I must respectfully disagree.
The patronizing sigh is the trademark of the social conservative.
The liberal is the one with the condescending (heh-heh-heh) chuckle.
Fenris
What makes you think they’re be any significant differences between liberalism and conservatism as expressed in the current U.S.? I think they’d be quite minor.
Yeah, that makes no sense. Everyone knows that if the conservatives got their way, everyone would have to buy a machine gun when they turn 18.
Yo, Doc. I think you’ve been sniffing something harder than paprika. I can understand–to a point–the argument that there isn’t much difference between the Republican and Democratic parties (although the differences become more apparent every day, no?). But to the extent that the “duopoly” argument holds it’s because the Democrats have become so conservative, particularly on economic issues. Are you suggesting that there’s no difference between, say, Ralph Nader or Paul Wellstone and conservative-du-jour Ashcroft?
As to the OP, others have already ably demonstrated its deficits. 
Wildest Bill if you want to get an idea of what liberals would do if they had their way, take a look at a Scandinavian country such as Sweden or Denmark. Or even Germany until fairly recently. Bear in mind that one of the main reasons that Europe and even Japan (which has awesome social welfare) isn’t doing as well as the US economically is that these countries’ economies have to compete with the US and other countries that have adopted a neo-liberal approach to capitalism. (I’m sure you realize that “neo-liberal” is the opposite of “liberal” in the Ralph Nader sense.) Neo-liberalism basically means strip down every social welfare protection, produce a “flexible” workforce with lousy pay and benefits and no job security, shift as many labor costs as possible to countries like China (where workers are paid less than $1/hr.), pollute the environment to save penny, etc. etc. Neo-liberalism seems to working for us b/c of easy credit (as Gaderene pointed out) and the stock market bubble. But, read my lips, WB: the shit will one day hit the fan. And perhaps when it does, even conservatives will realize that a system that squeezes the middle class, turns skilled workers into burger flippers, shortchanges its citizens on education, and refuses a living wage to its poorest workers just isn’t a good society. Nor is it a recipe for longterm prosperity. As we speak, European countries are making larger investment in education and job training while we remain shortsightedly fixated on cheapening the cost of everything so as to maximize corporate profits for the benefit of the very, very wealthy.
If you’re curious what an economist has to say on this subject, here is a link to an excerpt from Lester Thurow’s latest book on this subject (I’ve posted this once before). I don’t agree with everything Thurow says about the current economy; but his comparisons between the US’s short-sightedness and Europe’s approach are totally persuasive. The name of the article is “Building Wealth,” a concept that, believe it or not, liberals understand.
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99jun/9906thurow.htm
Polycarp For an example of a conservative Democrat, please try Joe Lieberman on for size.
Joe’s conservative credentials have shrunk considerably since the campaign. He jettisoned his supposed ideals in his pathetic eagerness to get elected.
YOu know, as my professor explained it, trickle down economics are like the idea of someone eating a great big rich meal, and tossing a few crums to some beggars.
I think that it would depend, as it does now, mainly on the character of those in power, and not their ideology.
So much of these debates is about the merits of platforms, and so little about the execution. I’d live as happily in a well-run welfare state as I would in a truly libertarian society; I’d act a little differently, but it wouldn’t change much about my life.
Something that the premier of Saskatchewan (my home province) once said that has always rung true to me: “people don’t mind paying taxes when they feel that they’re well spent.” [emphasis mine]
I think their are two very fine examples of what a conservative nation would look like at least in the social areas, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Substitute Christian in place of Islam and you have the perfect world for the Christian Coalition types who dominate American conservatism today.
We the members of SDMB are supposed to have respect for science and to fight ignorance with facts, modern conservatism is one of the largest purveyors of pseudo-science that exists. Who spreads creationism? Who trashes the scientific method?
Who questions the validity of reason itself? Conservatives! Cites, check out the National Review’s article on Sagan’s Demon Haunted World. The Wall Street Journal’s endorsement of “intelligent design.” Pat Robinson can move Hurricanes! Global warming is a liberal plot to destroy capitalism.
BTW liberals will never win because conservatives have all the guns.
As far as I’m concerned I’d wanna live in Conservaland until I turned 65, at which time I would move to Liberia.
Well, not the real Liberia. I mean they got all kinds of crap hittin’ the fan. I mean who idea was that country. Geesh!!!
Either way we’d be living in a pretty authoritarian society. I’d rather avoid their versions of a perfect America.
Marc
You guys are WAY too partisian. Everything would change in either case, its just nobody wants to admit it. Each party tries to fill a void to pick up voters the other aleinates. Its not about ideologies, it never has been. Its about winning nothing more. Once you destroy the polarized nature of politics, both parties values and ideas would change. Your assuming ideologies and issues are static, they are not. Once you have a ruling party, the whole dynamic will change, thus the party issues will change as well. In all honesty, I think we would be hard pressed to predict what either party would do in the absence of the other. Do you really believe people go into politics because they are ideological people that want to change the world? Do you really think they believe what they say they do? Well to be a politician you have to “be all things to all people” as Mr. Bush is so fond of saying. Indeed, those who are honest and have principles are very unlikely to be in politics at all. If a poltician did not “play the game” and the take the stance “they are supposed to” they would never win. Rarely does an honest person make it into this game. I’d be surprised if there was really that much difference at all between what repubs and dems actually believe. Its a game, nothing more. You pick your team, and then you play by the rules of that team. However, if there was only one team, this would no longer be so important. Actually I think that claim that if one party was wiped out, and divison would quickly form and leave us with a 2 party system again was the closest to correct.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MGibson *
**
M, Please explain what is “pretty authoritarian” about a democracy like Sweden or Denmark? Or do you disagree with the suggestion I made above?
To clarify, I took Wildest Bill’s question to be one of agendas. What would happen if the Democratics or Republicans got to implement their whole agenda, in other words. If he meant, what would happen if we lived in a one-party state without free elections then that is something else entirely.
Why assume that a strong mandate for even the most liberal end of the Democratic Party (a president and a majority in both houses say) would result in an authoritarian society? Was the US an authoritarian society under FDR?
Sorry if I’ve misunderstood you.
RD, God was wrong. Nietzsche is not dead.
Mandelstam,
ARe you a13antichrist? You sure sound a little like him;)
Well in any event, I’m sure your a northern European from HWC;)
Ok one more guess, I think I got it this time;) Baloneyflaps
The two parallel worlds would look virtually identical.
In both cases, you yourself (the average person) would have no rights and damn little freedom. The liberals would have taken it from you out of their conviction that they know what’s best for you. The conservatives would have taken it from you out of their conviction that you have to be kept from getting away with criminal or un-American activities.
You would have no choice about where to work or in what capacity. The liberals would have assigned all the work slots so as to allocate them proportionally to various categorical subgroups. The conservatives would have assigned everyone to “workfare” as soon as they were unable to meet their basic needs on the salary they could obtain in the absence of unions, protective legislation, or freely available public services, which would soon include everyone except themselves, the governing class.
There would be no meaningful distinction between government and corporate business. The liberals would have taken over business as a subfunction of government. The conservatives would have taken over government as a subfunction of industry.
There would be a dogmatically rigid and required set of beliefs whether they were officially called “religion” or not. The liberals would have derived them from political correctness. The conservatives would have imposed a theocracy. There would be public meetings. You would attend. There would be the constant everyday need to give lip service to the tenets of the belief system, and bad things would happen to you if you voiced dissenting thoughts.
Sexuality and reproduction would be rigidly controlled. The liberals would have criminalized vast areas of conduct while making failure to engage in others an act of gross political incorrectness. The conservatives would have criminalized vast areas of conduct while making failure to engage in others a clear sign of moral turpitude.
The external governments operating on the remainder of the planet would be demonized as having fallen under the wicked influence of the horrible liberals (if the conservatives held sway) or conservatives (vice versa). We would fight intermittent wars justified on those grounds. Internally, there would be the occasional need to “protect the glorious revolution” or “put down lawless terrorist activity” as folks attempted to throw off the oppression.
PS–for extra credit, please write a short essay on why the hard-line Communists of the Soviet Union / Russia were described in US newspapers as the “conservatives” while Gorbachev and Yeltsin were in office.
Mandelstam,
Thank you for clarifying my OP. There still would be elections. The topic in question is indeed agendas.
Interesting stuff y’all are coming up with so far guys.
TZEL,
Why do you find the comment I made “if the liberals won out” to be insulting and condescending? If you would have started the thread and said “if the conservatives won out”, I wouldn’t have found that condescending or insulting I would have found as just peachy!
I would think that if Conservatives win out there would be less crime because citizens could arm and defend themselves. Also criminals would be in jail longer giving them fewer oppurtunities for crime. On the down side there would probably be more gun accidents.
I would think if Conservatives won there would be less sex education and abortions and more teaching of responsiblity and family values. I don’t think government policy is a huge influence over how most people run this part of their lives but I think this would marginally cut the teen pregnancy and single motherhood rates. This would lead to less poverty.
If conservatives won out that taxes would be lower and there would be fewer controls over business. The economy would grow faster, it would be easier to start businesses. New technologies would be developed faster. Standards of living will rise faster. The downside is that some people would get really rich causing others to be jealous.
If conservatives won out religion would play a more visible role society. There would be more ceremonial prayers and parents would have more control over their kids education. The downside to this is that atheists would have to sit through prayers and some parents would make stupid decisions would have stupid children.
All in all I think that less crime, less poverty, more wealth and more prayer would be a better society to live in.
puddlegum,
That sounds like a better society or nation to live in to me. I wonder why liberals can’t see that?
As far as the gun accidents maybe have free gun training for the populace.
Because we don’t see it that way. Ketchup as a school-lunch vegetable to save federal money. “Homeless by choice” people wandering around because federal funds to mental institutions have been cut.
As to what I think TZEL’s problem is, your OP is similar to Uncle Beer’s gun control OP in that it sets up a biased and unwinnable debate. You’ve set up liberals as being against everything you stand for, and your examples are extreme. In order to actually answer the OP, one has to echo Gadarene and say, “This is not an accurate depiction of the mainstream liberal stance. Please reframe your scenario and try again.”
Oh yeah, and as to that prayer thing…the same First Amendment that gives me the right not to have to hear you pray on taxpayer-funded time/equipment/functions also gives you the right to pray whenever you want. As I said to Upham, the other day, Damn those double-edged swords. And if you want to do away with the first, hope that Lieberman doesn’t get elected, or JDT will have a field day.
If you want to live in a theocracy, convert to Islam and move to the middle-east. If you want to live in a country where everyone, you and I included, has freedoms, then you do your thing and I’ll do mine.
But Bill, you’re getting as annoying as Stoidela (and I’m on her side of the political spectrum) with your biased, uninformed postings. Availability of birth control education and abortion does not lead to the fall of the Roman Empire. The orgy I wish I’d be able to host at my house will not cause the downfall of the US Government. Helping others to some extent of your paycheck is part of your social contract by being a member of society (I refuse to try to draw the line where it begins and ends), and as long as I’m as American as you are, I’ll kick your ass before you take away my rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Nowhere does it say that I have to be a Christian or a Republican for that. I get unhappy when I see obviously mentally-ill people on the street. I get unhappy when some holier-than-thou sophomore prays on the PA system. I get unhappy when some closed-minded moron thinks that I’m less American because of these things.
If this rant moves this thread to the Pit, so be it. Since the OP was undebatable as phrased, it probably belongs there anyhow.