(Old)Conservative/Liberal ~ (New)_________

What two (or more) words would you use instead of Conservative or Liberal?

B

 

I wouldnt use other labels...though I tend not to use those labels much as an all encompassing term for a person but deal with people as they come...Most people I know cant be catagorized so clearly and get testy when you try. Nobody I know is just a clear cut liberal or conservative...they differ from issue to issue...So I say 'so and so is a liberal in this way but a conservative in that way'. There are very few people I have met, even on the internet, that are so 2D black and white.

 

Welcome back Ben! Let’s hope that you don’t have any more funerals to attend in Texas anytime soon. Glad you’re back safe and sound.

Now, you must really want to stir up the hornets with this thread. Your question is kind of void of the particulars so I hope I’m not taking an abrupt Louie as I try to come up with a response but here goes anyway.

The terms Conservative and Liberal as applied to our political system have had many different meanings over the years and continue to fluctuate today as politicians and the media use these broad categories to define diverse political allegiances. They clearly don’t mean what they meant as recently as a decade ago. I think the terms have been successfully used as a wedge by both Republicans and Democrats in an attempt to keep this country mired in a two-party system. I believe that most people or at least the majority of us don’t see themselves as staunch Democrats or Republicans but rather somewhere in between the two. Neither party has garnered much love from the American electorate in recent years. Maybe we don’t need to come up with a new term for each party instead we could define those, the majority I believe, that see themselves in the middle. We could call them Liberatives or Conserverals.

So we would end up with Conservatives, Liberatives/Conserverals, and Liberals. Then we would have three parties and any legislation would require a coalition of at least two of the parties to pass anything.

 

Liberals hate being called liberals...so they like to use words like "progressive". It is along the same lines when liberals call new taxes: "investments". I never mind if one calls me a conservative. Matter of fact, I am proud of it.

But I think Bill O'Reilly came up with a great term for people that are more liberal and wish the goverment to provide for all: "secular progressives" versus people like me that are definitely fiscally conservative: "traditionists".

A traditionalist is as follows:

A.) He believes the US is essentially a good country seeking to do good in the world. While he admits to flaws and mistakes, he nonetheless unqualifiedly defends his country.

B.) He believes in a “Judeo-Christian philosophy”, which O’Reilly distinguishes from religion per se or theology. The traditionalist explicitly welcomes “all religious beliefs and one with no religious beliefs” so long as they don’t try to destroy the traditional founding beliefs of the country (as per radical Islam). When asked to define this “philosophy” or to describe “the traditional founding beliefs,” it appears to be a belief in private property, limited government, and the Golden Rule.

A secular-progressive (S-P for short), believes:

...that this country is fundamentally flawed and that it must “progress” to a more “enlightened” plane of existence. There are "elite’s" with hatred of America and Western nation-states simply and a desire to establish a kind of liberal, multi-cultural, One World State.

Now, not all liberals are S-Ps, although it would seem that the modern liberal-conservative divide is mostly at work.

Go ahead and test as an application of the paradigm. Yes = S-P; No = T-Warrior:

1. Do you believe in "income redistribution"--that is, the government taxing affluent Americans at a higher proportional rate in order to fund entitlements to the less well off?

2. Do you believe the definition of marriage should include homosexuals?

3. Do you think suspected terrorists captured overseas are entitled to Geneva Convention protections-that is, the same rights that military people are afforded?

4. Do you believe that the USA, in general, is harmful to the world?

5. Are you against states legally mandating that parents be informed when their underage daughters have abortions?

It is short, I have no problem calling myself a conservative and/or a traditionalist...and I freely admit it.

 

Midas, I wouldn't call you a conservative. Your own list of test questions isn't even consistent with conservative values.

Regarding the thread question, I would replace conservative/liberal with individualist/collectivist. I think it's more descriptive.

 

Fine...call me a "traditionist" then.

Do we really have to preference all of our statements with "all things being equal" or "all things considered" when we are trying to describe a person's politics and such?

Let's put it this way...If 75% or more of your core beliefs fall in line with a conservative or liberal politics...isn't okay to "call a duck a duck". a lib a lib and a conservative a conservative?

This is a fair question when people ask, "As far as these positions, do you LEAN more the the left or right?

Some lean more than others...

 

Midas, I answered "NO" to every one of your list of questions, except #2. I believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. In our country, a beacon of freedom, we should espouse "liberty for all" and let everyone enjoy the "pursuit of happiness" in whatever form that pursuit may take.

 

If I had to label myself I would say I am a fiscal conservative / for small government but liberal on moral / social issues. I am not opposed to social programs, I just fear that our government will mismanage, waste, or they will be abused. I like to limit the money our government gets as I dont think they are competent enough to trust with it in many cases. I understand if people have hard times and need help. I have been there. I just know there are those who would scam the system. My father fell on hard times, his father died early and mother could not support them, the Catholic Church raised him...no welfare from the state.

As for other things I am liberal...I feel the government overly restricts personal freedoms in many cases and they have better things to worry about. I dont want a government that is my parent telling me what I can and cant do with my life and making harsh moral judgments and laws...I DO support the death penalty but that is because I feel so strongly about human rights and the social contract. To take another persons life is the supreme act of wrong…ending another humans life is so final…that human being with thoughts, dreams, feelings, a person…dead and so final…I think its only right the person who commits such and act pay for it with his life…otherwise I say go softer on soft crime, stress rehabilitation and much harsher on hard crime like murder, rape, child molestation…I answered no to all the above questions but gays being able to wed (also I do think there should be some form of limited welfare which I guess is income distribution in a sense). I think gays should be allowed to marry...I dont see how that effects my own marriage...or harms me or others in any way. So I don’t know but I think I am more conservative than liberal

 

Try asking this question in a religious body. I'm generally classed as a conservative theologian, although I don't like the term. Because then it lumps me in with the theological traditionalists, who simply want to do what we've always done (at least since the 1950s, anyway). The world has changed, and, although the doctrines may not, how we present them does. Theologically, I prefer the term "orthodox." Church liberals are much more likely to embrace the title "liberal," although quite a few do prefer "progressive."

Drusus got it right though. There are few people (if any) that fit into the stereotype of a liberal or conservative.

 

Except for Midas. He's so far Right that he'd have to travel for days on end to the Left just to get to the extreme Right. I respect Conservatives opinions just not extreme Conservative opinions. The same goes for the extremes on the Left. These people are so far out there that they are usually found in Ted Kaczynski Unabomber-style shacks in rural locations strewn about the western states. :goof:

 

Nothing wrong with leaning RIGHT Lots here fess up to the right even though we might be registered independent. As far as Midas is concerned I feel he has a genuine concern for the safety of the nation and a way of life. I applaude some of his views.

Ben

 

Interesting...

I guess if you believe that working and producing tax paying individuals are better suited to spend a small percentage of their paid tax dollars over somebody in D.C., you are now extreme!

I guess if you believe that the President should be granted a line-item-veto to stop "pork" spending, you are now extreme!

I guess if you believe our congress should not spend more than what the government takes in, you are now extreme!

Well, extreme I shall be!

 

If I actually believed half the things you say I believe, I wouldn't even want to know me. The difference between you and I is that I never tell you what you believe and you never stop telling me what I believe. The only reason I can come up with for your behavior is that you are unable to relate to people for some reason so you have to make them out to be what you already believe they are. Try getting to know people instead of pigeonholing them immediately. You can practice on us. :thumb:

 

That's because you are AFRAID to say what you believe and who you are...

Go ahead and say you believe in higher taxes (or less tax cuts...same thing)

Go ahead and say you believe the government knows best what to do what our tax dollars.

It is okay...I will respect you more if you just admit it.

 

Seems by the phasing of your questions that you've already made my mind up for me. You can't seriously deny that. Again, you've told me that I'm Afraid to say what I believe. You've told me that I believe in higher taxes (BTW tax cuts are just gimme gimme gimme for the wealthy) Sorry if you choose not to see that. You also told me that I believe government knows best what to do with the tax money it collects. To finish it off, you somehow think I give a rats behind about your respect. You don't seem to be able to ask any question without smearing it with your extreme personal opinion.

 

Midas,

What you can't seem to understand is that you're supposed to read the post that you are objecting to before posting your objection to it. What I've noticed is that you consistently misinterpret just about everyone elses comments. My guess is that you aren't taking the time to understand the ideas being offered here. This puts you into the unusual position of objecting to ideas that haven't even been suggested.

 

Please explain how tax cuts of your OWN money that you would have had to pay is a "gimmee-gimmee-gimmee" to yourself!?!?!

You see...that is the problem. Liberals really do believe it is THEIR money to spend, not the producing working people who pay these taxes of 50 cents on the dollar.

 

Now I think he's just playing with us because nobody, and I mean nobody, is that thick.

 

Nice two step...

Let me put in easier terms for you...

Many working producers and acheivers are paying over 50 cents on the dollar to the government in a thing we call taxes. According to many liberals...that is NOT enough.

So let's assume that insteand of PAYING 50 cents on the dollar in taxes, you are now paying 47 cents on the dollar. Remember...you are not getting anything from the government, you are just paying LESS and hence liberals call this lower payment of taxes a "gimmee-gimmee-giommee" of your very own money.

There is nothing "gimmee-gimmee" about your own money...get it?

 

what tradition?