Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:At the core, conservatives want as little government involvement in their lives as possible.

Gays would be allowed to marry, given a state allows it

... so you're saying state government isn't government, what?

That doesn't make any sense. Especially since our state governments are far more corrupt and given to accepting money for favors than our federal government (which is saying something) as well as fully willing to do everything they can to try to rig elections (see redistricting for a well known example).

.
Edit: dropped my phone and it posted.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
Found the one I like. Good site.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://politicalcompass.org/test

That's quite interesting. I didn't know I was such a lefty. (-6, -5).

Melissa - of course state government is government, but since the politicians are more localized, and not thousands of miles away. It is easier to hold their feet to the fire on issues. Also if you do not like how one state is run, you can move to another.

Most of the issues you raised in the original post have become national issues, so seemed you were talking federal politics.

Now does my response make more sense? The Federal government should have very little to no involvement in your daily life, marriage, sales tax, property tax, school funding, mass transit projects, abortion, etc etc etc. The Federal government should be doing the bare minimum, defending the country as a whole from invasion.

I even qualified it all with the fact that I am a Libertarian. You know, one of those whacky whacky Libertarians.

Make sense now?

Now I can post but I'm going to try to be brief.
@Feeder it's not all encompassing I landed left and on the authoritarian side. Ten minutes with me in a verbal political discussion and you'll realize how disturbingly right and up on that chart I should be.
@dogma (no quotes, I'm being lazy)
Immigration-true
Crime- true
Conservatives since WWII- yes conservatism in America is older but not in the Republican party and not in this form.
The Republicans post war embraced Russell Kirk's Liberal Conservatism, eventually the liberal part got dropped and it was called American Conservatism. This shoehorns into Ike, yes he was a liberal; a liberal conservative. You or someone else also mentioned Goldwater, also fair and also a liberal.
"the party"-when I said that I was using a more amorphous term than the Republican Party as you and I might refer to their leadership and the people we see on TV. I actually meant the people who form the core of the party and their beliefs. Those "moderate voters" that both parties are chasing so hard are the true core of the Republican Party, as it once was. You included the first Bush in the group that wouldn't fit in today, at first I disagreed, then I remembered that Bush Sr only grudgingly accepted Reagan the brand of conservatism he represented. So I guess he really is the last of the Old Guard. There are some, and increasingly more liberal conservatives in the Republican party, I think Rick Perry is one of them to a certain extent, so was McCain once. The blue dog Democrats and the centrist republicans are the real American conservatives or liberal conservatives if you prefer the more appropriate label. And the party now touting themselves as Republicans and conservatives are neither. I've agitated for years in the discussion group I belong to that if a national presence grew to appeal to the original Republican party as recognized before Reagan, we would see the left side of the Republicans and the right side of the Democrats form a legitimate party of true American Conservatives or neoliberals. The core groups of both parties I believe stand there. The weakness of the American political system is there is no variety, and long standing partisanship has become almost hereditary. There are different shades of conservative and liberals not represented by Red and Blue. Ok now I'm waxing a bit out of answering you so I'll stop.
Party=people not politicians in what I said, my bad for being unclear.
@Melissa it's unfair to you and I know that, but nothing you say even approaches legitimacy anymore in my eyes. You appear bigoted and close minded, and you attempt to extend radical views as normal. You have that very right, but I now discard much of what you say off hand. It's more about being objective than right. Here's why:

Melissa wrote:there simply are too many restrictions on the right to immigrate

There is no such right, implied or explicit.

Melissa wrote:at the cost of restricting the civil rights of the accused

This is also blatantly untrue. Four of the Ten amendments in the bill of rights are extended to suspected criminals, in each phase of the justice process. We used to hang horse thieves, when I hear a national level conservative call for the death penalty for GTA, I'm moving to Israel.

Here's a quote for you Melissa, and really anyone. If you are interested in politics you should read the referenced book. It's old, obviously but still relevant and entertaining.

When I finished Carlyle’s French Revolution in 1871, I was a Girondin; every time I have read it since, I have read it differently – being influenced and changed, little by little, by life and environment ... and now I lay the book down once more, and recognize that I am a Sansculotte! – And not a pale, characterless Sansculotte, but a Marat.

AustonT wrote:
I actually meant the people who form the core of the party and their beliefs.

Based on surveys, that means people that dislike government, the rights of mothers, and like the rights of potential people.

Also, they really dislike anyone who is fond of the same sex.

AustonT wrote:
Those "moderate voters" that both parties are chasing so hard are the true core of the Republican Party, as it once was.

That's a No True Scotsman.

AustonT wrote:
You included the first Bush in the group that wouldn't fit in today, at first I disagreed, then I remembered that Bush Sr only grudgingly accepted Reagan the brand of conservatism he represented. So I guess he really is the last of the Old Guard.

Would that be the Reagan brand of conservatism that called the Soviet Union an "evil empire" and cut taxes, or the Reagan brand of conservatism that raised taxes and shook Gorbachev's hand?

AustonT wrote:
There are some, and increasingly more liberal conservatives in the Republican party, I think Rick Perry is one of them...

Then you've not listened to anything Perry has said.

AustonT wrote:
I've agitated for years in the discussion group I belong to that if a national presence grew to appeal to the original Republican party as recognized before Reagan, we would see the left side of the Republicans and the right side of the Democrats form a legitimate party of true American Conservatives or neoliberals.

But, historically, that process merely narrowed the political discourse.

@AustonT: well maybe you're not as far to the right as you think you are.

dogma wrote:

AustonT wrote:
I actually meant the people who form the core of the party and their beliefs.

Based on surveys, that means people that dislike government, the rights of mothers, and like the rights of potential people.

Also, they really dislike anyone who is fond of the same sex.

AustonT wrote:
Those "moderate voters" that both parties are chasing so hard are the true core of the Republican Party, as it once was.

That's a No True Scotsman.

which surveys are you referring to?




There is also a breakdown in one of the polls on abortion that shows that even though a majority of Americans still find abortion morally wrong they also hold the majority opinion it should be legal. I couldn't find an easy link to it. You'll note the political separations in the last poll.

As far as a "no true Scotsman" I believe you are incorrect. I specifically identified a group, the moderates, ARE the true core of the Republican Party. Thereby identifying a true Republican is a moderate, although most Republicans that support traditional party stances on social liberalism and economic conservatism are branded RINO. so yet again to adresss a no true scotsman and phrase it specifically to the rhetorical argument. A true Republican is a moderate, but a true moderate need not be a Republican.

dogma wrote:

AustonT wrote:
You included the first Bush in the group that wouldn't fit in today, at first I disagreed, then I remembered that Bush Sr only grudgingly accepted Reagan the brand of conservatism he represented. So I guess he really is the last of the Old Guard.

Would that be the Reagan brand of conservatism that called the Soviet Union an "evil empire" and cut taxes, or the Reagan brand of conservatism that raised taxes and shook Gorbachev's hand?

Neoconservatism.

dogma wrote:

AustonT wrote:
There are some, and increasingly more liberal conservatives in the Republican party, I think Rick Perry is one of them...

Then you've not listened to anything Perry has said.

I know that he is a political turncoat and has deep liberal roots, he may have pushed himself to where he is through political expediency or a true belief in social conservatism. I believe the former from his proposal to extend education benefits to illegal immigrants.

dogma wrote:

AustonT wrote:
I've agitated for years in the discussion group I belong to that if a national presence grew to appeal to the original Republican party as recognized before Reagan, we would see the left side of the Republicans and the right side of the Democrats form a legitimate party of true American Conservatives or neoliberals.

But, historically, that process merely narrowed the political discourse.

What exactly are you referencing? The Progressive party(s), the formation of the Republicans in the collapse of the Whigs? These are the most recent splits and collapses. The formation of the republicans immediately preceding the current two party system. The Progressives opened the field and provided a wider discourse for at least 2 decades in the Republican party. There is a tear inside the Republican party between the neoconservatives and the moderates. And in the Democrats between the Blue Dogs and the Progressives. Were tensions, and voter pressure over the current political climate, to continue to rise in either or both parties a strong fragment of either party, headed by moderates and financed well enough to survive at least a midterm election. Will draw moderates from each side and build a strong third party. Or ideally two new parties and create a four party environment where the choice isn't black or white.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@KamikazeCanuck
I'm probably not. Then again I might be...
I remember someone saying, "if you aren't a liberal in college you're heartless, if you aren't a conservative by middle age you're an idiot" Mark Twain went the other way, so I guess the field is open for interpretation.

Actual, constructive, useful politics is a process of drawing ideas from both sides of politics, and even more from areas entirely outside the very restrictive Liberal and Conservative mindsets. It's a process of looking in depth at the detail of each issue, and tailoring a solution to that issue. Whereas declaring oneself liberal or conservative and assuming whatever broad theory that dictates will apply in all situations is pretty much the opposite of that.

Liberal and Conservative are really no different to football teams. Pick one, and cheer for it blindly. Listen to the news, taking every bad thing said about the other dearly to your heart, while dismissing whatever bad stuff is said about your side as 'biased'. It's just an easy means of building an identity - being a conservative or a liberal doesn't have much at all to do with how politics and governance actually works, but has everything to do with the kind of person wants to associate with, and as with all identity politics, identifying the kind of people that our kind of people really hate.

Really, it's no different to a kid dressing all in black to be part of the goth community, and complaining about 'the norms'.

Phanatik wrote:Your definitions for right-wingers contradict themselves. How can one be at worst both for anarchy AND restrictive civil liberties?

Being an extremely broad umbrella that captures a variety of political groups, contradiction is unavoidable. The right wing includes both strident anti-government sorts, and social conservatives.

In the same way, there is both considerable support and considerable opposition with the broad liberal umbrella for globalisation.

As for what Liberals advocate - how can one person be for both the right to kill an unborn baby, but against the death penalty for the worst element of society?

It isn't rocket science, once you accept that many people don't believe a collection of cells with the capacity to become a human being is not the same thing as a human being. Not everyone believes that, and that's fine, but it's perfectly understandable if you do.

And at worst, Liberals tend towards more government - which means autocracy.

No, it doesn't. Autocracy is a word with a specific meaning, and it's one you need to learn if you're going to try and talk about politics.

It would make sense to say liberalism at its worst would mean authoritarianism.

Liberals push for separation of church and state to do away with religion.

No, crazy people from team Conservative pretend that's what team Liberal want. Allowing people the free practice of their faiths is so far removed from 'doing away with religion' as to be utterly ridiculous.

d-usa wrote:To clarify my "I consider myself a Conservative Christian but politically liberal" label: I think that religion is a personal concept and that if you want people to act "Christian" than the process to obtain that goal should be evangelism, not using the political system to force people to act "Christian".

I find your views a breath of fresh air and wish to subscribe to your news letter.

Melissia wrote:Which is true by my definition. Conservatism is about controlling people's lives, whereas liberalism is about expansion of civil liberties.

To the extent that conservatism has any kind of coherent meaning, it certainly doesn’t mean controlling people’s lives. The mistake your making is taking one specific group that are broadly aligned with the general conservative movement, the theocrats, and declaring them as the absolute of conservatism.

Also why I don't consider hardline stances for extreme gun control to be liberal...

But they are. To the extent that titles like liberal and conservative are to be of any use in describing anything, you have to be willing to acknowledge that groups that operate within the liberal element You don't get to pick the label you like to identify

AustonT wrote:You can't push social conservatism which is a fringe group on conservative at large, especially when you are actually referring to American conservatives.

Melissia doesn’t get to pretend they define the whole of the party, and you don’t get to pretend they’re a minority. Both of you need to acknowledge they are a major factor within the greater American rightwing, and that’s that.

They are progressives.

No, they’re not. Like Melissia doesn’t get to pretend the gun control activists aren’t part of the greater American left wing, you don’t get to pretend the social conservatives aren’t right wing. They vote overwhelmingly Republican. Their lobby groups and fundraising are all right wing aligned. They’re right wing.

AustonT wrote:Lets start with Woodrow Wilson, Democrat, President of the United States 1913-1921. Wildly racist, and opposed to women's sufferage (Wilson also receives undue credit for the development of Women's Suffrage during his administration. In fact, he personally opposed giving women the right to vote, and his wife was vehemently against it. He only stopped opposing it (and having suffragists arrested) after he became convinced that it was politically inexpedient to oppose it.)

The orientation of political parties changes over time. Trying to declare which party really believes in one thing or another based on political stoushes resolved generations ago is a complete waste of time.

The modern split between the two parties was defined by the rise of progressive movements within the New England sections of the Democratic party, and their drive to civil liberties reform, eventually signed into law by LBJ. This alienated the conservative southern elements of the Democrats, who finally forgot about being angry at the Repbublicans for the Civil War and started being angry at Democrats instead.

This led Nixon to court these voters with the Southern Strategy, and more or less the political alignment of the two sides has followed from there.

Melissia wrote:Right now, essentailly the entire (or at least the core, most important parts) social platform of conservativse is restricting marriage, banning abortion, punishing criminals, and deporting hispanics.

All of them a restriction of civil liberties.

You can argue for abortion as protecting the right of the mother to control her own body, or the right of the unborn to life. Both are useful only as a rallying call for their own side, and utterly useless in defining the frame of the debate.

Punishing criminals and deporting Hispanics are balancing one set of pragmatic needs against another, and again really isn’t much an issue of civil rights. Really half the issue here seems to be you trying to frame things in terms that don’t make sense, just for the sake of gaining a perceived moral high ground by declaring your own side the ‘civil rights side’.

feeder wrote:That's quite interesting. I didn't know I was such a lefty. (-6, -5).

That site has got quite a pronounced leftwing bias in the results. You have to be a fairly hardcore right winger to score a 0 on the right left scale.

AustonT wrote:which surveys are you referring to?

The mistake you've made here is in relying on personal identification, as opposed to people's desired policies and the actual policies of the two parties. Your approach can lead to serious errors when a majority of people have a very poor understanding of the operations of their government and their economy, as is the case in the US right now. For instance, here's a graph showing how people believe income is distributed in the US, how they would like it to be distributed, and how it really is distributed.



People believing in such massive income distribution aren't really conservative, are they?

A true Republican is a moderate, but a true moderate need not be a Republican.

There is no 'true' anything. Whoever the group of people who identify as Republican are, and do in the name of that party... that is what Republicans are. Same for Democrats. Neither term is a thing that various people live or fail to live up to. It's a descriptor for those people who identify as such.

I remember someone saying, "if you aren't a liberal in college you're heartless, if you aren't a conservative by middle age you're an idiot" Mark Twain went the other way, so I guess the field is open for interpretation.

It was Churchill, coming up with a particularly clever way for explaining why he was jumping ship from the out of favour Liberals (UK left wing) for the Conservative Party. Despite the clever turn of phrase, it was nothing but political opportunism.

In general, I’d worry about anyone that picked one broad political ideology, and stuck to it as the solution for all things at all times.

AustonT wrote:
There is also a breakdown in one of the polls on abortion that shows that even though a majority of Americans still find abortion morally wrong they also hold the majority opinion it should be legal. I couldn't find an easy link to it. You'll note the political separations in the last poll.

I'm not sure what you're trying to demonstrate. You cannot simply drop in the results of multiple polls and assume that they represent the same sample, or methodological approach. Moreover, the poll you noted, the last one, actually confirms my statement if we assume that definitions are consistent.

Sorry, but putting numbers up doesn't necessarily help your cause, particularly given that nothing you posted actually dealt with the Party (ie. the GOP) directly; for which you would need to look at ANES.

AustonT wrote:
As far as a "no true Scotsman" I believe you are incorrect. I specifically identified a group, the moderates, ARE the true core of the Republican Party. Thereby identifying a true Republican is a moderate,

And a True Scotsman is a pastiche of William Wallace.

AustonT wrote:
Neoconservatism.

So, basically everyone from Nixon forward?

AustonT wrote:
I know that he is a political turncoat and has deep liberal roots, he may have pushed himself to where he is through political expediency or a true belief in social conservatism. I believe the former from his proposal to extend education benefits to illegal immigrants.

Your definition of conservatism is so obtuse as to be ridiculous, and useless. You're substituting "What I like." for a legitimate attempt at producing a category.

AustonT wrote:What exactly are you referencing?

The entire political history of the United States.

To ape a common argument I see:

X: If we only lacked government we would have perfect capitalism!

Y: Then why did the absence of government give rise to government?

Sebster: Then what DOES define liberalism? Because if the definition is "anything anyone believes when they call themselves a liberal" then the definition is worthless trash to be thrown away.

I prefer a more useful, applicable definition, not one where people cherry pick specific issues and say "[x position] is liberal" without rhyme or reason. There's no logic to that, which is fine for a political commentator who only uses the label as political tools but not for me.

AustonT wrote:There is no such right, implied or explicit.

Right, America isn't a nation of immigrants, we're actually all of us descended from Native Americans. Oh wait.

AustonT wrote:This is also blatantly untrue. Four of the Ten amendments in the bill of rights are extended to suspected criminals

Much to the chagrin of the conservatives of the country.

Melissia wrote:Sebster: Then what DOES define liberalism? Because if the definition is "anything anyone believes when they call themselves a liberal" then the definition is worthless trash to be thrown away.

It actually becomes much simpler when we accept that words have more than one meaning. The technical meaning, which is usually the word in its original usage, and what I call the common meaning, which is the word as someone(s) understand and use it. A word could have infinite common meanings.

So really, the definition is in part whatever someone says it is

EDIT: Really what you're talking about in here is the common meaning, which I doubt you'll ever get everybody to agree on. Liberal means different things to different people (look at the charts in a previous post and note especially how the Democrat dot flies all over). It's a fun discussion and all, but the word in a social context is going to vary widely in use.

As I hope I've made it obvious, I disagree rather strongly with the idea that the words mean whatever random political pundit says it means. Partially because of my dislike of political pundits regardless of what beliefs they claim to hold...

So if that's the position one's gonna take, we're going to have to just agree to disagree.

Melissia wrote:As I hope I've made it obvious, I disagree rather strongly with the idea that the words mean whatever random political pundit says it means. Partially because of my dislike of political pundits regardless of what beliefs they claim to hold...

So if that's the position one's gonna take, we're going to have to just agree to disagree.

It's not really that simple. It's kind of a social exercise. If I decide liberal means "filled with bunnies" I doubt I'll get anywhere because no one will recognize the term that way other than me. Common meanings are socially constructed by groups, but even within groups people will attach additions to a word that aren't necessarily shared by others in the same group. Conservatives I am sure define liberal differently than a liberal does. American's define it differently than various Europeans might. The meaning of a word will change depending on who you're asking, but they only mean anything if others buy into the meaning. EDIT: It can be random, but someone with a random meaning for a word isn't going to get along well with anybody so I don't see anyone really giving words random meaning... unless they want to be a douche

But it DOES seem random, political positions tossed together with little rhyme or reason and people say "and these are all connected ot the same ideology", without justification...

And that's just the political parties, whom I don't expect to be consistent.

There's always the age old fallback of liberal is anything I don't like

EDIT: Which I find in US politics is usually how conservatives frame things in their political mindset.

Melissia wrote:Which is true by my definition. Conservatism is about controlling people's lives, whereas liberalism is about expansion of civil liberties.

Also why I don't consider hardline stances for extreme gun control to be liberal...

<cough, cough>
Excuse me? Liberalism, at its core, is you are too dumb to know what is good for you and we are going to control you through incentives, restrictions and general PC attitudes about the world. Conservatism, at its core, is about preserving what is good in society. The problem now is that both sides try to regulate their way to victory. As if some restriction or law is going to make everyone aquiesce and bow to your way of thinking. Dumb on both sides.

I have voted conservative for the most part but it is more a matter of I see the liberal ideal but I am totally against the method that they intend to implement it. It is either moon bat stupid or will totally fail based on the cost to enforce and implement.

For example abortion, I think it is wrong on a moral level. I am told that "how dare I infringe on the rights of a woman?" and " a fetus is not a human being." I can accept that we have a difference of opinion and that I don't have a right to impose my beliefs but when the government subsidizes it, I feel I have a right to disagree. If you can morally accept that the result of a pregnancy is not going to result in a human, fine. But don't come asking me to then pay for it when I feel it is murder. That is asking me to stand quietly by and let murder happen. I equate that to being a "good" German citizen in Nazi germany allowing the genocide of the mentally ill, homosexuals, Jews and the like. This is Liberalism CONTROLLING my thoughts and actions (or to be more precise, my inaction).

On a basic level, I can accept capital punishment as a right of the state to impose the penalty. But knowing the flawed justice system, I cannot accept it due to an unequal dispensation of that punishment (males and african-american) as well as the lack of 100% certainty of guilt.

DAaddict wrote:Excuse me? Liberalism, at its core, is you are too dumb to know what is good for you and we are going to control you through incentives, restrictions and general PC attitudes about the world.

Replace "general pc attitudes" with "general Christian attitudes" and this sounds far more like conservatives to me.

DAaddict wrote:Conservatism, at its core, is about preserving what is good in society.

There's nothing good about homophobia (LGBT marriage issue frequently brings up hateful slang and slogans) and misogyny ("Concerned Women for America" comes to mind), two things very commonly associated with conservative groups.

Melissia wrote:Sebster: Then what DOES define liberalism? Because if the definition is "anything anyone believes when they call themselves a liberal" then the definition is worthless trash to be thrown away.

It's a little more complicated than that. Obviously a person who identifies as liberal but is rejected by almost the entirety of everyone else who calls themselves liberal wouldn't be much of an example of a liberal, such as Lyndon LaRouche, who has called himself either a Democrat or a liberal at some stage or another, and may still do so for all I know.

But it is almost always a mistake to let a definition define a group, rather than let the group define the definition. That is to say, going around saying 'you don't fit the definition of what I deem liberal, therefore I consider you not one of us' is a fairly useless way of coming to understand a political movement - especially movements as broad as liberalism and conservatism.

On the other hand, saying 'among the group that considers itself liberal, and that works primarily with other liberals, there is a marked increase in support for greater gun control, therefore gun control can be considered part of the overall liberal movement'.

I prefer a more useful, applicable definition, not one where people cherry pick specific issues and say "[x position] is liberal" without rhyme or reason. There's no logic to that, which is fine for a political commentator who only uses the label as political tools but not for me.

This has nothing to do with political commentators, I don't know why you raised that.

It's got everything to do with giving a meaningful description to a political movement. The primary pushes for increased gun control have come from Democratic congresses. 70% of Democratic voters support greater gun control, while just 27% of Republicans do.

You can say "I am a liberal, and while gun control is generally connected to liberalism, I don't believe in that" and that's fine. But you can't pretend because you don't like a policy it isn't a liberal thing, because you don't get to define what liberalism means.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:There's always the age old fallback of liberal is anything I don't like

EDIT: Which I find in US politics is usually how conservatives frame things in their political mindset.

Yeah, like I said in my first post in the thread, we're looking more at identity politics than anything of genuine political substance. Considering oneself a conservative has very little to do with a full and considered view of conservative politics and how they might be best for the country, and everything to do with building one's identity in a very general sense. A major part of that is defining the people that our kind of people hate.

Same for liberals, of course.

This thread is twelve kinds of aweomse in watching particular posters vent their spleens. It speaks to me, like a small wiener dog telling me to hunt down all the neighborhood squirrels, and display their carcasses as warnings to others.

DAaddict wrote:<cough, cough>
Excuse me? Liberalism, at its core, is you are too dumb to know what is good for you and we are going to control you through incentives, restrictions and general PC attitudes about the world. Conservatism, at its core, is about preserving what is good in society. The problem now is that both sides try to regulate their way to victory. As if some restriction or law is going to make everyone aquiesce and bow to your way of thinking. Dumb on both sides.

This is far too vague to be useful. Something as complex as politics just doesn't work on such a broad level.

I can accept that we have a difference of opinion and that I don't have a right to impose my beliefs but when the government subsidizes it, I feel I have a right to disagree.

What level of subsidy do you believe is currently provided for abortion?

sebster wrote:You can say "I am a liberal, and while gun control is generally connected to liberalism, I don't believe in that" and that's fine.

I don't say that. I hold views that are liberal, and views that are conservative, but identifying myself as one or the other would be silly because it would mean people would try to associate views with me that I don't hold.

sebster wrote: But you can't pretend because you don't like a policy it isn't a liberal thing

Good, because I never said that.

sebster wrote: because you don't get to define what liberalism means.

I do believe I just did, see the OP.

sebster wrote:
This is far too vague to be useful. Something as complex as politics just doesn't work on such a broad level.

Anti-smoking, gun rights or restrictions, healthy food in schools, healthcare,etc. The idea that we can legislate what is good (good being your personal definition) and that will solve all our problems. The argument that somehow we can legislate our way to nirvana is a fool's quest and whether conservative or liberal, both are trying to do this.

For example healthcare - we have regulated what we will pay for a given procedure - why? because some evil person is going to take advantage of the system so we need the paperwork and now electronic paper trail to verify that everything is justified. Good in theory but how much of the NEED for health insurance is because we have added to the overhead to meet with all the well-intentioned legislation?

Anecdotaly, I think of the price of buying a brand new car. I bought a brand new Mustang in 1988 and drove it off the lot - total cost $7500. Now I know I could have got a Taurus for about 10 K. Look at the cars nowadays, a baseline car will cost you around $20K and a full sized care for the same $2500-$5000 increase. Admittedly my car is safer and in theory more efficent but when I talk $20K to buy an econo car and $25K to buy a full-sized car we are talking a 25% increase in cost. Back in the day when we were talking $5K for the economy car and $10K for the full sized, we are talking %100 price increase. Today I am a lot more likely to go for the extra debt and just get the comfortable big boat. Why is the cost up? Government safety, fuel-efficiency rules have pushed us to the base cost of a vehicle being 400% of the cost. Not saying that the corporations or we are not to blame but certainly the cost of meeting these government regulations has pushed up the cost above inflation.

sebster wrote:
What level of subsidy do you believe is currently provided for abortion?

"The total government grants and contracts received by PPFA affiliates from government sources including state, local and federal governments, increased from $337 million to $350 million in 2009. The new report shows that figure has increased again to $363 million, though it does not specify what portion of the figure was received from each level of government.

Government grants accounted for 33% of Planned Parenthood’s income compared with just 28 percent for private donations. Income from its abortion centers generated another 37 percent.

In 1997, Planned Parenthood did about 160,000 abortions and received approximately $160 million in total taxpayer funding from various levels of government. Both the number of abortions and the amount of money received from government, supposedly for family planning to reduce abortions, has more than doubled since then."

(quoted I am sure from a right-leaning news source but sorry I am not going to write a thesis on this subject.)

dogma wrote:

AustonT wrote:
There is also a breakdown in one of the polls on abortion that shows that even though a majority of Americans still find abortion morally wrong they also hold the majority opinion it should be legal. I couldn't find an easy link to it. You'll note the political separations in the last poll.

I'm not sure what you're trying to demonstrate. You cannot simply drop in the results of multiple polls and assume that they represent the same sample, or methodological approach. Moreover, the poll you noted, the last one, actually confirms my results if we assume that definitions are consistent.

Sorry, but putting numbers up doesn't necessarily help your cause, particularly given that nothing you posted actually dealt with the Party (ie. the GOP) directly; for which you would need to look at ANES.

why don't you post specific data from more than one source that supports your position. I very clearly defined the group I was referring to, the moderates. Then posted polls that specifically addressed the positions of moderate voters in relation to the issues you stated: gay marriage and abortion. Just because you cherry pick out of context doesn't mean it isn't there.

AustonT wrote:
As far as a "no true Scotsman" I believe you are incorrect. I specifically identified a group, the moderates, ARE the true core of the Republican Party. Thereby identifying a true Republican is a moderate,

And a True Scotsman is a pastiche of William Wallace.
no, it's not. It in fact has nothing at all to do with William Wallace. It refers to a logical fallacy, which I already answered. In fact I have consistently stated that liberal conservatism is the heart of the party, tha the parties core beliefs are liberal conservatism, and that the right wing is has abandoned those core beliefs. None of which are logical fallacies.

AustonT wrote:
Neoconservatism.

So, basically everyone from Nixon forward?

No. Neoconservatives, it defines a specific subset of politicians. http://conservapedia.com/Neoconservatism

AustonT wrote:
I know that he is a political turncoat and has deep liberal roots, he may have pushed himself to where he is through political expediency or a true belief in social conservatism. I believe the former from his proposal to extend education benefits to illegal immigrants.

Your definition of conservatism is so obtuse as to be ridiculous, and useless. You're substituting "What I like." for a legitimate attempt at producing a category.

There is no point in continuing this, though I likely will if you annoy me.

No, I'm applying the term as widely understood and in particular context to the United State. Again:
American Conservatism:
The meaning of "conservatism" in America has little in common with the way the word is used elsewhere. As Ribuffo (2011) notes, "what Americans now call conservatism much of the world calls liberalism or neoliberalism." Since the 1950s conservatism in the United States has been chiefly associated with the Republican Party.
Liberalism:
Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.
goarsh, that shore do sound like conservatism in Merika
Its more likely you don't understand what conservatism, especially in this country is.
Liberal Conservatism:

Over time, the general conservative ideology in many countries adopted economic liberal arguments, and the term liberal conservatism was replaced with conservatism. This is also the case in countries where liberal economic ideas have been the tradition, such as the United States, and are thus considered conservative.
The liberal conservative tradition in the United States combines the economic individualism of the classical liberals with a Burkean form of conservatism. However, the terms "liberal conservative" and "liberal conservatism" are seldom used in the United States, as "liberal" and "conservative" are often viewed as opposite, competing parts of the ideological spectrum.

So far from being obtuse and ridiculous my position of conservatism is well defined and recognized. I haven't even mentioned "what I like" let alone substituted it for publically published open sources I've ripped straight from the interwebz.

Really the entire history of the United States shows that new parties limit political discourse? I think not.

So now I have a response to your entire stance: Prove It.

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:There is no such right, implied or explicit.

Right, America isn't a nation of immigrants, we're actually all of us descended from Native Americans. Oh wait.

Unless you believe that having the capability to do something gives you the right to do it you haven't made a case for the right to immigration yet. I also think you and AustonT should agree on your definition of what 'rights' are before continuing.

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:This is also blatantly untrue. Four of the Ten amendments in the bill of rights are extended to suspected criminals

Much to the chagrin of the conservatives of the country.

Conservative. Not chagrined.

You're also not a politician, Scrabb. At least that I know of.

First, please use quote tags, the colored text is difficult to read.

AustonT wrote:Why don't you post specific data from more than one source that supports your position. I very clearly defined the group I was referring to, the moderates. Then posted polls that specifically addressed the positions of moderate voters in relation to the issues you stated: gay marriage and abortion. Just because you cherry pick out of context doesn't mean it isn't there.

You posted a set of polls that attempted to support the idea that the core of the Republican Party is moderate, and one of those polls clearly showed that the vast majority of people who identify as Republican identify as conservative (and, generally, as more conservative than their party), and that the majority of conservative Republicans oppose gay marriage, and support making abortion more difficult.

AustonT wrote:
No, it's not. It in fact has nothing at all to do with William Wallace. It refers to a logical fallacy, which I already answered. In fact I have consistently stated that liberal conservatism is the heart of the party, tha the parties core beliefs are liberal conservatism, and that the right wing is has abandoned those core beliefs. None of which are logical fallacies.

You answered it poorly, and my bit about a True Scotsman being a pastiche of William Wallace was a joke based on that very logical fallacy, and your poor attempt at addressing my criticism.

My point is that you're essentially arguing that the membership of the Republican Party does not define the beliefs set forth by the Republican Party, and that the true core of the Republican Party ideology is liberal conservatism, which a no True Scotsman.

It would not be a No True Scotsman if you contended that the Republican Party once had, at the core of its ideology, liberal conservatism, but that it has now changed.

AustonT wrote:
No. Neoconservatives, it defines a specific subset of politicians. http://conservapedia.com/Neoconservatism

No, it defines a particular set of political positions, we call the people that hold those positions "neoconservatives". If you're going to cite articles, especially wikipedia articles, at least read them to be sure they agree with you.

AustonT wrote:
American Conservatism:
The meaning of "conservatism" in America has little in common with the way the word is used elsewhere. As Ribuffo (2011) notes, "what Americans now call conservatism much of the world calls liberalism or neoliberalism." Since the 1950s conservatism in the United States has been chiefly associated with the Republican Party.

I disagree with that completely. American conservatism trades on the tenets of liberalism because the role that philosophy has traditionally played in American politics, note that its generally couched in appeals to constitutional originalism, religious traditionalism, and the historical political state of the Unite States. It is liberal conservatism, as you've noted, and the wikipedia blurb you quoted states. However, if your argument is that American conservatism is essentially classically liberal, then you misused the term in the bit about Perry that elicited my comment about your overly narrow definition of Conservatism. Which, specifically, related to Rick Perry having deep liberal roots in the context of his partisan switch.

AustonT wrote:
So far from being obtuse and ridiculous my position of conservatism is well defined and recognized. I haven't even mentioned "what I like" let alone substituted it for publically published open sources I've ripped straight from the interwebz.

Interestingly, it isn't hard to use a search engine to find other people using definitions that you agree with, academics do it all the time. The trick is that those definitions don't have to be useful, or even accurate simply because they are used.

AustonT wrote:
Really the entire history of the United States shows that new parties limit political discourse? I think not.

In the United States new political parties generally form because they:

A: Fill a gap left by the demise of one of another major party (the Republicans).

B: Attempt to challenge the established parties on a particular issue, or collection of issues, that are not being addressed (Libertarians, Reform Party, Progressives)

C: Are granted the patronage of an established public figure (Reform Party, Progressives).

Regarding A, the original balance of the political system is maintained, with certain variances regarding the demographic of relevant supporters. Regarding B and C, the third party tends to wither and die following a major defeat, and in doing so force the established parties to restrict their message in order to emphasize those issues which set them apart not only from their original challengers, but also their new opponents. This produces a follow on effect that tends to restrict political discourse even after the third party has vanished (most notable in the case of Roosevelt's Progressives, and the Republicans).

The problem would likely get worse if the third party managed to survive, as the opportunity for realistic compromise would fall dramatically as each party's defining issue pool shrank.

Melissia wrote:Good, because I never said that.

But you did;
"Also why I don't consider hardline stances for extreme gun control to be liberal..."

I do believe I just did, see the OP.

You tried to, but it was mistaken effort. It was mistaken because you attempted to define the movement by your understanding of the word, rather than seeing the movement as it is and using that to define the word.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DAaddict wrote:Anti-smoking, gun rights or restrictions, healthy food in schools, healthcare,etc. The idea that we can legislate what is good (good being your personal definition) and that will solve all our problems. The argument that somehow we can legislate our way to nirvana is a fool's quest and whether conservative or liberal, both are trying to do this.

Again, far too vague to be useful.

For example healthcare - we have regulated what we will pay for a given procedure - why?

Because the forces of demand and supply break down when we're dealing with a product that the consumer will literally pay everything he owns for (as it is a matter of life and death), and where there is huge information assymetry (because the consumer is not a medical expert but would need to be in order to meaningfully challenge the doctor's recommendation).

That's the thing - "oh both sides are just trying to legislate everything and it's totally unnecessary" sounds awesome when we're sitting around the bar talking nonsense, but when you actually apply it to the real world it becomes clear very quickly that things are very complicated, and such broad brush beliefs just don't fit with many situations.

Good in theory but how much of the NEED for health insurance is because we have added to the overhead to meet with all the well-intentioned legislation?

The US has very high administration costs for health care. They're about 5 times the cost of, say, Australia's. However, we have defined operation costs... Instead, what's driving the higher costs in the US are legal fees - costs from the insured and the insurers fighting in court over coverage, and costs from hospitals having to chase up uninsured people for money they don't have, and a whole nightmare of paperwork that comes from having the money move through too many sets of hands.

Why is the cost up? Government safety, fuel-efficiency rules have pushed us to the base cost of a vehicle being 400% of the cost. Not saying that the corporations or we are not to blame but certainly the cost of meeting these government regulations has pushed up the cost above inflation.

From 1988 to 2011 inflation has driven up prices by 90%. So that $10,000 Taurus would cost $19,000 today. So for an extra $6,000 over the old model you get a bigger car, with a whole range of electronic bits the old car didn't have, and it's safer. Bargain.

"The total government grants and contracts received by PPFA affiliates from government sources including state, local and federal governments, increased from $337 million to $350 million in 2009. The new report shows that figure has increased again to $363 million, though it does not specify what portion of the figure was received from each level of government.

Government grants accounted for 33% of Planned Parenthood’s income compared with just 28 percent for private donations. Income from its abortion centers generated another 37 percent.

And all of that money goes towards medical services and birth control advice, not one of those Federal dollars goes towards abortion.

This is because under Federal law the government cannot fund abortions. It was the Hyde amendment, originally passed in 1976 and maintained every year since then. So you can cheer, because the very situation you want, where women can get abortions if they want to but they won't be using taxpayer dollars to get them exists right now.

So you should be happy about that.

sebster wrote:But you did;
"Also why I don't consider hardline stances for extreme gun control to be liberal..."

Which logically follows from my definition. It is not an exception merely because "I don't like it".

Melissia wrote:Which logically follows from my definition. It is not an exception merely because "I don't like it".

But your definition is just what you like about liberalism, it isn't a descriptor for what liberalism really is.