, the group that left was conveniently all in one place. The effect: Dems lose the South. But true Republicans and Christian Conservatives are increasingly spread all over the place, so I don’t know how it will alter the political map.
OK, done ranting.
Hello Max_Castle and thank you for your answers. Those positions you hold are quite liberal. I would caution that the term does have meaning even if it is complex and changing. There are things called “liberal”. And people too. Congratulations, you have just met one who is both freethinking and progressive.
Well, I’ve never met a “liberal” who supports any of those positions. If you do, you are the first. Congratulations on being capable of thinking for yourself.
As far as I can tell, those positions are all completely in opposition to “liberal” values (except the church-state thing. I can believe that some “liberals” support it, but apparently they don’t consider it important enough to fight for). I could list numerous examples of “liberals” who don’t support those postions (the Clinton-Gore administration’s anti-free speech crusade comes to mind) but I need to go to bed.
At any rate, since you’re claiming those are “liberal” positions, I think the burden of proof is on you to show that they are.
**
I mostly do and thanks though I don’t know how you can conclude I am a free thinker just because I agree with you. It’s possible I think that way because that’s how I was brought up. And it’s child’s play to prove these positions are liberal. One of the things “liberal” means is that something is related to freedom. Since all of those make people more free they are liberal in at least one sense.
The problem is that everyone is for freedom or more accurately, their version of it. Hell, America’s most famous paean to liberty is the Delcaration of Independece which was written by slave owners. Obviously people define their freedom in different ways. I support the campaign finance law that the Supreme Court just declined to shoot down as a baby step toward political equality. I believe that is a reasonable restriction on “near absolute freedom of speech/expression”. Doubtless your idea of freedom differs.
What a group who bases their political philosophy around religion is doing in our system is beyond me.
It’s beyond me to expect someone who has made their God (and faith) the center of their life to leave their values at the door when they go to vote.
People can vote however they want, using whatever value system they want. What I have a problem with is that a group with signficant power in American politics seems to value an extremely literal interpretation of the Bible more than they do the Constitution.
I didn’t say anything like that. I’m assuming that you are a free-thinker because you said you are. I have to accept this as I have no reason to believe that you are lying. This is one of the fundamental differences between liberal (I won’t do the quote thing anymore, but they obviously belong there) and conservative philosophy: Conservatives believe people are basically good and honest. Liberals believe people are basically bad and dishonest.
That’s the way I was brought up too. It wasn’t until I went to college that I was really exposed to liberalism first hand. I was shocked to find that they rejected these views, and were in general very close-minded, ignorant, and intolerant people.
You’re not paying attention. My point is that liberals don’t care about freedom. You’re confusing the dictionary definition of liberal with what liberal means in the modern political sense. The dictionary definition of liberalism is closer to the modern politcal definition of conservatism.
Not all of the founding fathers were slave owners. And it’s not really justifiable to judge those that were by modern standards, but that’s a debate for another thread.
I said “near absolute” as there are reasonable restrictions to freedom of speech; yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is the classic example.
This is the problem with most liberals. They don’t accept that any view of freedom other than their own is valid. This is true of fanatics of all stripes. You don’t seem to have fallen into that trap, but that undercurrent of intolerance is central to liberal attitudes.
I fit the OP perfectly. I am conservative, even extremely so, on issues like constitutional interpretation and separation of powers. I have voted Republican perhaps 80% of the time, perhaps more. I have used Republican party affiliation twice as a default reason to vote for a particular candidate. I tend to prefer the “Republican” foreign policy models over their counterparts, I tend to be pro-commerce and I prefer small-government, low-tax models. Most people I meet assume I am a Republican even if we do not talk politics. Yet I am registered as an independent and always have been so. Why?
-
I have a quaint faith in Jeffersonian/Madisonian nonfactional politics. Registering as an independent is perhaps my only way to express that.
-
I prefer to think of candidates as individuals defined by their character, beliefs and (perceived) tendencies. I prefer candidates think of me as an individual voter, not a party member.
-
I do not want the views of a political party (any party) to presumed to be mine. This includes both times when I tend to agree with particular policies (say, many “controversial” judicial nominees) and those when I do not (say, the death penalty). If you want to know my views, you have to ask me, not a party official.
-
I believe the party system is as much about organized log-rolling as it is about identity of issues. For the purposes of the Rs (which is all that matters in this OP), I think that some – Lott and Hatch, say – would gladly sell party principle if it meant a backscratch for a friend. I prefer to stand on principle.
-
I do not want to compromise political friends. Both political parties tend to track down and remember those who are “disloyal.” I have contributed to and campaigned for both Rs and Ds in the past, and I expect to do so in the future. It is easier for all involved if I do so as in independent.
You’re right, you didn’t. I jumped to a conclusion.
But you didn’t accept my word instead saying that if I supported those positions I was the first liberal you met that had. Then you congratulated me for being a freethinker implying that by holding those positions I proved myself one.
In my experience you have this completely reversed. I have found that leftists ( not just American liberals ) are those who feel that people in general are good and can be trusted and conservatives believe the opposite. RexDart’s antidemocratic screed in the McCain-Feingold thread is a conservative jeremiad: ‘Grass roots efforts will never serve anybody’s interests except the gaggle of mindless idiots who never want anything but to raid the gov’t coffers to line their own pockets…in other words, the “common man”. To get widespread grass roots support you either have to be a moral busybody or a populist. The wealthy make this country what it is, and those no good little leeches who feed off of them get garbage like this passed so that the nation’s greatest producers are reduced in political voice to the level of some schmoe who works at the gas station.’
In fact, this is my basic test for someone’s ideology. There are, for instance, leftwing libertarians as well as rightwing libertarians. Though I have never asked him I would bet that erislover is left-libertarian. His posts demonstrate care for and trust in the common people. Libertarian OTOH as a devout believer in Original Sin, I would wager does not trust people in general. He is a conservative libertarian.
I’m sure you can find policies that you believe liberals propose that you feel shows their distrust of people but I’m equally sure that for the most part they simply show distrust of individuals. Even the most casual observer of the world around us can see that not every individual is trustworthy. That is not the same thing as not believing people are basically good.
I never said I was brought up to believe in the policies in question. I said it was possible but in reality I wasn’t. My parents were aging hippies who had “dropped out”. They were leftists but nonpolitical. I came to these beliefs mostly by examining what different people believed and coming to my own conclusion. Are you saying you believe in these things because you were brought up that way? If so how do you consider yourself a freethinker?
“They” include me. I’m liberal and I don’t reject those views. You have just come up against a fact contradicting a belief you hold. A freethinker might take this as evidence that they were mistaken and discard the faulty preconception. What will you do?
Some people supporting liberal positions aren’t liberals. They just picked up support for these ideas somewhere without adopting a liberal ideology or even any ideology at all other than pragmatism. There are plenty of closeminded and intolerant people holding all the “right” ( left ) views but that aren’t liberal. I’ve run into some too. Not fun.
** You are missing my point. I showed that the positions were liberal in one sense demonstrating that I was correct in asserting that the word “liberal”, far from being meaningless, has an abundance of meanings.
I didn’t mention the founding fathers just those who wrote the DoI. The drafting committee consisted of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Roger Sherman and Robert Livingston. The first 2 were slave owners. Yes, even old Ben Franklin. The future president of antislavery societies owned slaves himself up until 1784. The next 2 were opposed to slavery and I am unsure offhand about the last member but given his background ( the Livingstons were one of the leading families of New York ) I would figure him for a slaver as well. Given the antislavery feeling evinced by some of the members of this group there is no need to apply modern morality to the slavers. Their actions were considered tyrannical by some of their contemporaries.
But of course I never offered any judgement of these men only used them to support my point there are divergent definitions of liberty.
Quite so. My statement that I find McCain-Feingold to be a reasonable restriction of freedom of speech should be taken to mean that I find McCain-Feingold to be a reasonable restriction of freedom of speech.
Where did you get this from those words of mine that you quoted? I said that people define freedom differently and that you no doubt define it differently than me. I have offered no opinion of the validity of various definitions of liberty only shown that they exist. You seem to have jumped to a conclusion about my beliefs. Perhaps you are equally mistaken about the undercurrent of intolerance of liberal attitudes. What makes you think it exists?