This is something I’ve pondered from time to time.
None but the most zealous of liberals or conservatives believe their parties are infallible, and many will even admit that there are platforms they wish their parties didn’t have or on which the other side’s makes more sense (be it a social or financial or purely political platform). Personally I think it would be a disaster if either the furtherst factions of the right wing OR the left wing ever remained in power for too long, and it occurs that the ebb and flow might actually be a very good thing: sometimes the nation needs conservative stewardship and sometimes liberal, just as sometimes a screw needs tightening and sometimes it needs loosening (though both parties have some ridiculous baggage).
Do you agree that alternation is best? Do you think the Founders saw this and that the ebb and flow was their intent? Or do you think it would be better if it were always [whichever side of the spectrum you belong to] in charge?
It is beneficial because the country learns something from each alteration. When one ideology takes over, it does not completely erase the ideals of what came before it.
The New Deal era did not completely eradicate free market capitalism. The Regan era did not completely eradicate the New Deal era.
As much as I hate Bush and his brand of conservatism, I think the Regan backlash to Carter was a good thing for the nation. It helped us reflect on big government. I allowed us to realize that government won’t be able to solve everything, at least not in the way it was doing things in the 70s.
Whatever comes next won’t completely eradicate the Regan era either. For one thing, southerners will be more respected by politicians and people will be more skeptical of the media.
It seems like people take something away from each alteration of power, and move forward in a better direction.
And in my eyes, it corrupted and crippled America, probably beyond saving. And certainly beyond deserving saving. And in the process, inflicted a huge amount of suffering both on the world and on America.
Only if you think religious fanaticism, bigotry, greed and crushing the helpless is better.
Absolutely. I would’ve voted for McCain in 2000, and I thought Clinton was a great break from 12 years of Reagan/Bush. What would be even better, IMO, is if we could always have the executive and legislative branches controlled by different parties.
It wasn’t only about that. I can give you the same lopsided view about liberalism. Like tolerance of criminals, inefficient government bureaucracies, and violence against the government are better philosophies.
What was good about Regan’s conservatism was that it stopped a dangerous trend toward big government. Welfare in the 70s is a good example. I agree we should help the poor, but permanent welfare wasn’t really helping. Also, Regan helped people realize that government is not the solution to everything. Sometimes government trying to solve things can make things a lot worst.
I couldn’t find the quote but I saw a video of Dennis Hopper who is republican, explaining why he voted for Obama. He quoted Jefferson I think who said it’s our duty to throw out the party that has been in power to long.
I think our system of government, the way it’s set up, and the huge money involved, tends to corrupt our elected officials if they stay in to long. Every now and then we need a good housecleaning just to remind them to listen.
And now we don’t help at all, or want to. We threw the poor and mentally ill on the street and regard them as subhuman. That’s been our non-government “solution”.
What Reagan helped do was turn America into the bastion of fanaticism, bigotry, arrogance, greed, selfishness, malice, ignorance, corruption and destruction that it is today. He helped purge everything worthwhile from America.
And America hasn’t “swung back” from Reaganism much if at all. It’s been a one sided pendulum swing; to the right, then stop; then to the right, then stop, then to the right some more. So, I don’t even agree with the OP that there HAS been any “alternation” between conservatives and liberals.
No, not really. Essentially, the first priority of either part is the increase in the size, scope, and power of government - the difference is just the specific ways they want to influence the growth and use of power. When the sides alternate, rarely does the new government focus on correcting or reversing the new institutions, laws, or powers of the previous one - they’re far more focused on pushing their own agenda.
So essentially it’s a race to see who can make the government bigger and stronger faster in order for their faction to have a bigger control over the role of government. The alternation between them simply allows a wider range of reasons for increasing that scope and power.
If either of them were in more dominant control, it’d probably still suck (as both parties have crappy platforms that do more harm than good), but we may end up being screwed less in total because it’s not coming from both directions.
Excuse my severe truncation of your quote, but what the hell did those over worshipped “Founders” really do that was so marvellously original?
The only model of government they had as their main reference point was a monarchial system, was it not?
After all their lengthy and secret deliberations, that’s all these over glorified “Founders” could come up with. A modified, monarchial system, “Yeah dyoooood, one man really can govern a whole nation like it was a little village”.
Except, instead of a hereditary monarch it involves some kind of convoluted election process to decide which Godhead will be above the law for a defined period.
What the hell does it matter who “gets in”. The “people” are, at all times, powerless to approve or reject the usually incomprehensible and biblical length laws that are dumped on their heads, willy nilly, by the majority party that wins any election on a winner take all basis.
I think you’ve confused modern abuses of power with their intent. The Constitution is a long list of things the government can’t do, specifically to avoid the sort of situation (among others) that one guy is extremely powerful and influential over his populace. We threw that out about 80 years ago - but that should be blamed on that generation, not the founders.
People don’t set out to make the government bigger. That’s not a goal. When people get into power they have limited resources, even powerful Presidents with a rubber stamp congress have a limitation on what they can do. So what they do is put their agendas into play, and focus on doing what they want to do, rather than focusing on dismantling organizations that already exist. The intent isn’t to make the government grow, it’s just a side effect of bureaucratic entrenchment.
By “their intent”, I meant that of the founding fathers. The other poster seemed to be blaming them for the abuses in recent government, as if they created the mechanisms by which we elect ourselves a supposed king by a different name.
And I do think people set out to create bigger government. Either by idealism - “I’m smarter than everyone else, and if only I could mold society the way I want via governmentpower, everyone will be better off” - or cronyism, using public resources to enrich themselves and their friends. Rulers in government are something of a self-selecting group - those who wish to rule you are attracted to it. The people who end up with the power are often those you least want to have it.
And people are willing to push to enact their pet issues into law even if they’re contrary to the general good health of society - essentially, half of society tries to screw the other half and the other screws right back - in the end we’re all screwed. I flesh that out further in this old thread..
Ha - actually, I just noticed that you were the first reply in that thread, so I guess you’ve read it before.
As a basic concept, yes- I think that alternating is a good idea. Even better would be a balance of power.
However, lately it’s become evident that Conservatives are so insanely far to the right that it’s actually holding us back, damaging us. Their embrace of the Religious Right makes our country just as bad as the people they say want to blow us up.
As a factual aside, the framers of the Constitution did not anticipate the development of political parties; they hoped and believed that all politicians would be independents, which is why the Constitution itself has no reference to political parties. This worked great until George Washington decided he wanted to retire.
I do feel that any political party tends to get entrenched and corrupt if it is in power too long, and I would ideally like to see power alternating between the Socialists and the Greens in order to keep them both honest.
Are you saying no liberals are like that? I was just throwing out extreme forms of liberalism that were similar to your version of conservatism.
I know extreme conservatism is bad, just as you know extreme liberalism is bad. The problem is that you think all conservatism is extreme. Regan wasn’t as far right as Bush.
I would blame it more on Nixon and his politics that allowed politicians to get elected on issues that have nothing to do with good governing philosophies. I think they took advantage of America’s distaste for the Carter administration and took us to a very bad place as a country. That isn’t really the fault of moderate conservatism, just bad politicians exploiting ignorant people with legitimate concerns.
I feel the backlash to Carter was helpful for the country. Carter was a lame idealist who would not face the realities of big government. That the government can be horribly inefficient and is not the answer to everything. This shift of ideals was beneficial for America. Now we know the answer is to let government interfere only when necessary, not all of the time, or never.
Politicians have been exploiting popular positions since the beginning of time. That is why the pendulum seems to swing too far with each shift. It starts with a legitimate backlash to the failure of certain governing principles, and then gets derailed by corrupt politicians seeking power.
The backlashes are beneficial. Where we are taken from there might not always be good, but that doesn’t mean that the backlashes aren’t healthy.
Forms of “liberalism” that are so weak as to effectively not exist. You might as well call the Communist Party a counterweight to the Republicans.
Reagan was extreme. Bush was MORE extreme. Both were immensely destructive. And America is already so far to the right that anyone who is conservative by American standards is well into “crazy, stupid or evil” territory. Whereas our “left” barely reaches the center.
It’s not the ( direct ) fault of moderate conservatives, because the moderate conservatives are the Democrats, and they have had little power and no spine for a long time.
No; it turned us into a nation dedicated to crushing and exploiting the weak, ignoring problems until they become disasters, religious fanaticism, war, greed and ignorance. And a multitude of other evils. It was not “beneficial” for America; it ruined America, probably beyond repair.
Beyond repair? Has it been so long since Obama’s last speech? Where’s your hope dude.
Also, you’re ignoring my point that it was the corrupt politicians that took down America, not the alteration of one philosophy to another.
Moderate Conservatism isn’t the enemy, and that is where this country as always been since Regan. Bush campaigned as a moderate in 2000. The people were always against extreme conservatism, it just takes time for the public to pay attention.
The country did not go from being liberal to supporting Bush. If the public were smarter, and knew what he really stood for, he would have never got elected. That shows a failure of many things, but it does not show that the switch from liberalism to moderate conservatism was a failure.
