<p>
[quote]
You describe your interpretation of conservativism and then blame (surprise, surprise) the "corrupt corporate liberal media". Self proclaimed conservatives have pursued everything you claim conservatives are against. Why should anyone believe they stand for anything different?</p>
<p>You're a libertarian, not a conservative. Vote for Ron Paul.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thats not my definition, that's John Locke's and Barry Goldwaters. But I do agree with it. Ron Paul again is a conservative and the most conservative member of congress. Every Conservative is a libertarian. I do plan to vote for Paul and I am and have been a supporter of his for a long time. But he is a conservative, in the classical meaning.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's funny, my history textbook says that conservativism was the exact opposite of classical liberalism. Where do you get your definition?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Read</p>
<p>Richard Hudelson, Modern Political Philosophy (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1999), 37.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Applejack that may be the definition of classical liberalism, which is pretty much the same thing as conservatism or libertarianism, but it aint the social liberalism we see today and have seen for a very long time
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're right. It's not. Just like the conservatism we see today is nothing like the pure interpretation of it that you hold. I think the world would be a far better place if my liberalism and your conservatism were at the healm.</p>
<p>My only point was that if people would evolve to regulating themselves (meaning not only taking care of themselves, but actively eliminating poverty, prejudice, and ecological destruction), you would see liberalism move away from dependence on government intervention.</p>
<p>So long as chants of "drill, baby, drill" echo through convention halls, markets collapse due to greed, and people see a black applicant for a position and automatically think "lazy" or "criminal", there will be a need for over-protective liberalism. </p>
<p>You claim that government has never solved anything, and yet the New Deal, constitutional or not, suggests otherwise. FDR was a strong advocate of markets, but realized they had utterly failed millions of desperate people. The programs he built to restore a sense of purpose and worth in individuals at a time when the markets could not is widely attributed to the rise of the American Empire soon after.</p>
<p>It lies in conservatives' hands to figure out ways to solve broad social problems within individuals rather than ignore social problems and force government to pick up the slack.</p>
<p>But if you read the link I gave, peoples lives were not improved, the problem was extended and you cant say government fixed a problem, when they caused it. While there are many views on why the GD occurred, many schools agree it was financial regulation and taxes by Hoover and those before him that caused the fall and collapse. The liquidity in the market shrinked dramatically when Hoover implemented the check tax and many others. read Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act</p>
<p>Taxes are unconstitutional, and the only reason we have them is to support our debt to foreign nations and the FED Reserve. If we went back to the size of government we had during Bush 1, Reagan, Clinton(first 2 years in office). Currently nobody in America would have to pay any tax, except excise taxes which are small. If we dont give the govt money it cant mess up. Its that simple, and I believe strongly in it.</p>
<p>I see no need for welfare and other federal programs. All they do is spend spend spend and force government ways on people. They tell you how to live your life and create dependencies. Id much rather private charities run support systems.</p>
<p>Well, there's many different perspectives on the GD and the New Deal. You're right that many fall on your side, but many others disagree.</p>
<p>Ultimately, though, I do agree with you. </p>
<p>Wouldn't it be incredible if we could be the first nation in the world to eliminate poverty, sustainably steward the earth, and provide equal opportunity for all with completely minimal government?</p>
<p>I think that was the vision for the U.S. when it was founded as a philosophical experiment. But we are not yet that evolved. If you read Jacob Needleman's "The American Soul", you'll see an incredible vision held by the Founding Fathers for our nation that would turn toward inward spiritual growth once physical needs were met. Instead, we have continued to focus on material, physical growth.</p>
<p>Like a child growing into adulthood, it is wise that we have created a parental control (government) to protect us from ourselves until we are mature enough to grow beyond needing protection. I, too, look forward to the day that we need no government. We're not there yet, though.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Like in Brave New World?
[/quote]
I read part of the Wikipedia article, but I haven't read the book. I suppose that it is a necessary and ultimately inevitable policy unless humans first become extinct. From skimming the article it seems that Brave New World describes many of my ambitions.</p>
<p>Remark:
I thought I could clarify some of the confusion surrounding these mischaracterized "ideologies" (or families thereof in constant flux) with an acknowledgment of system ambiguities. It seems the warring factions are ignoring my input.</p>
<p>There was a study done to figure out if liberalism or conservatism was genetic. I think the conclusion was that people that tended to get scared more easily were usually conservative.</p>
<p>Conclusion: Cowards become conservatives.</p>
<p>Nah, j/k.</p>
<p>The truth about that is that of course, conservatives !!!care. They see reality, not hopey dope. Even with less party identification, they have higher turnout. </p>
<p>Conservatives are more easily concerned, and it was Reagan after all that broke Russia down, Nixon that got us talking with China.</p>
<p>It was Kennedy that presided over the disastrous Bay of Pigs, Johnson over the Vietnam War (although Johnson was GREAT in many respects), Carter (an absolute embarrassment in so much respects).</p>
<p>
[quote]
and it was Reagan after all that broke Russia down
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah. Forget about the Pope or Lech Walesa or Mikhail Gorbachev or the already-decaying Soviet economy. It was ALL Reagan. And maybe John Wayne too, back from the grave.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It was Kennedy that presided over the disastrous Bay of Pigs
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ever hear of the Cuban Missile Crisis?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Johnson over the Vietnam War
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wait, don't you conservatives think the Vietnam War was a great idea executed wrongly?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Carter (an absolute embarrassment in so much respects).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The only genuine Christian president we've ever had, at least in the 20th century.</p>
<p>What do Republicans have? Dubya (contender for worst president ever), Bush (ho hum), Reagan (recessions, deficits, countless countless scandals), Ford (snore), Nixon (forced to resign), Eisenhower (good president)... Not a good pedigree. Want to add in Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, etc.?</p>
<p>"Yeah. Forget about the Pope or Lech Walesa or Mikhail Gorbachev or the already-decaying Soviet economy. It was ALL Reagan. And maybe John Wayne too, back from the grave."</p>
<p>LOL</p>
<p>"Ever hear of the Cuban Missile Crisis?"</p>
<p>Yup, naive Kennedy screwed that up, just like naive Obama will let rogue nations take advantage of him.</p>
<p>"Wait, don't you conservatives think the Vietnam War was a great idea executed wrongly?"</p>
<p>You're right, Democrats can't execute. HAHA! As I said, the Vietnam War was a disaster under Democratic leadership. At least Nixon ended the mess there.</p>
<p>"The only genuine Christian president we've ever had, at least in the 20th century."</p>
<p>??????????????? There's a reason Americans think liberals are crazy.</p>
<p>You're right Chris, there have been more examples of mediocrity among Republican Presidents. Of course the reason for that is Americans don't like Democrats. You can have whatever opinion you want of those Republicans, but don't forget that in modern history, Teddy Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower, are held in HIGH regards. With the exception of FDR, Americans generally have apathetic views of Democrats.</p>
<p>Okay pugfug. Keep living in your own bizarro world where:</p>
<p>1) The Cuban Missile Crisis did not end peacefully and precipitate the beginning of the end of Khruschev but with, what, the destruction of America due to JFK's ineptitude? </p>
<p>2) Nixon did not also extend the Vietnam War, including illegally going into Cambodia, and ended it peacefully unlike those warhawk Democrats.</p>
<p>3) Jimmy Carter wasn't an evangelical southern Christian who wore his faith on his sleeve. No, since he wasn't a good president, he must've been a Jew! Or a Muslim!</p>
<p>4) Democratic presidents like Bill Clinton, Harry Truman, JFK, FDR, and maybe even Johnson are not held in great admiration by the majority of Americans.</p>
<p>This discussion is over.</p>
<p>Why</a> is every neuropundit such a raging liberal? - By Daniel Engber - Slate Magazine</p>
<p>At least an interesting article about apparent thinking differences between Liberals and Conservatives.</p>