This is getting kinda broad and philosophical, rather then about the specific claim the article made. No one ever said anything about it being invalid in a general sense to question why people change their position. But this specific study isn’t about why Kucinich may have changed his postions, the fact is that he has And he is currently the most liberal person running for the Dem nomination, even if he really did it, in his heart of hearts, to pick up hippie chicks or as part of a neferious (and pretty unsuccessful) plan to seize more political power.
So to repeat my question: "Do you agree, then, with the statement that “Obama is more liberal then Kucinich”?
I’m curious who you’re talking about here. The only candidate in the last dozen years who might be considered a true conservative (that I can think of off the top of my head) is Pat Buchanan. Is that who you are referring to?
But I might agree with: “Obama’s overall record is more liberal than Kucinich’s.” And if someone were to utter the first sentence, and defend it by then offering the second sentence, I would be hard-pressed to call him a liar.
Huh–I thought Pat Buchanan was a true Scotsman, not a true conservative. Wouldja mind defining your terms, and showing that your definition is the one in general use in American politics?
I’m not sure what you mean. A conservative is for smaller government, lower taxes, more personal responsibility and less foreign involvement. That’s pretty much always been the definition as far as I know, what are you talking about? I mean, why do you think they call the rabble in power right now “Neo-Cons”? Because they do not meet the definition of conservative.
I disagree BG. It only works if you are using “conservative” as a description of the current Republicans who hold the Executive branch of government today, but I would never make that mistake. Republican =! conservative, and George W Bush isn’t conservative in the least.
My point was that, as there are several different schools of conservative thought/politics in America, so there are several different and equally valid definitions of “conservative.” (I’ve made some effort to enumerate them.)
I don’t know why your excellent points seem so summarily ignored. And it’s the same for “Liberal”. Some modern leftists and authoritarians in the US (and especially at the Dope) seem shocked that the label they’ve appropriated doesn’t fit either history or the rest of the world.
Oh, and let me also add that I now have proof that the National Journal is entirely divorced from reality. As is anyone who takes their preposterous concept seriously. Really, have they lost their minds? Do they really think it’s possible to assign objective ratings about something as subjective as whether something is “right” or “left?” This is all an exercise in mental masturbation, letting them work themselves into a lather about someone they fear.
You’re missing the point. “Libertarian” is a term with a fairly narrow, precise, technical definition. “Liberal” and “Conservative” are not. But “Libertarian” != “Liberal.”