Total rewrite of 20th century American history. His picture is illustrating “hardline right-winger.” Goldwater was barely to his right. Scranton, Romney, Rockefeller, were all well to his left.
Nixon was a foreign policy “realist” which have been very rare in the history of the United States. A realist leader acts solely in what he perceives as his country’s self-interest, and doesn’t really get wrapped up in ideology. That’s why Nixon (correctly) viewed opening up relations with China to be a good thing and a desirable policy objective. It was to the benefit of the United States, even if associating with a totalitarian communist regime that committed horrific human rights abuses went against the grain of Cold War idealism (where we mostly tried to only associate with horrific totalitarian regimes that were explicitly anti-communist.)
Aside from Roosevelt (the good one), Nixon is probably the only 20th century President that was a realist. Wilson, Roosevelt (the bad), Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush II are all foreign policy “liberals.”
similar thread from a few years ago
Please read up on International Relations before blowing up at someone calling GWB a foreign policy “liberal.” In international relations studies realist/liberal don’t map to anything to do with conservative/liberal in politics or political theory at large.
Is there a statute of limitations on ‘progressive’? One must admit that the guillotine was an improvement over its predecessors, even if increasing the efficiency of executions was an undesirable side effect:
Progressives aren’t perfect, but surely you’ll admit they give a go at “more humane”.
That is not what conservatives do. A conservative is someone who tells women, the poor, racial & religious minorities, or anyone else who isn’t already powerful to shut up and submit to their lords and masters. A conservative is someone who hates to help others and loves to hurt them; they hate to spend money on public health, safety & welfare, love to spend it on the military and prisons. A conservative is someone who tries to force society to change to benefit those already in power and to punish those who aren’t in power; not someone who opposes change. And they jump on bandwagons all the time; just destructive and oppressive ones. They won’t support UHC, but they will support the systematic disenfranchisement and abuse of people according to skin color.
It was religious conservatives who where a driving force for slavery.
I have never heard before that the Golden Rule (and many other things) promotes greed and cruelty.
Out of that list, the Inquisition is the only one that could possibly be considered conservative. All the rest are liberal.
Of course, I wouldn’t put it past you to believe that the well-documented quotes of Margaret Sanger are somehow fiction instead of fact.
If you should by some miracle want actual facts–a thing that is about as likely as winning the lottery–here are some for you.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
Perhaps you have also heard of the Salvation Army? It happens to be a church. And it’s one of the first responders to practically any major disaster.
There are also medical missionaries, people who go out to remote Third-World areas and give free medical care, BECAUSE of their Christian beliefs.
I could go on and on, but I’ve made my point. (Not that you’ll agree with it.)
I commend you efforts, but you have no idea that degree to which you are wasting your time.
As I understand it, it was both. Different groups of religious conservatives were on different sides of the issue.
Even if we limit it just to the United States, there are plenty of examples. In addition to the ones already mentioned:
[ul]
[li]Affirmative action. It’s been slowly taken apart, piece by piece, in many states, though the process is still ongoing.[/li][li]Welfare. The old system wherein people could live their whole lives on Welfare was abolished in favor of new rules restricting how much benefits any individual can get.[/li][li]The public school monopoly. Slowly, slowly, the edifice is crumbling and poor children are getting access to a decent education in private or charter schools in more and more locations.[/li][li]Public sector unions. Their power grew rapidly throughout the 90’s and 00’s, but it appears to have reached a high point and now several states and cities have taken a stand against them. Of course, in some cases that’s motivated by financial necessity rather than principle. Folks in many cities and states now understand that if they don’t curtail union power, bankruptcy is guaranteed.[/li][li]Tort reform. It’s one of the most under-reported stories of recent times. It’s much harder for lawyers to bring bogus cases or win multi-billion dollar judgments these days than 20 years ago, because reforms in many states have put caps and limits on lawsuits.[/li][li]The eugenics movement. Not terribly popular today.[/li][/ul]
I consider myself a moderate liberal. I favor a strong central government, strong national defense, and gay marriage, and I’m pro-life (but I don’t believe it’s the government’s job to legislate that issue). If I had kids, I wouldn’t want them having sex before marriage, and I’d kill them if they did it at 14, but I’d also say “if you’re gonna do it, use condoms”. And they wouldn’t be watchin’ no horror films, either.
I threw those things in there so you’ll understand the backdrop when I say the following:
I don’t like how conservatives are trying to turn “liberal” into a nasty word.
How do you feel about the opinion in post 66? It appears to be a “liberal” attempting to turn “conservative” into a nasty word? Do you “like” it? Do you only find it “acceptable”? Do you think “turnabout is fairplay”? just curious.
Of course it can; it’s part of many justifications for doing horrible things to people “for their own good”. For example, some slaveholders argued that if they were black, they’d want to be a slave so they were only following the Golden Rule by enslaving blacks.
The Nazis were liberal? Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
Yes, they are bigots.
As advertising, religious blackmail, and often as religious sadism. Praying over the dying and refusing them medicine because suffering is a virtue isn’t noble and altruistic. Neither is spreading lies about medical issues like condoms & STDs in the name of religion.
Sure he is when he thinks that concentration camps, the Nazi genocide and eugenics are liberal ideas.
Historically speaking one can make a point that progressives did support eugenics early, but history shows that many progressive ideas can be grabbed and twisted by extreme conservatives, this is what has happened with eugenics; progressives dropped that idea in light of what did happen in WWII, extreme conservatives still push for it nowadays
Fascism blended aspects of both conservatives and liberals. Or one could say that it rejected ideas of both conservatives and liberals. The particular arrow of comparison is one of those glass-half-empty-or-half-full kind of statements.
Your “rolleyes” is just ignorance.
Not so fast, while you are just a little bit more on the money, in practice that was not the case at all, the fact does remain that Fascists still got rid of worker organizations, socialists and communists when they got the power.
I would like some examples of this. In the meantime, I have a (semi-) rhetorical question for you.
If, for example, it could be ascertained that a country could eliminate Down’s Syndrome by 2030 through, say, abortion, who do you think is more likely to find this to be a good thing (as in, the outcome)? The liberal or the conservative? I’ll give you a hint. The liberal minded person is far more likely than the conservative minded person to say this is a good thing. Seriously.
Sure it’s only two sources, but traverse through the comments. The difference between the two world views are drastically different. You will generally find posts by the conservative minded person along the lines of “just because someone is disabled/to be born with some disease does not make their lives inherently worth less” while the liberal minded person tends to go on about “how some people are better off not born than to live with some disease or disability” or how it’s a “good” thing for society to be free of certain individuals with certain diseases or something about costs and it being cheaper or something or another.
(Awkward translation to the original article.)
So, ummm, yeah. What are you talking about?
To properly talk about fascists and such you really need a two-axis scale (ala the Political Compass) than a single left/right scale.
The German fascists (Nazis) were basically far left on the Political Compass left/right economic axis and up near the “top” in the top/bottom Authoritarian/Libertarian axis. So basically they had few individual freedoms and massive state control of industry.
To achieve power Hitler basically wanted to attract as many people as he possibly could. Early on the “Socialist” part of “National Socialist” was played up to sort of attract workers away from the Communists. However later on, when some of the leaders of that part of the party still wanted to emphasize socialist ideals Hitler “removed” them as opponents. By that point Hitler was wanting the support of the old elites and the military, basically the old Junker class who were still entrenched in the upper echelons of military leadership and still ran a lot of big German companies.
The German military leaders and industrialists eventually got in bed with Hitler because they hated the communists a lot more. In rhetoric Hitler at least seemed like he still respected what they viewed as “traditional German values”, whereas the Communists openly said they wanted to remove the traditional power structure in German society. The reality is Hitler was extremely totalitarian, so once he had power the wealthy industrialists found most of their companies essentially taken over, and many of the industrialists themselves even ended up in camps for not going along with losing all their power pliantly enough. (Fritz Thyssen for example.)
His nationalization of much of German industry basically pushes Hitler to the far left on the economic Axis, but his absolute dictatorship and strict laws with tons of extrajudicial killings and punishments bushes him way off the charts on the authoritarian axis.
So if you’re trying to translate it into a simpler liberal/conservative comparison, it’s really hard to do with the Nazis. They were very liberal in some of the things they did and extreme reactionary conservative in other things they did.
How are you identifying the commenters as liberal or conservative?
An educated guess (i.e., I looked at people’s profiles :p).