While this thread seems to have gotten a bit flamey, I’d like to ask one question:
what do the conservatives here think of God and Man at Yale? The reason I ask is because soc.conservatism polled its members on the “best conservative books of all time” and GAMAY ranked very highly. (As one might expect, since it launched William F. Buckley’s career.) What do you think of it, and, perhaps more importantly, what significance do you think it has in modern conservatism? Is its popularity something of an anomaly, or do conservatives in general respect it?
Well, I never claimed to be the shining example. Cuz I know I ain’t. In ways I dare not name, or I’ll surely be tarred and feathered.
I agree. But the underlying philosophy of one is certainly more altruistic than the other. How it plays out in practice, and how each individual who calls themselves one or the other is something else. But I trust, admire, and support the philosophy of one over the other, and that colors my opinion of those who choose one over the other. Until they show who they are as individuals.
Well, I happen to feel that the above characterization is one of the most irritating examples of Conservative thinking. While there is no question that a few such people exist, they do not represent the average recipient of food stamps and subsidized housing, the are the exception. This is a fact. Most recipients get off welfare on their own, and most of them will tell you that it saved their ass.
Taking it away from everybody after two years is arbitrary and cruel, and it is the one thing Clinton did that completely pissed me and alot of other liberals off completely. Additionally, this ridiculous fiction that welfare is stealing from the middle class is laughable. At its very worst, social welfare represented a minuscule percentage of the budget… a few bucks out of the average person’s pocket. What REALLY steals from the pockets of the average bear are entitlements to seniors, corporations, and others who do not need it, but take it anyway. the single biggest sucking sound you hear on the budget is entitlement programs of various kinds to those who do not need it. It’s a fucking crime, actually.
But we are getting off into something else entirely. I admire your attitude. But do yourself a favor… don’t have kneejerk reactions to things. If welfare offends you, great. If the above scenario seems plausible to you, that’s great. But find out if it is true before you base your politics on it.
Altruism is “I give to charity”. Liberalism is “I make you give to charity”. Overly simplified by a couple orders of magnitude, but there’s a goddam ocean of difference between the two.
Well, ok, there’s merit in that notion. But, the bottom line is one is about OTHERs and one is about ME/self/personal gain.
I believe somewhere in here I did make the compare/contrast the two as being capitalism vs. socialism. I am not a socialist, and I wouldn’t want to see socialism become the American political way. But a big fat dose of it to temper rampant self-interest is definitely a good idea in my book.
Oh, and much more to the point…or rather, close to my heart, is the part of liberalism that is about the environment. Which is not about charity at all, it’s about thinking about everybody vs. the self (when I say self, I refer also to corporate interests.) Thinking about tomorrow vs. about right now. That sort of thing.
And that is also altruism, and it is also the liberal, not the conservative, way.
Just because something is a good idea in your book doesn’t mean that those who disagree with you are self serving or dishonest. Most conservatives think that their policies are better for everyone, not just themselves. If you can’t accept that, tehre’s really no debate possible here.
As for the environment, I could, were I inclined to actually inject something other than preconcieved notions into this discussion, provide cites to various studies showing the use of property rights as a better solution than government regulation. Just because conservatives reject many of the policies that you support doesn’t mean that they do so out of disregard for the environment.
Again, this is complete nonsense. There is no truth to this notion whatsoever. Neither philosophy need be about either. I would characterize conservatism as being more about the individual (oneself and other individuals) while liberalism is more about society.
Or, perhaps I could ask how a white person’s opposition to affirmative action is any less self-serving than a black person’s support for it. Or are you just going to restate the “conservitism is about personal gain” mantra until it gains truth?
I guess I should have jumped in here a little earlier. At this point, my relatively meaningless comments will be viewed as even more inconsequential than usual. But here goes my ignorant little take on this.
It seems to me that “freedom” means a lot more if you have some resources to begin with. When I hear my peers - primarily college educated, middle class professionals - espousing the planks from the Republican platform, especially on economic matters, it strikes me as those with the most wanting more.
Also, tho you may desire a path in the middle, you can look to the extremes and see which you fear/distrust more. For me, you don’t have to move too far right of center on issues such as prayer, abortion, sexual orientation, for me to get pretty uncomfortable. Tho those advocating such positions may view themselves as “charitable”, those who don’t share their views equate their efforts with intolerance and aggression.
IMO the truest words spoken above are, there are more than one side to most questions, and a difference of opinion does not necessarily make one or the other wrong. I get very turned off by folk on either side claiming their view is the “correct” view. And misrepresenting or selectively relating history to present their views. Extremism of any brand does not appeal to me.
Stoid, if conservativism is all about “me, me, me” let me remind you that it wasn’t ME who has started umpteen threads spewing forth my political agenda. It is not ME who routinely and cheerfully offends posters with my bigotries.
This recent campaign of yours to enlighten the teeming millions about how the democrats are superior in all ways, (with the obvious exceptions of spelling and grammar), is the EPITOME of self-centeredness.
It’s not about me, Stoid. Clearly, it’s about YOU.
Big Dif: Consevatism focuses (or at least used to) on the individual. Liberalism focuses on the group/society.
That doesn’t make the conservatives selfish; it makes them individuals who would rather see to their own affairs rather than have it mandated by legislation or regulation.
For example: I don’t plan on Social Security being available to me when I retire; projected spending patterns say it won’t be. So I started my own IRA, and my own investment portfolio.
Seeing to my own financial welfare, rather than spending all of my money on me and hoping that Uncle Sugar is going to take care of me when I retire is not, in my eyes, being selfish. It’s planning ahead. I’d rather take more of the money being witheld in taxes from my paycheck, that is paying for the current crop of retirees, and put it towards my own retirement plan.
That may be construed as selfish, but consider this: even if Social Security is available to me when I retire, I’m not going to claim it. Why? I don’t plan on needing it.
Let the money that I have payed into the system help someone else, so our children and grandchildren aren’t paying for us, but tending to their own needs.
Only if either billions (if not trillions) of dollars are pumped into Social Security or people don’t claim it is the cycle going to be broken.
Hey, I don’t consider myself The Democratic Party. I’m just stoid, blathering away like everybody else. You don’t like me? May I suggest you ignore me?
But if you want to make it personal, like so many others around here seem to want to do, you’ll have to do that alone. I think that’s weak, ugly and unpleasant, and I don’t debate or discuss anything with people who want to do that. And in case you haven’t noticed, whatever else I may be accused of, I do NOT make it personal.
And you know what else? People who choose to get nasty and personal are people whose good opinion I do not care two figs for. I desire the good opinon of people whom I respect, and people who behave like that are not on that list.
Oddly enough you used a broad brush and said that conservatives are untrustworthy. By doing that you made it personal to everyone who might consider themselves a conservative.
I don’t consider myself to be a conservative or a liberal. There are conservatives I find to be honest and trustworthy inso far as I don’t think they lie about their agenda or cheat even if I don’t agree or like their ideas. There are liberals who I feel the same way about. Likewise there are liberal and conservative groups who I feel do lie on a regular basis and I’d never trust them with anything.
**
I’m sure you can only respect people who fit into your ideological niche. You’re in fine company with plenty of other zealots.
The government can easily cause as much damage as the average corporation by its good intentions. Two examples:
1 - Housing subsidies. These take all kinds of forms, from FHA subsidized mortgages to interstate highways that don’t connect states, but act instead as purely local highways, to the mortgage interest and property tax deduction. All of these are meant to alleviate traffic problems and encourage home ownership, because these are good things. I mean, who could be against them? But they have unquestionably contributed to all kinds of sprawl, with open space of all kinds getting eaten up left and right because far more people than could ever possibly afford a home without the subsidies can afford one with them, and have a reasonable commute from places that before would have been inaccessible. And if they can already afford one even without the subsidy, well, they can get a bigger one on more property with it, thereby taking up even more room.
2 - The Everglades. From the Army Corps of Engineers projects to control flooding which: a) allowed housing where it should never have been allowed, b) allowed farming where it should never have been allowed, and c) destroyed the natural flow of the waters from Lake Okeechobee to the sea, to the now-infamous subsidies to the sugar-cane producers, it has been the government’s actions, all of them well-intentioned, that caused the destruction of this estuary.
Conservatives have, as I have said before, a lot of good points to make. Like you, I think a lot of their philosophy stands in the way of a lot of good and generous things (their opposition to the Kyoto treaty and their questioning of global warming, to take two where they are full of it, in my opinion), but it is possible to listen to them and learn on a lot of issues, including the environment. You’ll never learn if you’re not willing to listen and to assume, absent proof otherwise, good will on the part of the person on the other side.
A lot of conservatives are suspicious of environmentalist because so many of them are watermelons in disguise. I consider myself to be a fairly reasonable guy and I want breathable air and drinkable water. But many environmentalist use the green issue to attack industry and push socialist agendas.
My environmentalism is rooted in selfish interest. As I said I want breathable air and drinkable water. I’m less interested in preserving certain animals and habitats. I look forward to the advance of technology to produce motor vehicles and power plants that produce less pollution. I also think the government does have a role in pollution control. But I still don’t trust most environmentalist groups.
Spoken like a true conservative. Your political opponents couldn’t possibly have a point, they just want to impose an oppressive system; they just want to take away your freedom.
Selfishness is rational. It’s more believeable to accuse your opponents of being motivated because of self-interest than in spite of altruism.
Corporations are good. They provide us with consumer products and jobs. Most liberals would agree with that. It’s just that corporations and consumers are causing some harm to the environment and that must be stopped or slowed as much as possible. We all may have to make sacrifices in term of wages and prices if the environment is going to be kept healthy. Conservatives apparantly don’t want to believe that, and they seem to think that anyone who doesn’t want to make sacrifices to help protect the environment shouldn’t have to.
What exactly is the conservative position on the environment? The bit about private property owners being economically motivated to protect the environment is bullshit. Most environmental issues are not confined to individual plots of land in the short-term.
No need to insult me by calling me a conservative. If you could please go ahead and reread what you quoted. That’s right I typed “many” not all. In fact later on in the post you quoted I’m pretty sure I mentioned something about government having a legitimate role in pollution control. Obviously I wouldn’t say that if I thought all environmentalist ideas were bunk.
**
And we’ll always cause some damage so long as we live. The question is what is the acceptable level of “harm” we should permit ourselves to cause.
**
Personally I think advances in technology will eventually make this a moot point. At least in this country, Canada, and western Europe. The developing nations will be spewing toxins for a while yet.
**
Beats me I’m not a conservative.
And I agree that government has a place when it comes to pollution regulation. I can’t say I’ve got any magical answers for anyone though. Well I could say it if that damn Tinkerbell didn’t take all my fairy dust.
“Man is an end in himself, not a means to the end of others;he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self interest, with the achievment of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life”
So, quite frankly you call me selfish like it’s an insult, and expect me to care??
Regardless of whether it’s a good or bad thing, selfishness really isn’t any more a part of conservative ideology than it is a part of liberal ideology. It’s all about accuracy.
ex-tank
Just needed to comment on your belief that SS will not be there when you need it. Surely you are aware that, even if nothing is done to reform the system (which to my knowledge no one recommends) and the trust fund is completely depleted (in 2035 or so), the pay-as-you-go nature of the system will still be sufficient to pay 75% of your currently predicted benefits. Also, after a certain age, you do not have the option of declining benefits (remember Reagan collecting bens while in office?).
I was just a little disappointed to see you stating inaccurate information - quite a contrast to the usual level of impeccable fact included in your posts.
When blacks fight for civil rights, are they being selfish?
When authors fight for free speech, are they being selfish?
When pagans fight for religious freedom, are they being selfish?
When gays fight for gay rights, are they being selfish?
When neighborhoods fight against toxic waste dumps, are they being selfish?
Oh, no, of course they are not selfish. Because they are fighting for the rights of OTHERS! Not themselves! No, it is wrong to fight for your own self interest, and since these are good people they cannot be self-interested, by definition. It only seems they fight for themselves, but in reality they only fight for others LIKE themselves. And the proof that they are not self interested is that they fight against these things. Because we know they are good things. So it isn’t. So they do. That’s why.
Good people who fight for good things are not selfish, by definition. Bad people who fight for bad things ARE selfish, by definition. And anyone who disagrees with me is selfish. But not me. I never fight for my own freedoms, only for the freedoms of others. That’s why I’m not selfish like the bad people are.
