Both support homosexual rights in general. Erhm…how is it so exactly?
I’m not saying they haven’t done anything, merely the other combo have done more.
Only if you define basic civil rights as “social liberalism.”
What about it? UHC wasn’t in it.
You’d have to define “liberal,” and specify what issues you’re talking about. I don’t decide what is moral by what other people say is “liberal.”
What is a “comboe?”
By the way, the most successful Presidency arguably of the 20th Century (certainly since WWII) was Bill Clinton - a centrist Democrat working with a (by 2011 standards) centrist Republican Congress.
In Canada, the Liberals (the centrist party) has been referred to as “the natural governing party of Canada”. I believe (but haven’t run the numbers) that there have been more Liberal governments than conservative (of any stripe, although not as right-wing as your Republicans). (The left-wing New Democratic Party hasn’t formed government yet.)
Civil libertarianism is supposed to be a conservative position. It’s true most Republicans and self-identified Republicans are hypocritical about it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not conservative.
Done more what?
I think the middle is a fiction and by and large is a code word for people who barely pay enough attention to know the difference between parties, candidates and platforms to make a decision. Something like 20% of voters in 2008 didn’t decide until a few days/weeks before the election. If you were paying that little attention that you couldn’t tell the difference or know enough about your own beliefs to know which candidate lines up with yours the best you aren’t in the middle, you are apathetic. Maybe there are some who were well informed about both parties, both candidates and were drawn on some issues (Reagan democrats who like democratic economic issues but conservative social issues as an example). But I get the impression that apathy is somehow considered good in American politics because apathetic people don’t get angry or extremely involved.
Also I don’t agree that the middle politically is always good ground. Trying to come across as ‘opposing ideological extremism’ may play well. But on the issues the middle really isn’t all that middle. It is usually center right at best. Polls of the public find the public generally more liberal on economic/health care issues than they are represented by politics (on other issues the middle may actually be in the middle, social policy as an example). The middle in DC is the middle ground between the most right wing 30% of the public on economics and the most right wing 10%.
I think Obama thinks he is governing from the middle but like the quote in the OP says, all he does is alienate everyone. Arch-conservatives will hate him no matter what he does. But his triangulating will cost him support among liberals, the netroots and unions. One of the big reason those groups gave Obama the nod over Clinton in the 2008 primary was the belief that HIllary Clinton would triangulate with the GOP. Obama has done the same thing people were worried HIllary was going to do.
I think people are just angry about politics. And Obama is probably getting unfairly attacked. But still.
Yes.
What? I think that expanding liberties and increasing social equality is the opposite of conservatism, since it involves a change to social structures, and conservatism is, almost by definition, about maintaining current social structures.
Nixon called for UHC, I should point out. And apparently, Obama ain’t all that personally in favor of gay marriage, but he recognizes the ‘time has come’.
Sorry, but Obama really does appear to be the ‘moderate Republican’.
That is an interesting point. I have never been a fan compulsory voting, but you make a good theoretical argument for it.
There is a limit on basic civil rights then simply “marriage for all”. Do you support polygamous marriage for instance?
Stuff such as mandated buying of coverage and so on.
-Stronger social welfare systems
-More regulations on economy
-More regulations and other policies to prevent environmental damage
-A less interventionist foreign policy
-Feminist-progressive social policy (abortion legalization, gay marriage legalization)
More successful than Harry Truman who probably stopped a Red Tide? Although, it is true he was working together with a Republican Congress also. But on the other hand Nixon’s extensive centrist accomplishments and his visit to China could only have been done by a person perceived as conservative.
See my Nixon example.
That’s a reactionary, not a conservative. The difference between Pierre Laval and Charles DeGaulle or the Prince de Polignac and Adolphe Thiers.
Nixon? Nixon was one of, if not THE, worst presidents in the history of the U.S. Yes, he had some accomplishments – but he certainly “was a crook”. His bad points far outweigh the good.
His only “bad point” really was Watergate. His good accomplishments far outweigh the good.
I couldn’t care less about it.
Not UHC. Also, originally a Republican proposal.
What does “social welfare system” mean?
Exactly how you think liberals want to regulate the economy? How is that even possible?
[quote]
-More regulations and other policies to prevent environmental damage
[/quote
Environmental conservation used to be considered a conservative ideal.
This also used to be considered a conservative ideal.
[quote]
-Feminist-progressive social policy (abortion legalization, gay marriage legalization)[/quiote]
These are basic civil rights. Civil libertarianism is supposed to be a conservative ideal.
I said “since WWII.”
I don’t think you want to hold up Nixon as much of an example of anything. How successful was he in Vietnam?
Tell that to Cambodia.
Fair enough.
It is designed to give all health care and at any rate I am opposed to mandated coverage.
Extended and more generous welfare for the poor, those not working, and so on.
Opposition to free trade, strong pro-unionism
[quote]
-More regulations and other policies to prevent environmental damage
[/quote
Not just conservation but opposition to nuclear power, offshore drilling, coal mining, development, to the detriment of the economy.
[QUOTE]
This also used to be considered a conservative ideal.
Not abortion.
Truman was after World War II except for about four months.
That was because the North Vietnamese wouldn’t hand over several US prisoners and Cambodia was a mistake, yes, but unless you’re a psychic how can you know the setting up of Lon Nol would have led to Pol Pot?
No; but conservatism is relentlessly wrong as well as evil. Wherever someone is trying to make the world better; more just, more prosperous, healthier, safer; there you will find conservatives standing up for the causes of greed, delusion, malice and ignorance. Slavery, voting for women, civil rights for minorities, the environment, religious tolerance, worker safety, AIDS, SSM, torture; you name it, and the conservatives have always been there to fight for evil and stupidity.
There is no mandated coverage in either the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or the Health Care and Education Reform Act, please stop repeating that piece of incorrect information. I suppose you can still be opposed to wanting to see everyone with health care though.
Slavery-See 13th Amandment. Case closed. So do everyone in the mainstream including Republicans
Women’s Suffrage-See 19th Amendment. Case closed and same as above.
Civil Rights-Again with a few exceptions (ie Rand Paul) see above
Environment-Conservation, yes. Mass regulation, no
Religious Tolerant-See 1st Amendment. Case closed.
Workers Safety-Dispute is over details, most conservatives beleive in the principal.
AIDS-It was just some loony elemnts of the Religious Right
SSM-Plenty of Democrats oppose it and quite a few young Republicans/conservatives do not
torture-Strong internal conservative opposition to it
So on most issues either you’re completely wrong or conservatives are divided on the issue and you’re oversimplifying them.
No it isn’t.
You still haven’t said what “welfare” means. You’re just repeating the word.
Liberals are not opposed to free trade. Where are you getting that?
And supporting unions is not "controlling the economy.’ It’s not even leftist. Ronald Reagan was a union boss who said that “without free unions and collective bargaining, freedom is lost.”
All conservationsist positions. Obama is for nuclear energy, though.
Civil libertarianism is conservative. Opposition to reproductive rights is an anti-libertarian, nanny state position.
Don’t be fatuous.
I said don’t be fatuous.
It didn’t take a psychic, but the more salient point is that the bombing of Cambodia was illegal and a war crime.
After a little thing called the Civil War, which just might qualify as strong opposition to reform. Nor were the Republicans the conservative side in that dispute.
What you provided was a list of fights that the conservatives lost.