Yep,that’s the bottom line.
I believe I will amend my last post to propose that most of the FF supported maintaining slavery in the new America, though it is probably inaccurate to say that most were strongly in favor of it. My memory was that Jefferson was pretty much out on a limb when it came to attempts to whack the British over this subject in the Declaration of Independence.
ZOO Wrote: “The “change” vs “no change” types were what I intended to represent. I don’t think the “good” vs “bad” can be defined so easily.”
So, according to your system “liberals” want to change, reform, etc. social security into a sort of mutual fund and “conservatives” want to keep it a state-sanctioned Ponzi scheme? Does this mean you can no longer rant and rave about G.W. Bush being a “conservative”?
Also, how would you explain somebody like Prime Minister Thatcher? Her Government did a lot to change the face of modern Britain. Would you consider her to be a “liberal”?
P.S. Do matter what you think of the ideology, “Conservative” is such a great word. 1000 years of linguistic development summed up in one word.
This is a point that needs to be addressed, because it is a good one. I actually think that most of the great “liberal” changes throughout history were actually enacted by people with conservative philosophies in life. Thatcher may be a good example. She seemed like she had a conservative demeanor, but some of the changes that she prompted were very liberal in nature.
Abraham Lincoln is another example. The abolition of slavery was a very liberal move. However, the attempt at such abolition was not Lincoln’s motive. His motive was to keep the nation together. Such an idealogy was (and still would be) conservative in nature.
So LInoln was a conservative man who ran a liberal administration. Usually, the times dictate one’s policies more than one’s policies dictate the times.
Umm… I guess that’s how a self-described conservative might see it, when being frank about their horizons. (And somehow thinking that liberals don’t pay the same taxes they do!) With respect to social programs:
What the person you describe as a liberal is thinking is “We have a responsibility to those less fortunate than ourselves.”
And they would think of your conservative as heartless greedheads who are ignoring that responsibility.
All glibness aside, I disagree with both of those positions. I see conservatives as basically more trusting of community mores and majority rule, and liberals as more concerned with the rights of the minority. Currently, the political parties have claimed these groups and also have other stances that have become part of the caricature of the other side but have nothing to do with conservatism or liberalism as practied in the US today.
BJOHN13 Wrote: "This is a point that needs to be addressed, because it is a good one. I actually think that most of the great “liberal” changes throughout history were actually enacted by people with conservative philosophies in life. Thatcher may be a good example. She seemed like she had a conservative demeanor, but some of the changes that she prompted were very liberal in nature. "
I would consider M. Thatcher do be a liberal in the 19th and early 20th Century sense of the word. The thrust of her reforms weakened the state-control over the British economy (e.g. privitization, weakening the legal authority of the unions over industry, deregulating large sectors of the economy). Despite this, she was also one of the great centralizers of government authority.
Lincoln is another animal all together. I would put him in the same situation as a Churchill. He greatly expanded the scope, reach, and authority of the central government at the expense of market forces and individual rights. However, his actions were in responses to a grave national crisis. I wonder how Lincoln would have reacted had he not been faced with the Civil War. Similiarly, what policies would the highly improbable Churchill Government have followed without a threat from Nazi Germany?
NOGGINHEAD WROTE: "What the person you describe as a liberal is thinking is “We have a responsibility to those less fortunate than ourselves.”
And they would think of your conservative as heartless greedheads who are ignoring that responsibility."
Why do people have to give some of their “productive surplus” to help the less fortunate?
I was reading in the paper that there was a rally for U.S. Healthcare Reform somewhere in the U.S. this weekend. One of the big sponsors was the American Medican Association. Funny, the doctors never want to give up their high, six-figure salaries as part of health care reform.
I agree with the person who said that liberals always want to give away somebody else’s money. Before Barbara Steisand, Martin Sheen, Tim Robbins, etc. tell me to give money to the homeless, lets see them give away their mansions and live like a middle-class American…
Why do you persist in thinking that liberals don’t pay taxes? All the celebs you mention and many liberals vote for democrats even though they know their own taxes will be lower under the GOP.
Now wait just a cotton-pickin’ second here.
George Wallace a liberal?!?!?! What the fuck kind of crack have you been smoking, crackhead?
Jomo
do some history. Wallace’s change of heart is well documented and obviously sincere.
…
Liberals see bigger and bigger gov’t as the solution to all societys ills.
Conservatives say get the gov’t off the people’s backs (ie reduce their tax burden) and lets see what makes America great.
Course the Jesse Jacksons know better than poor people how to stay stuck in their rut of dependency (which also keeps him and his parasitic ilk in power)
fire away
Skillet—learn the English language. The description used for Wallace’s “liberalism” was “anti-desegregationist.” That means somebody who’s against desegregation. In other words, somebody who supports segregation. This is what the schoolmarms meant when they told you a double negative equals a positive. In 1968 Wallace ran as a third-party candidate and promised to “have Washington DC patrolled by armed troops 365 days a year.” His running mate was General Curtis LeMay who nearly started a nuclear war with the USSR in defiance of President Kennedy’s orders in October 1962, and said he wanted to bomb Vietnam “back into the Stone Age.” How liberal can you get? That “change of heart” you refer to came years later. Unlike you, I’m old enough to remember the 1960s. I remember what kind of “liberal” Wallace was in those days.
NOGGINHEAD WROTE: “Why do you persist in thinking that liberals don’t pay taxes? All the celebs you mention and many liberals vote for democrats even though they know their own taxes will be lower under the GOP.”
I never said liberals do not pay taxes. I just find it funny that Hollywood millionaires sit in their big, beach-front mansions and tell the middle classes that the government should take more of THEIR money. Perhaps if Barbara Streisand, Martin Sheen, Tim Robbins and the rest sold their multi-million dollar homes and gave the money to homeless shelters, inner city schools, and their other pet causes, then there would not be need for tax increases on the middle class.
I do not say that Martin Sheen et al. do not give money to charity. Rather, a tax increase on a person with Martin Sheen’s income means he does not buy another “ivory back scratcher.” A tax increase on a middle class person means a reduction in savings for college, retirement, etc.; a cutback in the family’s vacation (if they even can afford vacation) or some other life-style altering change.
Of course Tim Robbins favors a tax increase, he probably has a dozen “ivory back scratchers” or other luxury goods without any economic utility.
*Originally posted by zoo *
- The liberals wanted to split from English rule, conservatives were loyal to the crown.
kp says: I would certainly consider Washington (and most of his peers) conservative.
- Liberals felt slavery was evil and needed to be abolished, conservatives saw it as a property issue.
***kp says: Lincoln was a conservative REPUBLICAN. Andrew Johnson, a staunch southern democrat.
As you can see from here:**
Radical Republicans in Congress moved vigorously to change Johnson’s program. They gained the support of northerners who were dismayed to see Southerners keeping many prewar leaders and imposing many prewar restrictions upon Negroes.
The Radicals’ first step was to refuse to seat any Senator or Representative from the old Confederacy. Next they passed measures dealing with the former slaves. Johnson vetoed the legislation. The Radicals mustered enough votes in Congress to pass legislation over his veto–the first time that Congress had overridden a President on an important bill. They passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which established Negroes as American citizens and forbade discrimination against them.
Yes, that’s right folks, the Republicans were the first to try and establish civil rights for blacks. In fact they even wanted to allow them the power to vote, but were defeated in that. They were hoping by giving blacks voting rights they would be assured control over all branches of government. Funny how times have changed and the libs are seen as the champions of black civil rights.*
- Liberals wanted women to have the right to vote, conservatives thought women voting was silly.
kp says: I believe this failure falls on all parties alike. Voting rights laws for women were presented practically every year in congress for more then 40 years before the 19th ammendment was finally passed and ratified in 1920. All parties share the blame for this injustice.
I don’t care for either party, but I find the taxing democrats to be most offensive. Bring on the Libertarians! It’s time for real change in this country. Republicans and democrats alike have proven for far too long that it’s just politics as usual for them. Liberals just have a bigger problem admitting guilt (or simply admitting when they are wrong), and seem to hate conservative ideas just on the basis of politics not based on any real evidence.
That was just way too easy, zoo.
In circles we go.
This has been touched upon elsewhere…but the above sentence cannot be further from the truth.
Sure, when it comes to economic issues, liberals tend to favor government intervention a bit more. If liberal policy goes unchecked for too long, it will inevitably lead to communism.
But when it comes to moral issues, conservatives favor more government intervention. If conservative policy goes unchecked for too long, we end up with fascism.
Being new to this board I’ve never seen this argument and when I saw . It reached out and slapped me. OMIGOD,I’m a halfbreed.
When you say that liberals want to spend your money, you imply that they don’t want to spend their own money. Language is important. If you want people to take you seriously, you have to avoid that kind of sound bite that makes it appear as though you don’t really want to converse.
People who knowingly vote for higher taxes are making a sacrifice. They vote to give their own fair share and to make everyone else give their fare share as well.
The arguments you make here about how much more meaningful a tax cut (or increase) is to the middle class is one reason people vote for liberals. Liberals tend to have more progressive taxes: those that tax the rich more heavily than the poor. Personally, I’m disgusted when the GOP wants to drop Tim Robbins’ taxes by 5% and my taxes by .05%.
The good thing about him is that he is also opposed to it.