What makes you a conservative or liberal

[ERoy]

You hear these monikers tossed around all the time, and each place you look, there doesn't really seems to be a true definition for the terms.

If you consider yourself either a conservative or liberal, what aspect of it draws you to it?

I just was wondering, since recently life-altering events have made me seriously rethink my political viewpoints.

[PilotMan]

You bring up an interesting topic. For a very long time I was a dyed in the wool Republican (ie. Conservative). The ideals of not spending more than you have, and personal responsibility, Social Darwinism and such were ideals that I held and believed in.

Over the past few years I have been steadily moving toward the left. It was the failures of GB II and the cronyism of that administration, coupled with the crash of 2008, the first hand sight of poor and struggling and the out and out greed that exists in our society that has moved me there.

I don't have time to elaborate more, but the social side is also more in tune with the left as well.

[Autumn]

I think often about a quote from a Bill Clinton speech where he described liberals as those who break down barriers that never should have existed in the first place, while conservatives are those who point out lines that should never be crossed. I think it was a great conceptualization that points out that, of course, both forces are necessary.

That said, I'm clearly a liberal, though I like to think I consider each idea and point on its own. I think maybe I'm a liberal because I just think there's so very many things we could, and should, do better. That feels much more urgent and important to me than worrying about things we're changing. I think liberals probably tend to think of history as a march of progress, and I'm in a hurry to get smarter and better than we are.

I've never really pondered why I ended up a liberal. My household wasn't particularly so, though I wouldn't describe it as conservative either. But I became a quite strong liberal, to the point of starting and living in an intentional community for over eight years, just about as far left as you can get. Interesting to ponder why that is.

[ERoy]

I know this is an over-simplification, but here's a quote from someone else as to the main differences between a conservative and liberal:

Conservative: I can support myself and my family, you should support yours. It's not my responsiblity to support you.
Liberal: I can support myself and my family, and government has a responsibility to help those who can't.

Conservative: Me and my family first
Liberal: Society first

Conservatives are unwilling to pay more taxes for the less fortunate. They believe in "personal responsibility" first, ie, take care of your own, and I'll do the same. They also believe there are too many freeloaders in the system to warrent continuing the programs.

Liberals think the exact opposite; that it's the duty of those with wealth to help those who can't, and that society in general, through taxes, should help those less fortunate.

[ERoy]

Originally Posted by Autumn

.

That said, I'm clearly a liberal, though I like to think I consider each idea and point on its own. I think maybe I'm a liberal because I just think there's so very many things we could, and should, do better. That feels much more urgent and important to me than worrying about things we're changing. I think liberals probably tend to think of history as a march of progress, and I'm in a hurry to get smarter and better than we are.

See, I think it's a great answer, but it's like so many other people who have listed definitions -- it's too vague. Are there specific policies conservatives favor that pulls you in the opposite direction?

[Noop]

I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate.

[Karlifornia]

I am neither a liberal or a conservative. I'm me. I take the issues one by one and determine my stance based on my own feelings. You could say that my feelings on social issues line up with the left 99% of the time, but I don't call myself a Democrat.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by ERoy

I know this is an over-simplification, but here's a quote from someone else as to the main differences between a conservative and liberal:

Conservative: I can support myself and my family, you should support yours. It's not my responsiblity to support you.
Liberal: I can support myself and my family, and government has a responsibility to help those who can't.

Conservative: Me and my family first
Liberal: Society first

Conservatives are unwilling to pay more taxes for the less fortunate. They believe in "personal responsibility" first, ie, take care of your own, and I'll do the same. They also believe there are too many freeloaders in the system to warrent continuing the programs.

Liberals think the exact opposite; that it's the duty of those with wealth to help those who can't, and that society in general, through taxes, should help those less fortunate.

Who wrote this? Howard Dean on the campaign trail?

I think the major distinction to draw between the notion of conservatism vs liberalism (not to be confused with Republicans vs Democrats) is a bit more on "how" those things are accomplished. There are of course lots of people who will throw their name around those 2 monickers but that doesn't mean they have ownership of it, or its meaning.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by ERoy

See, I think it's a great answer, but it's like so many other people who have listed definitions -- it's too vague. Is there specific policies conservatives favor that pulls you in the opposite direction?

I guess i consider conservative and liberal vague things. They're forces, and while one party or another might embody one of them more than the other, the parties and ideologies aren't "conservatism" and "Liberalism" themselves. What is conservative now was liberal at another time and may be again.

But to try to answer your question, there are things associated these days with conservatism or liberalism, like the post above about personal responsibility. I agree with more "liberal" ideas than "conservative" in that sense, though I certainly consider each separately. I"d have to ponder if there are certain things that are most important for me in that sense.

I think primary for me is the idea of justice. I'm more concerned about social justice in some sense than I am responsibility. The causes that really matter to me are those suffering who need our help. While it's good and useful to figure out why there is horrible poverty in the world, I'm more interested in helping the suffering than deciding whether it's my responsibility to help them. It's kind of like I tell my kids when they're busy screaming about whose fault it is someone is hurt or something's broken. "I don't want to hear about whose fault it is, let's see that they're okay and how we can fix it." I want to see our leaders step up and talk about how we're going to make things better.

[ERoy]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Who wrote this? Howard Dean on the campaign trail?

It was a quote from some political blog. I don't think it was written by anyone of note, and it's obviously slanted, but I've not seen one that really is down the middle -- they all seem to be on one side or the other.

I think the major distinction to draw between the notion of conservatism vs liberalism (not to be confused with Republicans vs Democrats) is a bit more on "how" those things are accomplished. There are of course lots of people who will throw their name around those 2 monickers but that doesn't mean they have ownership of it, or its meaning.

Fair enough -- if you were writing a true definition of current liberalism and conservatism, how would you define them?

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Over the past few years I have been steadily moving toward the left. It was the failures of GB II and the cronyism of that administration, coupled with the crash of 2008, the first hand sight of poor and struggling and the out and out greed that exists in our society that has moved me there.

I can relate to this in the sense that I've moved away from "Republicans". I don't know that its pushed me towards Democrats but its certainly pushed me away from Republicans.

As a kid and a young adult, I had always seen the Republicans as the party of grownup intellectuals & the Democrats as the party of philanthropy via the grownups' money. These are obviously about as wrong as you can possibly be any more (if they ever had any merit to begin with) but I still believe you need the right balance of conservatism & liberalism.

As Autumn points out, these 2 concepts do evolve over time. Today's conservative doesn't believe owning people is acceptable but at 1 point, somebody deemed conservative might. And the reverse evolution is true as well. You don't have the modern liberal thinking that invading countries to liberate people is such a good use of the grownups' money...even if those people are still enslaved, oppressed, persecuted, etc. It just can't be done, in the view of most modern liberals (and most people in general).

Personally, I think the notion of helping people & personal responsibility are missing from both political parties. Well, we've gone the opposite direction these days. We have no personal responsibility for the wealthy and we help only the wealthy stay...wealthy.

I've come to some conclusions about our modern government these days. I've realized that we probably need more government, but we need less centralized & concentrated government. And when I say "government", I'm lumping teachers, firefighters, administration, etc. all into that. And I say that because the government we need has checks & balances...not autonomy as it does today. You can't vote out the real people behind legislation as its party-centric. Symbolic votes for/against a bill (due to local demographics) loaded up with 700 things is the type of crap our centralized government can obfuscate because the real goal is getting re-elected.

Lobbying gets its share of the blame (fairly) but I don't think you need to address lobbying before you address the problem of "who" needs to be lobbied.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

For a very long time I was a dyed in the wool Republican (ie. Conservative). The ideals of not spending more than you have, and personal responsibility,

Just wanted to point out what a horseshit attitude this is, to believe those ideals are wholly owned by Conservatives.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Just wanted to point out what a horseshit attitude this is, to believe those ideals are wholly owned by Conservatives.

I think that you misunderstood me Todd. I certainly didn't mean that those things were exclusive to those ideals. Good grief. They were just things that came to my mind as what were big things for me at that time. I since feel that there are other things that are at least equally or more important. And that I no longer relate to that movement because of that.

At no time did I say that I felt that liberals don't believe in managing money or that they believe that personal responsibility is a waste of time. I do think that there comes a time and place where expenditure might need to outstrip income and that I personally feel that it is societies responsibility to make sure that even the bottom dwellers have help. That is a government problem and a problem that every member of the country has to shoulder.

[Young Drachma]

Used to be a conservative, but I've trended further left over the years and would best be described as a libertarian socialist. Lots of reasons I arrived where I have politically and it wasn't in a vacuum.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I think the major distinction to draw between the notion of conservatism vs liberalism (not to be confused with Republicans vs Democrats) is a bit more on "how" those things are accomplished. There are of course lots of people who will throw their name around those 2 monickers but that doesn't mean they have ownership of it, or its meaning.

This is an important point. Often both sides have similar goals, but different beliefs about the best way to achieve them. For instance, most people want lower crime rates. But, at the risk of simplification, liberals are more likely to favor rehabilitative policies, whereas conservatives are more likely to favor deterrence. (Even if you don't agree with those categorization of the liberal and conservative viewpoints on this particular issue, you get the gist.)

On the other hand, there are a number of issues on which the sides have different goals--or at least their underlying values lead them to view the tradeoff of goals differently. Fair to say most people believe economic growth is a good thing, for instance. But liberals are more willing to accept a trade off of some economic growth in implementing environmental protection regulations. (And I suppose at some point these categories can get so broad you can actually push them into the framework from my first paragraph--for instance, we could view this as both sides wanting to maximize future welfare and disagreeing on the policies, but I digress.)

To answer the question initially posed, I consider myself pretty liberal (and I'm sure there are quite a few people--including folks on this board--that consider me radically liberal). More and more, people are harmed by structural social problems through no fault of their own. And as society becomes more complex and connected, actions taken by one party can impact many others that they don't even know. I believe we have all have moral obligation to use the law and social norms to ensure the system is as fair and just as can be.

[molson]

For me personally i view liberal economic ideas as what "other" people should do. People with more money than me should do this, people who run corporations should do this, people with political power should do this.....i think these ideas of what others should do is confused with "compassion". To me, personal responsibility is more than just looking out for yourself, its about knowing your role in making the world a better place, and how you can help people. And to me, there's an overemphasis on rights and entltlements, at the expense of responsibilities (including the responsibility to help others, as opposed to simply having the opinion that others should help people, which imo is not enough)

[lcjjdnh]

Also, as I've repeatedly pointed out in other threads, the increasing institutionalization and connection of society has allowed people to obtain wealth and power through socially detrimental activities, a problem that I again believe we should use laws and norms to correct.

[RainMaker]

I feel like both sides go too far in their beliefs but are both necessary to have pushing on one another. You need a competitive society where people have personal responsibility. At the same time, you need to have a fair playing field and some social safety nets. A struggle to define when that safety net goes from being a net to being a permanent crutch.

My issues with the left are that they feel entitled to everything. If someone can't afford to have a kid, we should all be responsible for allowing them to have 5 and not allowed to speak out against it. If someone chose to spend their formitive years smoking pot and partying as opposed to earning a valuable skill, we all should subsidize it. There is no personal responsibility here. There is no one telling people that sometimes they are in that position because of their own doing. Every problem that people face is everyone else's fault.

On the other hand, I think that sentiment goes too far. There isn't a level playing field amongst kids growing up. There isn't equal opportunity. So you are throwing away a lot of kids because they didn't grow up in the right school district. How many of these kids may have been capable of doing something great? Curing a disease? Building a new technology? Their view of capitalism isn't of capitalism, but instead this distorted casino capitalism where a certain group of people can't lose because of their connections.

So I'm constantly conflicted between the two sides and I don't really feel like I fall into either one. I don't feel sorry for the unkept tattooed Occupy protester who is upset that a $100k political science degee doesn't equate to a high paying job. But I also don't think a person should not be able to see a doctor and receive treatment because they didn't win the genetic lottery when they were born and have a condition that no insurance company will cover. Maybe that's a hypocritical view on things, but I just don't think either side's views can ever fully be part of a happy, healthy society.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by ERoy

If you consider yourself either a conservative or liberal, what aspect of it draws you to it?

Man, I don't even know where to start here.

I think part of the problem is that the definitions of the terms have changed - particularly 'conservative.'

My politics aren't, I don't think, hugely deviated from what they were when I was 18 and fiercely Republican. A little more nuanced, maybe. Some of that comes from moving halfway across the country and getting exposed to people from groups I never had much contact with growing up.

I think an awful LOT of it comes from watching the Republican Party and "conservatives" lose their fucking minds after 9/11. A lot of the tenets to which people who self-identify as "conservatives" seem to cling to these days are things I would never have expected to see identified with them (but that's maybe a rant for another day).

Thinking about my stance on various issues, I guess here's a primer on where I line up.

I think government should, generally, live within its means. I also believe that a country is as strong as its weakest citizen. I think the Republican/conservative obsession with lower taxes for the wealthiest regardless of the circumstances on the ground is suicidal. I think maybe sometimes the folks on the right lose sight of what the long term ramifications of "I've got mine, the rest of you can go hang" are.

I think a strong defense is essential. On the other hand, conservatives love to say "you can't fix education simply by throwing money at it," and at the same time, equate spending with strength when it comes to the military. It's cognitive dissonance on a level I can't comprehend.

I think there's similar cognitive dissonance in trying to dismantle the safety net because of a belief that some people would rather sponge off the state than get a job, lionize the entrepreneur class, and then suggest that if you tax them at 30% instead of 28%, somehow that extra 2% removes all of their incentive to pursue their ideas and make money. Aren't you, at that point, arguing that the poor and the wealthy are philosophically the same, separated only by some combination of opportunity and inspiration?

I think border security is essential for a number of reasons, but I don't know what you do about the folks already here, particularly situations where you have non-citizen parents with citizen children. You can't retroactively strip the childrens' citizenship - Constitution is quite clear about no ex post facto laws - and sending citizens out of the country because they haven't reached their age of majority also seems like a non-starter.

Look at the war on terror. Conservatives going back to Goldwater have serious issues with 'government in people's lives,' and yet so few 'security conservatives' even seem to blink at the issues raised with the PATRIOT Act and the DHS. I'm sorry, where I come from, embracing those things isn't conservative. It's fascist. Where they draw the line is when they're personally being inconvenienced - backscatter X-rays in the airport, say. And yet, "if they haven't got anything to hide, they shouldn't be worried about it" is still a line they use when things like warrantless wiretaps come in to play.

Social conservatism, as a concept, blows my mind. It's about as antithetical to the idea of conservatism as it's possible to be. If the overriding tenet of conservatism is "get government out of my life," anti-abortion laws, anti-gay marriage laws, anti-sodomy laws, the whole works? Completely self-contradictory. You can't, as a philosophy, be for personal freedom and small government and yet support laws like that. Well, you CAN, but it makes you a fucking hypocrite.

That's kind of where I come down these days. I no longer identify with the Republican Party. It has, collectively, lost its mind. I have a difficult time articulating just what I consider my views to be, because the definitions popularly used for 'liberal' and 'conservative' these days means that I'm all over the place.

I think the environment is worth protecting, not necessarily because I have a hard-on for the whales or the polar bears, but because we have to live here too. If telling companies "no, you can't dump excess chemicals in our freshwater supplies" has the ancillary benefit of protecting endangered species, that's great, but it's not my primary concern. So where does that put me?

I think fighting terror requires some changes in the way we do things, but not at the cost of who we are as a nation. Ben Franklin said something about essential liberty and a little temporary security, once upon a time. Some on the right have forgotten that, while some on the left need to realize that fighting terror has to be a cooperation between law enforcement and the military. You can't fight it solely as a criminal matter, and fighting it on a purely military front risks the erosion of the liberties at the foundation of our nation.

I think the energy and money spent fighting abortion and other forms of birth control would be better spent improving the lot of the lower classes. If you say "not my problem" when people are mired in a situation with few resources, poor education and rampant ignorance, you don't really get to act surprised when they either pop out a shitload of children and become a burden on the community, or else terminate the pregnancy. If you really want to tackle the issue, that's the way you do it. Not by banning abortions, defunding Planned Parenthood, or removing federal funds for organizations that provide condoms to low-income people.

I think that a "get government out of my life" belief necessarily militates towards a "government has no business deciding who gets to be 'married'" stance. Let the churches sort that one out as an ecumenical issue. The state's sole role should be in legal recognition that two people are forming a household together and sharing resources for the furtherment of that household.

I think unrestrained speculation as a means to wealth is irresponsible and dangerous to capitalism as a concept and more specifically to national security. I think allowing banks to engage in speculation is likewise irresponsible. Use the 'fungibility' argument that social conservatives used in arguing why Planned Parenthood should be defunded. Same deal with banks. Whether the money they're using to place risky bets is their 'own' or that of the people who have money invested with them is irrelevant. The funds are, essentially, fungible and if the bank fucks up, they can potentially take down everybody who had their money in a savings account (unless the government steps in).

Even though I don't trust Newt Gingrich and would probably not vote for him, I understand what he means when he talks about nuance with his position on illegal immigration. Defining liberalism or conservatism as all-or-nothing is to ensure that no matter what you do, somebody gets hurt. The difference between the two at that point is who's at the point of the sword.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Noop

I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ERoy

Fair enough -- if you were writing a true definition of current liberalism and conservatism, how would you define them?

In today's environment?

Liberals don't stand for anything.

Conservatives stand for anything that pisses off liberals.

The labels are meaningless because winning means everything.

[lighthousekeeper]

SackAttack for president!

[Noop]

Great post SackAttack.

[PilotMan]

Well said Sack. I lack the organizational ability to clearly state what you have worded here, yet I feel very much the same as you on many fronts.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Bunch of thoughts broken down by issue

I just want to point out that this is a great fucking post.

[lungs]

It's easy, liberals hate America while conservatives love it.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Noop

I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate.

This, I am for more controlled spending, but don't want government telling me how to live my life.

[Buccaneer]

To me, it all comes down to reality and not the theoretical and conceptual. I lived through the Carter years in HS and early college, as well as corrupt Tip O'Neill congress into the 1980s. I have seen many massive legislative programs that failed or at least did not come close to achieving the hyped intent. It has not only accelerated during 2000s (2001-2011), the consequences seem to be higher. It is all such folly and repulsive to me and I have been wondering for quite a while now why anyone would think that "this time" (or "next time") things will be different or change.

If you paid attentioned to or witness the things I have seen in the past 35-40 years (going back to Watergate), then one does not ally themselves to either being a "liberal" or "conservative" in practicality (only with what looks good on paper, which is the basis for many arguments here and everywhere else).

[Buccaneer]

But to answer the question: Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

While God's ways are much higher than ours, the intent is to have a heart for those less fortunate. It doesn't say to give your possessions to Caesar so he can decide what to do but for us - as individuals - to directly help those who are needy. We can do a better job than any of man's sinful and corrupt institutions.

One more verse:

James 2:14 Dear brothers, what's the use of saying that you have faith and are Christians if you aren't proving it by helping others? Will that kind of faith save anyone? James 2:15 If you have a friend who is in need of food and clothing, James 2:16 and you say to him, "Well, good-bye and God bless you; stay warm and eat hearty," and then don't give him clothes or food, what good does that do?

I would modify that by saying: "If you have a friend who is in need of food and clothing, and you say to him, "Well, good-bye and God bless you; let man's government make you stay warm and eat hearty," and then don't give him clothes or food, what good does that do?

[molson]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

then suggest that if you tax them at 30% instead of 28%, somehow that extra 2% removes all of their incentive to pursue their ideas and make money.

I liked a lot of things in your post but I think this is one of those little points that has taken on a life of its own, really has an impact on "what makes you a conxervative or liberal", and yet is really inaccurate. If I believed that the only reason to oppose a tax hike was this incentive thing that cited here as gospel all the time as THE reason to oppose tax increases, I'd be in favor of every tax hike. Which I guess would make me much more liberal.

But I think most people that oppose higher taxes look at it much differently. They just think that at some tax level, with some taxpayers, that 2% benefits society much more in the hands of citizens, then it does in the hands of the government. It's not necessarily always a selfish proposition about someone "keeping what's theirs"

There really is a lot of overlap when it comes to the end goals, and conservative/liberal I think is a lot of just about tactical arguments about how to get there. I've discussed that concept a lot here but it's maybe the thing that has pushed me personally more conservative, even if it's a kind of immature and irrational reason to do so. I really disdain the arguments, and ideas, that one side is ever just morally superior and more caring than the other, just based on how we think tactically about how people can have the best lives possible. I get so defensive over that and resent that so much, I think it does make me a little more conservative (this really exploded in my Eugene, Or, days - where I was around people who believed you had to own their very specific ultra-liberal view or you're some kind of ignorant, evil monster - but I've become more liberal since then, since most of my political discussion is now more with people like those on this message board who tend to be a lot more sensible about everything.) I'm sure people experienced similar backlashes if they were surrounded by extreme, unreasonable conservative culture.

[RainMaker]

My issue with it is when the reason is complete bullshit. If people say that the 2% deserves to be in their hands because they deserve it, fine. I just dislike the notion that raising taxes will cause business owners to fire people. It's a complete and utter fallacy. The lie is what bothers me.

[Autumn]

Your distinction about our individual need to help our common man is interesting, Buccaneer. It makes some sense, and I certainly think it is more meaningful for an individual to choose for themselves to give of themselves to others directly. But yet it seems to be ignoring the power of collective action. Just like you see churches and civic organizations get together to a charity drive, because they recognize that they can get more done, more efficiently, more effectively, as a group, I want any organization I'm a part of to take part in helping others.

It means much more if I change my life to help the less fortunate, but I still want my government, that represents our collective will, to use its power and influence to make a difference for others. While institutions have their drawbacks, they also have great abilities. I think we need both.

I very much agree with the sentiment that my grandfather often expressed, that when he was young the town took care of its own, the unfortunate got help from their neighbors. But social justice says to me we need to be national neighbors, and global neighbors, and our government, that we have created, should be a tool we can use to be that. I know some of my neighbors don't want that, and there's the dilemma. Because, frankly, I think regardless of how many Americans may not want to aid the starving in Africa, for instance, I feel like our government should be doing it. I'm not sure how to address that, but i guess I feel like government should be veering ever towards Right, not towards what the majority want, or the least common denominator of what people are willing to do. I guess what I'm saying is I'm not okay with those townspeople deciding, screw you, when it comes to their neighbor, and that's the very real danger of depending on us as individuals to do right.

There are clear problems with both approaches, and I guess what bothers me most is when people pretend there aren't, that one just works.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

My issue with it is when the reason is complete bullshit. If people say that the 2% deserves to be in their hands because they deserve it, fine. I just dislike the notion that raising taxes will cause business owners to fire people. It's a complete and utter fallacy. The lie is what bothers me.

Right, all I'm saying is that there's societal reasons and arguments for different tax rates beyond ones that are just "bullshit" or selfish. There is no one specific tax scheme that is simply morally superior to others in the sense of caring for people.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I would modify that by saying: "If you have a friend who is in need of food and clothing, and you say to him, "Well, good-bye and God bless you; let man's government make you stay warm and eat hearty," and then don't give him clothes or food, what good does that do?

I would say that government is a construct, designed by man, to help maintain order, and provide for the common good. It was created for us, to serve us and thereby society on the whole. In that regard, it is the job of the individual to maintain and keep government so that those goals can be achieved and man, high born and low born, can be served to the best abilities of the government. Starving the government and letting those who would rather "take their ball and go home" serves nobody except those individuals who are actually in a position to benefit from its demise. Which in turn fails in the design it was intended.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

Right, all I'm saying is that there's societal reasons and arguments for different tax rates beyond ones that are just "bullshit" or selfish. There is no one specific tax scheme that is simply morally superior to others in the sense of caring for people.

Marxism.

Not bullshit "Stalism" or "Maoism."

True Marxism...undistorted by cronyism or oligarchich totalitarianism.

Not that I'm saying I'm a Marxist mind you, but there's one that is morally superior to others in the sense of caring for everyone.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Marxism.

Not bullshit "Stalism" or "Maoism."

True Marxism...undistorted by cronyism or oligarchich totalitarianism.

Not that I'm saying I'm a Marxist mind you, but there's one that is morally superior to others in the sense of caring for everyone.

Unless one believes that that type of economic system would cause a lower standard of living for everyone as a whole (as well as everyone, or most people, individually). And that such a system would hold us back when it comes to technology/medical advances, etc, to the detriment of the people. Or that freedom is important enough to society as a whole that, at least at some level, it does trump 100% guaranteed equality. (Whether or not those arguments are even "correct" - if that's someone's belief, then then it's not a belief based on greed or selfishness - even if that's how their opponents try to portray it).

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

Unless one believes that that type of economic system would cause a lower standard of living for everyone as a whole (as well as everyone, or most people, individually). And that such a system would hold us back when it comes to technology/medical advances, etc, to the detriment of the people. Or that freedom is important enough to society as a whole that, at least at some level, it does trump 100% guaranteed equality. (Whether or not those arguments are even "correct" - if that's someone's belief, then then it's not a belief based on greed or selfishness - even if that's how their opponents try to portray it).

You didn't mention standard of living, technology/medical advances or freedom. You were just talking about tax regimes that were morally superior in terms of caring for everyone.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Noop

Great post SackAttack.

+1

I also cannot state as eloquently my dissatisfaction with both major political parties but will add a few thoughts as well.

In modern "conservatism" as its portrayed by the Republicans...we have the concept of combining church & state (via gay marriage amendments), corporate welfare (via tax credits), corporate safety nets (via bailouts) thrown out there far too often. Again, at the federal level via constitutional amendment, executive order, or similar legislation.

As a self-identified "small government" conservative, I'm ok with a collective group of citizens voting for their representatives to enact laws & social norms that benefit the society they have created locally, to the extent permissible under the Constitution. If that is not the type of mini-society one wishes to live in, do business in, or be a part of...one should look to lobby that mini-society for change with their vote & by creating public awareness of the dissenting view. This is how you get personal responsibility (in this case, at the government end) & incentive to "do the right thing". What I'm not ok with is the idea that a couple hundred people in a country of 300 million can or should do this for all locales. Its the exact problem "No taxation without representation" was all about...and it exists today with our the House & Senate. The concept of consistency and checks & balances is out the window for the Republicans and they are willing crash the economy to prove it.

But then the alternative. The Democratic version of "liberalism". Liberal people should be a free people...free from social micro-management, interventionism in their lives even if it is (perceived by you & me) as "for their own good", and the concept of nanny-state which I believe to be a very real problem. The modern liberal agenda (in my view) seeks to push perceived social justice regardless of who the creator of such problems really is. To follow on the nanny state issue, I am absolutely certain that the Katrina aftermath & Superdome issues are largely viewed as a problem in wealth disparity by most onlookers. But to me, the real injustice is that people with very low incomes, very low education, and very little means have been taught that waiting around for government solutions is the right approach to take in life. There is no personal responsibility to your children, your older & helpless relatives, or your fellow community members if you are poor. I'm saddened that the shear rejection of what I believe to be nanny state philosophy also leads to militant "liberalism" which I believe proclaims an equally ignorant (to Tea Party criticisms) message "somebody else has money...give it up now". Where do they draw the line on "who's" money(as Bucc alluded to)? Typically themselves without regard to the structural problem they might create for generations to come.

So I guess the point is that there are too many inconsistencies in modern political ideology to even feel comfortable aligning oneself to them wholly. But I do believe that the best society encourages productivity in able minded/bodied citizens & helps those who are not while trying to improve the overall standard of living for all members. You can point to "taxes" as the only way to solve problems and ignore the structural lack of checks & balances that created the environment. You can also point to rich people who game the system & try & "outgame the gamers" as the right approach...but I think you are going down the wrong road as it won't lead you where you thought it would. And not because it simply won't help people (which it naturally will in small excerpts)...but it will further lead to the very system of wealth concentration we already have because government cannot "outgame the gamers" by enacting more "games".

But society does not equal government...which I think is one of those key points of contention between conservative & liberal ideology of today. Define which side of that point you fall on, and I think your view of both terms will be relational to it.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Your distinction about our individual need to help our common man is interesting, Buccaneer. It makes some sense, and I certainly think it is more meaningful for an individual to choose for themselves to give of themselves to others directly. But yet it seems to be ignoring the power of collective action. Just like you see churches and civic organizations get together to a charity drive, because they recognize that they can get more done, more efficiently, more effectively, as a group, I want any organization I'm a part of to take part in helping others.

It means much more if I change my life to help the less fortunate, but I still want my government, that represents our collective will, to use its power and influence to make a difference for others. While institutions have their drawbacks, they also have great abilities. I think we need both.

I very much agree with the sentiment that my grandfather often expressed, that when he was young the town took care of its own, the unfortunate got help from their neighbors. But social justice says to me we need to be national neighbors, and global neighbors, and our government, that we have created, should be a tool we can use to be that. I know some of my neighbors don't want that, and there's the dilemma. Because, frankly, I think regardless of how many Americans may not want to aid the starving in Africa, for instance, I feel like our government should be doing it. I'm not sure how to address that, but i guess I feel like government should be veering ever towards Right, not towards what the majority want, or the least common denominator of what people are willing to do. I guess what I'm saying is I'm not okay with those townspeople deciding, screw you, when it comes to their neighbor, and that's the very real danger of depending on us as individuals to do right.

There are clear problems with both approaches, and I guess what bothers me most is when people pretend there aren't, that one just works.

Yes, there are responsibilities that a federal govt. should and must perform but abdicating personal responsibility to such an entity would be wrong in helping one another, just as it said in James.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Yes, there are responsibilities that a federal govt. should and must perform but abdicating personal responsibility to such an entity would be wrong in helping one another, just as it said in James.

The Bible is not a book that should tell us how to organize/govern a society.

In 5 minutes of googling:

#1 – Psalm 137:9
“Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”

#2 – 2 Kings 18:27
“But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? Hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?”

#3 – Deuteronomy 21:18-21
“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”


Genesis 38:8-10 NASB

Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.

[ERoy]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I would modify that by saying: "If you have a friend who is in need of food and clothing, and you say to him, "Well, good-bye and God bless you; let man's government make you stay warm and eat hearty," and then don't give him clothes or food, what good does that do?

Ideally, that would the perfect plan, but in this real world, it just doesn't work. Too many people, given the opportunity, WON'T HELP.

At least to me, to answer your verse -- if you say "let man's government make you stay warm and hearty and don't give him clothes or food, what good does it do?"

It means that, regardless of whether you or the government keeps your fellow man stay warm and eat hearty, it's still being done.

I can't tell you how many times I see people walk across the street, and say "Get a job" to a homeless man on the street. I see every day the "normal tax-paying" citizen have no care or consideration for their fellow man. Sure, there are people who care, but they are far and away a small minority of people. People no longer care about the less fortunate.

If someone needs fed and clothed, does it matter who does it, only that it's done? If someone has to pay 4 cents more a dollar in taxes(average cost in welfare benefits in income taxes) so someone will have a meal, I'm fine with that. If that means you give up a coffee a month so your fellow man can not starve, then go without your coffee.

The bad thing is, I used to be one of those "personal responsibility" people. Heartless and callous. You look at things differently when you see a loved one going through hardships.

[Noop]

I think the adding of religion to government is a bad idea. I am all for people having a belief in something, however I am not a fan of people using that belief to govern people who don't share in it.

Honestly, I feel like people who use religion as justification for actions in government are using it (religion) as a cop-out.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Yes, there are responsibilities that a federal govt. should and must perform but abdicating personal responsibility to such an entity would be wrong in helping one another, just as it said in James.

I think I see your point. I'm just wary of the tendency of people to say it's one or the other. As if our only choices are between welfare queens and Darfur. We can have, and clearly must have, a balance.

I think perhaps the best voice on this issue, to me, is Wendell Berry. In The Long-Legged House he points out that many of the cases of moral legislation (Medicare, etc.) are indeed worse answers than personal responsibility, but we have to remember that they came about precisely because people *did not* hold up their personal responsibility to help their neighbors or do what's right. We had to legislate the end of slavery because people failed to end it on their own. While things like welfare have grown unwieldy and problematic, let's not pretend that they didn't arise for a reason, and that reason is that we failed to solve the problem without government first. Perhaps we can come up with a better answer, but it's naive to say there was no problem to begin with that needs some answering.

I think this is a great couple of pages here (56-57) on the matter that illuminates my thinking:

http://books.google.com/books?id=-hH...page&q&f=false

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I think I see your point. I'm just wary of the tendency of people to say it's one or the other. As if our only choices are between welfare queens and Darfur. We can have, and clearly must have, a balance.

I think perhaps the best voice on this issue, to me, is Wendell Berry. In The Long-Legged House he points out that many of the cases of moral legislation (Medicare, etc.) are indeed worse answers than personal responsibility, but we have to remember that they came about precisely because people *did not* hold up their personal responsibility to help their neighbors or do what's right. We had to legislate the end of slavery because people failed to end it on their own. While things like welfare have grown unwieldy and problematic, let's not pretend that they didn't arise for a reason, and that reason is that we failed to solve the problem without government first. Perhaps we can come up with a better answer, but it's naive to say there was no problem to begin with that needs some answering.

I think this is a great couple of pages here (56-57) on the matter that illuminates my thinking:

http://books.google.com/books?id=-hH...page&q&f=false

Amen! I believe that due to the plight of the poor and people unwilling to help, the Christian thing to do is to use the power of the government, so that we can say we did all we could to take care of the "least of these". If you are concerned with people giving with their heart, well God can easily see the motivations of his creation.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by molson

But I think most people that oppose higher taxes look at it much differently. They just think that at some tax level, with some taxpayers, that 2% benefits society much more in the hands of citizens, then it does in the hands of the government. It's not necessarily always a selfish proposition about someone "keeping what's theirs"

Which is a fantastic theoretical argument.

And what the last ten years have shown us is that this argument, and I mean this with the greatest respect, is complete and utter horseshit.

Nobody's saying "We need to go back to the 90% top marginal rate that existed under Eisenhower." Well, maybe literal capital-S Socialists are, but their viewpoint is sufficiently non-mainstream to be irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

What we're dealing with right now, in concrete terms, is that the distribution of wealth is of greater inequality in the United States than in any other economy in the world. The top 1% of the income earners in the country control something like 35% of the nation's wealth. Is that of greater benefit to society? Fine. Define that thesis, using the economic conditions from 1999-present. Show me how the top marginal rate of 35% since the Bush tax cuts were first enacted has been of greater benefit to the nation than returning to the top marginal rate of 38.6% that previously existed.

Here's the bottom line: it's *absolutely* about two things. 1) "Keeping what's theirs" and 2) "starving the beast."

The merit of those desires is a discussion for another thread, but don't fool yourself into thinking that the people who want the wealthy to pay less in taxes want that for the benefit of society. If "trickle-down" economics meant more than a hot fart in a warm tropical breeze, we would have seen at least some kind of concomitant rise in incomes for the bottom 90% of income earners to go with the nearly 300% rise in income enjoyed by the top 1% in the period from 1979-present. We haven't. The average income for those outside the top 10% is basically stagnant from that period.

Make the argument that a man is entitled to the sweat of his brow. Make the argument that the federal government is too large and that the only way to restrain it is to reduce the amount of money it has to spend, so that it will either consume less voraciously or collapse under its own weight. Whether I'll agree with you on those issues or not is another thing, but at least those are honest positions to hold.

Don't make the argument that the wealthy need extra tax cuts for the Republic to survive when a) they already control 35% of the nation's wealth, b) have seen a 300% rise in pre-tax income since 1979 to go along with c) that cut from 70% to 35% in the top marginal rate.

The argument is flat out specious. The top 1% make more, and pay less, now than at any other time in the hundred years the income tax has been a reality.

Again. I mean no disrespect to you personally, and I understand what you're trying to say. I just think it's the weakest argument one could choose when arguing in favor of reducing the tax burden of the wealthy.

[JediKooter]

I like to think I'm a mix of both. But, not in the definitions used by radio pundits to demagogue either party. To me, conservative and liberal are not words that describe bad things. Liberal, does not mean communist or marxist or socialist. That would be like saying that a monkey is also a giraffe. Same thing with conservative. It doesn't mean thug or fascist or religious.

I believe our government should be fiscally conservative. Neither party is close to that, regardless of what they want to label themselves. I get in trouble if I bounce a check. If the government can't balance the budget, there needs to be some kind of 'punishment' for those in charge.

I believe we should have a strong military that takes advantage of technology, which means we could have a smaller (manpower wise) military, but, maintain its strength.

I believe that two happy adults that are in love and want to marry each other and want to ruin a great relationship, should be allowed to have that option.

I believe that the use of 'in the name of national security' should only be used in rare circumstances and not just to cover someones political ass.

I believe our government and its business, should be transparent to the citizens of the United States. Obviously, certain things do need to be secret and I have no problems with that.

I believe that our government needs to be smaller. And by smaller, I mean, revamping or getting rid of agencies that are redundant or chrononistically irrelevant. It also means that if a program isn't working or is bleeding money, it needs to be fixed today. Not tomorrow, not after the next election and not 10 years from now.

I believe that our government should minimize any involvement when it comes to what people choose to do in the privacy of their own homes. This doesn't mean legalized child abuse or stuff like that.

I believe the government has zero business to say what a woman chooses to do with her pregnancy. This is none of my business and none of your business. It's a private matter.

I believe there should be term limits for US senators and congressmen. There should be no such thing as a 'career politician'. I see it as a civic duty, like jury duty.

I believe the term 'secure boarder' is a joke when speaking of illegal immigration. When speaking of hostiles, then yes, something definitely needs to be done. I'm not holding my breath though. After all, it was a dick measuring contest between government agencies that allowed 19 hijackers to remain in the US and fly some planes into some buildings and a field in Pennsylvania.

I believe the Patriot Act is the closet thing we have to actually living in a communist/facist society. And don't give me the 'if you've done nothing wrong...' cop out.

I believe that taxes are not 'evil'. The way they are implemented is what the problem is. I have no idea what a 'fair' tax is since there is never going to be 100% consensus on what is fair. I'm sure most people would cheer a 0% tax, but, that isn't reality. I think taxation should be done smarter though. Which is a whole 'nother thread in itself.

I believe that no legislation should be allowed that mandates you purchasing anything you do not want from a private or publicly traded, for profit business. Yes, I'm talking about auto and health insurance. If you don't want to buy it, you should not be penalized/taxed for doing so.

I believe that not everybody is a winner. I understand that sometimes, the odds are stacked against someone, but, if you are an able bodied and able minded person, that doesn't mean you get to live off of the teat of the government for the rest of your life. There's more that can be done to help the able minded and bodied though.

I believe that if someone has gone through training and classes, they should be allowed to have a firearm. It should be like when you were trying to get your drivers license when you were a kid. Classes, tests and actual hands on training.

I believe (and no shocker here) that government and religion are not good mixes and need to be separate. Also, in order for a religious group to continue receiving their tax breaks, they should not be allowed to have anything to do with politics. As soon as you endorse something financially, tax break is gone forever.

I believe that there's nothing wrong with people being insanely rich as long as it was done legally. What they choose to do with their money, is their own business and I have no right to dictate what they should or should not do with it.

I believe that everyone should be treated with respect. We don't have to like everyone, but, we are all brothers and sisters on this blue ball we call home and it isn't getting any bigger. So the sooner we get past our differences and accept people for who they are, the better we will be in the long run.

Speaking of our planet...I believe that we should be mindful of what we are doing to our environment. I think it would be awesome if we could get rid of things like the combustion engine, but, we can't at the moment. However, screaming that we are killing the earth, without having a practical solution is just as good as dumping toxic waste in our drinking water. Anybody can point out what we shouldn't be doing, but, if you want to impress me and get me on board, find a solution that is just as convenient and doesn't cost more than the current thing we have. Carbon footprint? WTF? Nice made up way to try and quantify your pretentiousness.

I believe we should expand our space programs. Private and public. Again, this world isn't getting any smaller and our sun isn't going to be around forever. Our sun is middle aged, balding and will start getting fat in about 5 billion years. We will have to be off this planet and colonized other solar systems if the human race wants to survive.

I believe we need to mind our own business a little bit more. If I want to eat 20 hotdogs, that's my own business. If you want to eat tree bark, that's your own business. If I want to watch 50 hours of TV, leave me alone. Basically, if whatever I'm doing has no effect on your life, shut the f up and move along.

What does that make me? I have no idea other than, I'm an American.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

The Bible is not a book that should tell us how to organize/govern a society.

In 5 minutes of googling:

I wish i knew about this 5 minutes googling to be an authority on a subject, would have made grad school much shorter.

[EagleFan]

Thought it was preetty clear...

If you're a close minded Bible thumping bigot you are a conservative. If you're a tree hugging spineless surrender monkey you are a liberal.


With that said. The other 99.5% of the people make up the rest but must be labeled in some form or another in order for their politicians to continue to rape the system.

That sound about right?

I'll actually try come up with a more serious answer for myself sometime tonight when I have time but the short answer is that I have conservative leanings but am far from a conservative.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Noop

I think the adding of religion to government is a bad idea. I am all for people having a belief in something, however I am not a fan of people using that belief to govern people who don't share in it.

Honestly, I feel like people who use religion as justification for actions in government are using it (religion) as a cop-out.

Depends on what you consider to be a religious belief to be honest. Thou Shalt Not Kill is in the Bible; does that make it a religious belief? There needs to be common sense taken in making some judgements.

There will never be one good definition of splitting the two but using the commons sense approach should work.

Thou Shalt Not Kill.... good, keep it
The one about false idols... religious, should be nowhere near laws of the land
Thou Shalt Not Steal... also good, keep it
Honor thy father and thy mother... while a good rule to live life by it shouldn't have any legaslative value

It's really not that terribly hard to figure out as long as people take a common sense approach and use a level head.


Person A can believe what they want.
Person B can believe what they want.

Once Person A attempts to harm Person B because of beliefs that has to stop and Person A goes away for a long time. It's really f***ing easy but too many people don't get it.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

SackAttack for president!

Originally Posted by Noop

Great post SackAttack.

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Well said Sack. I lack the organizational ability to clearly state what you have worded here, yet I feel very much the same as you on many fronts.

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I just want to point out that this is a great fucking post.

Isn't it interesting that we have a lot of different folks who have different views- hell, I couldn't even tell you what PilotMan thinks about any sort of politics as I can't remember seeing him often in political threads.

To be fair, there's an element to the post of laying out two extremes and saying "let's meet in the middle". We get point 0 and point 100 and we would all agree to meet somewhere in the middle but some of us would be much happier with 80 and others with 20.

And it's even funnier when you think about how diametrically opposed some of the viewpoints are within the parties themselves. There's just no consistency. To paint with a glib and somewhat unfair brush: didn't you know that liberals are for personal freedom with gay rights, marijuana, and abortion but hate it with regards to smoking rights, spending money, and motorcycle helmets. Just swap "conservatives" and the two lists and you have the same thing and it just makes no sense.

That said, the average politician is even better at this game than we are. They don't give us a choice of "in the middle". They do, sometimes. But a lot of the times, we have to have some sort of crisis to move one element or another up and down on the list. And the way we choose them is baffling, if you think about it for more than a few seconds.

But, in short, we agree a lot more than any group of politicians ever would. That might be a bit too easy to make that claim because, honestly, we have different motivations. We want to actually solve the problem whereas you have to remember that their motivation is to get elected and the system is skewed to maintain two party rule.

SI