Designing a Quiz to Determine if SOme One is a Liberal Or Conservative

[Goshin]

What if someone is neither? Or some of both?

 

[mtm1963]

This test The Political Compass measures political views on two aspects authoritarian vs libertarian (socially) and left vs. right (economically). It is much more revealing than a mere left vs. right test could be.


"About The Political Compass™
Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitrary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities exisited in Spain during the civil war period."

i took the test and the results....................

Economic Left/Right: 0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.15

 

[Spartacus FPV]

My test has always been, "Is it greedy to want to keep what you earned or is greed wanting to take someone else's earnings?"

 

[ThePlayDrive]

My test has always been, "Is it greedy to want to keep what you earned or is greed wanting to take someone else's earnings?"

How can you determine people's true belief system by asking them if they identify with a strawman? Very flawed question - can't imagine that you get very far with it.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

How can you determine people's true belief system by asking them if they identify with a strawman? Very flawed question - can't imagine that you get very far with it.

I don't think you know what straw man means, at worst its a false-choice.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

I don't think you know what straw man means, at worst its a false-choice.

No, I know what it is just fine. A strawman is the distortion, or misrepresentation, of an argument. Since both parts of your question are based in common misrepresentations of liberal arguments in favor of raised taxes, your question is premised on two strawmen.

You are correct though. It's a false choice as well. It's also just a poorly worded question as it mixed up tenses. Like I said, I can't imagine you'd get very far with it.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

No, I know what it is just fine. A strawman is the distortion, or misrepresentation, of an argument. Since both parts of your question are based in common misrepresentations of liberal arguments in favor of raised taxes, your question is premised on two strawmen.

You are correct though. It's a false choice as well. It's also just a poorly worded question as it mixed up tenses. Like I said, I can't imagine you'd get very far with it.

Only one of the two represent the liberal claim about greed. This is no misrepresentation but a statement I see made quite frequently. The alleged false choice came from an Ayn Rand quote, "Why is it greedy to want to keep what you earned but its not considered greed to want someone else's wealth redistributed to you?" in response to Phil Donahue on the very greed claim you say is a "misrepresentation."

Do you really believe no liberal has called greedy those opposed to increased taxes on themselves? This has NEVER happened? If so, spare me how far you think my questions have gotten me.

 

[LowDown]

This idea started from this thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-partisan-politics-and-political-platforms/149166-you-liberal.html

The quiz linked in that thread, was to mind mind just terrible. It basically took a bunch of issues and assigned a liberal position to those issues, and tried to determine if some one was then a liberal. I scored straight up conservative on the quiz. It got me thinking that not only was the problem that the person who designed the quiz had no real clue about liberal ideology, but more importantly that the quiz tried to decide ideology based on positions on the issues, which I think does not work. Both a liberal and a conservative can agree 100 % on an issue, but they will arrive at that position in different ways. One example would be SSM, where for a liberal SSM is beneficial to society and as such should be legal, while for a conservative the government should limit when it tells people who they can or cannot marry kinda thing(phrased poorly I know).

So what I did was try and come up with a quiz question that I thought would show the basic philosophy behind the ideology. I assumed that the basic difference between liberals and conservatives was the level of government intervention, the size of government appropriate, and with that tried this question:



The question fails miserably in large part because it tries to do too much in one question. I do however like the concept of a quiz that tries to measure the background philosophy as opposed to simply the stance on issues. It is a kinda neat mental exorcize. SO with that in mind, my question: What questions would you ask on a quiz to determine if some one is liberal or conservative, and what do you think is that underlying philosophical difference? If we get some good responses here(oh, I am so hoping), I will edit them into this OP and we can see if we can put together a good quiz instead of all the crap ones online.

This is a difficult project not the least because the ideas liberals have about what conservatives are like are often very wrong and vice-versa. Taking the simple step of going out, interviewing people, and finding out what each side's characteristics actually are is usually forgotten.

Some work has been done in attempting to correlate personality traits to ideology. This kind of work is difficult to do well since attractive traits tend to always somehow be associated with the preferred ideology of the investigators, and it often just turns into yet another claim that one side is superior in some way. Most of this work is deeply flawed.

Yet some of this work seems valid and appears to show how conservatives and liberals complement each other, liberals always being the ones eager for progress and change and conservatives being those who urge caution and introspection, for example. In general, for every example showing how liberals were right and conservatives wrong about some new idea there is one that shows the reverse; each side tends to balance the excesses of the other. It is when one side obtains total dominance that, historically, the worst tragedies of mal-governance have happened.

I'm sure many liberals would bridle at the idea that they can be reckless just as conservatives dislike the notion that they need the occasional nudge to adopt good new ideas. Nevertheless...

Here is a TED talk that goes into the "moral roots" of ideology that illustrates this idea. The investigator seems to go to great pains to be balanced:

TED-Ed | The moral roots of liberals and conservatives - Jonathan Haidt

 

[Trip]

This idea started from this thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-partisan-politics-and-political-platforms/149166-you-liberal.html

The quiz linked in that thread, was to mind mind just terrible. It basically took a bunch of issues and assigned a liberal position to those issues, and tried to determine if some one was then a liberal. I scored straight up conservative on the quiz. It got me thinking that not only was the problem that the person who designed the quiz had no real clue about liberal ideology, but more importantly that the quiz tried to decide ideology based on positions on the issues, which I think does not work. Both a liberal and a conservative can agree 100 % on an issue, but they will arrive at that position in different ways. One example would be SSM, where for a liberal SSM is beneficial to society and as such should be legal, while for a conservative the government should limit when it tells people who they can or cannot marry kinda thing(phrased poorly I know).

So what I did was try and come up with a quiz question that I thought would show the basic philosophy behind the ideology. I assumed that the basic difference between liberals and conservatives was the level of government intervention, the size of government appropriate, and with that tried this question:



The question fails miserably in large part because it tries to do too much in one question. I do however like the concept of a quiz that tries to measure the background philosophy as opposed to simply the stance on issues. It is a kinda neat mental exorcize. SO with that in mind, my question: What questions would you ask on a quiz to determine if some one is liberal or conservative, and what do you think is that underlying philosophical difference? If we get some good responses here(oh, I am so hoping), I will edit them into this OP and we can see if we can put together a good quiz instead of all the crap ones online.

I have no fault with your premise that a better quiz might be designed which is not based on assumptions about certain issues, and it is possible for Liberals and Conservatives ti arrive at the same answer on some issues. However I'm not so sure that same sex marriage,"SSM", is such a good example that, or strongly indicative of a "Conservative" response in support of that issue.

The specific examination of SSM details does indeed demonstrate the difficulties in defining a political outlook from specific issues. Part of the problem with your chosen example of SSM is that you're not objectively separating 'feelings' on the issue, from the relatively objective facts, and beginning with some preliminary assumptions for "Liberal" and "Conservative" alike, with these undermining an accurate consideration:

1) Examples of this are your assumption that SSM is "beneficial for society", when in the short-run it may emotionally seem to be so, but in the long-run it converts marriage into a reward system involving mere personal gratification, and is not necessarily the case.

2) ... and ignores biological fact that we all came from the union of man and woman, and the fact that society, and thus government itself, does indeed have a vested interested in its proto-citizens being healthy, and having well-developed childhoods, to become positive members of society.

3) Then, for "Conservatives" you presume that they would reject government telling people what "they can or cannot <do>"... Is this really a "conservative" perspective? No, not really Conservative at all, and rather more Libertarian, which is not at all coincident with Conservatism, not to mention an inaccurate description of what is going on with issue SSM itself.

4) ...and imply this might be about "government intervention", when interference in "what marriage is", is has a lot to do with cherry picking what government involvement one supports.


Alot of fundamental distinctions are being overlooked here. such as these:

Does government, be it federal or state, have any legitimate authority to define, or re-define, what marriage is when that institution is not an original authority of government, and long predates this government and all governments, being a necessity for a mated heterosexual pair's prolonged upbringing offspring from childhood to adolescence. Nether states, NOR the federal government <such as a pending decision by the Supreme Court>, have any legitimate original authority via any one of their bodies, to re-define marriage to be something else, by dictate or otherwise.

Like it or not, the biological fact is that every person in society is a product of heterosexual pairing, resulting in the recognition of marriage. No, this is not to say that marriage compels the production of offspring, which would be a flaw of argumentation, reversing the consequent.

Some have said that it is a valid interest for the Supreme Court under the "Equal Protection" clause, yet equal protection inherently involves the SAME RESULTS being available to everyone, but not under whatever terms, but rather under the SAME TERMS. Blacks did not petition Woolworth's to eat lunch at the counter whenever they chose, but rather to eat lunch at the counter under the same terms as other patrons.

Applying this to the fabricated consideration of SSM, gays already have marriage available to them under the SAME TERMS as other members of society, and just choose not to avail themselves of those terms, instead rather insisting that marriage be under the own terms. Furthermore trying to corrupt 'equal protection" to apply to same sex partners, further contorts the principle of "equal protection" from solely being applied to the individual, to applying to pairs, or groups. This is not a "liberal" idea of social propriety, but rather a socialist and even Marxist ideology of "rights" applying to a collective, or groups, rather than what they were designed for - individuals. Properly considered, neither marriage, nor equal protection involve a choice of terms for anyone.

Does not government have a legitimate authority being "involved in" marriage, and in recognizing what marriage is, given that recognition of biological lines, and property inheritance, taxation levels, and legal considerations are valid and even crucial aspects of society? Of course it does. As such, the recognition in DOMA, which is not the defining of it, but recognition of what it is dictated to be by biological fact, is not government dictating marriage, but rather the prohibition of government, be it state or federal, from defining marriage and being in the business of engineering society, nowhere an enumerated power of government.

Yet SSM proponents decry DOMA as government "being in marriage" and dictating marriage, when government really is not, yet these same proponents will then hypocritically support state legislatures, or judiciaries, or the Supreme Court itself, dictating marriage. They want government dictating things, provided it is government dictating what they personally believe, and ignore the fact that DOMA is not even originally "defining" marriage, and is only intended to prohibit one state from re-defining marriage, and thereby forcing that re-definition upon the remaining 49 states, under a further gross corruption of the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause, which was never intended to force one state's social engineering designs upon the other states.

No government, be it state or federal, should have any authority to re-define words, as such a method is recognized even by our founders as a certain means to undermine law, and assert tyranny. Sam Adams indicated, "How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words."

The corruption of "Marriage", "equal protection", and "full faith and Credit", to support a dictatorial agenda at the hands of government, is not at all congruent with "Conservative" ideology, and really is not congruent with "Liberal" ideology either! <But this opens another kettle of fish involving the corruption of the term "Liberal">

What I hoped to show above, is that a greater examination of the applied reasoning is necessary to create such a quiz establishing whether one is "Liberal or Conservative", rather than just consideration of positions on a certain issues, essentially agreeing with you, yet disagreeing at least in so far as your claim that "Conservatives" were supporting SSM.

I apologize for my focus on SSM, and hope that my responses do not derail the discussion toward that topic. My intent was to show the variations in reasoning, with the actual applied rationale being important to establishing the political mentality.

 

[Trip]

You could also say that my first question is weighted because it assumes that everyone believes in "choice" when many people do not. However, it's generally accepted that choice exists just as it's generally accepted that global warming is social problem since it has negative effects on the entirety of society. I'll replace financial inequality with "discrimination" since financial inequality isn't necessarily a problem.

Global Warming, along with global cooling, are simply environmental facts.

The reality is that there is no compelling evidence of Anthropogenic climate change, which is actually what you mean, and particularly no evidence of anthropogenic 'warming'. Furthermore it is not agreed that such a warming "is <a> social problem", or that it would "negatively effect the entirety of society." We are currently have been undergoing a natural geological warming, and are cooler than the planet has generally been. Such an increase in warming and CO2 would generally increase food production, and providing more livable conditions, throughout a greater part of the country, over a greater part of the year, not requiring heating by those 'nasty' fossil fuels.

However the near-term geologic trend has recently been indicated to be something other than warming, anthropogenic or otherwise. If the current sunspot numbers continue to follow the 4, 5,and 6 cycles were going to get damn, damn fast, resulting in a "Dalton Event".

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/clip_image016_thumb1.jpg

 

[Trip]

This test The Political Compass measures political views on two aspects authoritarian vs libertarian (socially) and left vs. right (economically). It is much more revealing than a mere left vs. right test could be.


"About The Political Compass™
Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitrary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities exisited in Spain during the civil war period."

That "Political Compass" is really not such a good measure of political position.

First, the x-axis "left/right" paradigm is really not distinctive of political ideology, and only has valid application as a general reference, in regard to a specific consideration, in a specific political environment, at a specific time. It also inherently involves the presumption of itself in assigning the location on the left/right axis, thereby involving a great deal of bias in the appraisal.

Second, the y-axis libertarian label is itself the imposition of an ideology which makes a great number of presumptions, and the opposite of that "libertarian" is not "authoritarian".

This is a more accurate representation of the political spectrum:

 

[Lord of Planar]

I guess I'll weigh in during this free loft time.

I have taken several online political tests over the years.It seems to me all theses test are as described above, seen from a narrow viewpoint. I have seen so much during my life, that most question in past quizzes, I could answer either way. It depends on the specifics. The largest problem that comes to mind is the questions are too general. Even when questions become specific, we are often in conflict. If a question becomes a degree of libertarian left vs. authoritarian right... That puts me in conflict as a libertarian right individual. I don't know how one would fix this, without making the test very exhaustive.

 

[Perotista]

I frequently get challenged on DP with respect to my self-identification as a conservative. Americans have a very different concept of what a conservative is than I and most Canadians do. For me, the philosophy is based on "keep the government out of my wallet and out of my bedroom". In simple terms, it means keep government lean and focussed and keep it far away from any attempt to manage my private life. To me, that's the definition of a conservative. If American conservatives tried to follow that philosophy, they'd win large majorities in almost every election.

CJ - that is basically the definition of a traditional conservative. One before the emergence of the religious right. It is said the last traditional conservative president in the United States was Calvin Coolidge. The last traditional conservative presidential candidate was Barry Goldwater. there are three tenets to traditional conservatism. 1. Isolationism 2. Fiscal Responsibility and 3. Small Government i.e. a government that stays out of a citizen private business and lives.

 

[Trip]

CJ - that is basically the definition of a traditional conservative. One before the emergence of the religious right. It is said the last traditional conservative president in the United States was Calvin Coolidge. The last traditional conservative presidential candidate was Barry Goldwater. there are three tenets to traditional conservatism. 1. Isolationism 2. Fiscal Responsibility and 3. Small Government i.e. a government that stays out of a citizen private business and lives.

I disagree with that definition of "traditional conservative" and believe it to be more a fabrication of the most recent times, and not y representative of "traditional" nor "conservative".


I believe this idea of "social conservatism" being separate and distinct from "conservative" in general, is a result of the ongoing secularization today of considerations that were originally and traditionally not at all secular.

That "religious right" emerged long before the foundation of this country itself, and is integral to the foundation of the country.

It could be argued that the Constitution itself values libertarian individual freedoms, but these freedoms were not overall viewed by the founders as unfettered, nor existing as resolute regardless of both outcome and personal responsibility. What the founders framed in the Constitution, is NOT the the extent of their beliefs, but rather only their application within the constraints of government, and a government that did not believe in the institutionalization of religion. For those founders, the existence of an unwavering external value system - religion - was imperative for society, and the very continuation of this country itself.

Coolidge and particularly Goldwater are the typical iconoclasts that Libertarians come up with because they, to them, embody libertarian ideals, but I do not believe any particular individual at all serves as the exemplar of Conservative ideology, and that reliance on such icons results in a disregard for realities, and outcome, as well as maintains adherence to idealized principles in no way accurate nor reasonably applied.

Libertarian is no more the definition of traditional conservative, than is anarchism.

 

[Perotista]

I disagree with that definition of "traditional conservative" and believe it to be more a fabrication of the most recent times, and not y representative of "traditional" nor "conservative".


I believe this idea of "social conservatism" being separate and distinct from "conservative" in general, is a result of the ongoing secularization today of considerations that were originally and traditionally not at all secular.

That "religious right" emerged long before the foundation of this country itself, and is integral to the foundation of the country.

It could be argued that the Constitution itself values libertarian individual freedoms, but these freedoms were not overall viewed by the founders as unfettered, nor existing as resolute regardless of both outcome and personal responsibility. What the founders framed in the Constitution, is NOT the the extent of their beliefs, but rather only their application within the constraints of government, and a government that did not believe in the institutionalization of religion. For those founders, the existence of an unwavering external value system - religion - was imperative for society, and the very continuation of this country itself.

Coolidge and particularly Goldwater are the typical iconoclasts that Libertarians come up with because they, to them, embody libertarian ideals, but I do not believe any particular individual at all serves as the exemplar of Conservative ideology, and that reliance on such icons results in a disregard for realities, and outcome, as well as maintains adherence to idealized principles in no way accurate nor reasonably applied.

Libertarian is no more the definition of traditional conservative, than is anarchism.

here is an article from the Houston Paper quite a few years ago. It is just something to ponder and take it for what it is worth as it was just one man's point of view. A point of view on how he sees or saw the presidents for his classifications I tend to agree with.

Liberal and Conservative Presidents since Coolidge: What it Means Now

My discussion here is based on the following two definitions: 1) Liberals are primarily concerned with human rights, social justice, and economic fairness, and 2) Traditional conservative values include avoiding foreign entanglements (isolationism), fiscal responsibility, and a government that stays out of citizens’ private business and lives (i.e., "small government").

So, let’s have a look at our past Presidents’ accomplishments and policies. Instead of relying on what they say, lets just look at what they did and compare with the above definitions. But first, when it comes to military action, the US has sent it troops abroad over 200 times since 1798. I think that it’s fair to say that it doesn’t matter whether the President is conservative or liberal when it comes to war.

Who was the last truly conservative Republican President?

I say that it was Calvin Coolidge. He reduced the national debt and taxes, and he strove to keep the US out of international conflicts. The next Republican President was Herbert Hoover and he failed to balance the budget – as in the Great Depression.

The next Republican after Hoover was Eisenhower. Eisenhower was a centrist, who supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and publicly condemned McCarthy. He balanced the budget and ended the Korean War. But conservatives were unimpressed by him and nominated Goldwater in 1964. And, as we all know, Ike warned us of the encroaching military-industrial-complex.

The next Republican was Nixon, and he was a liberal. He established the EPA, OSHA, the Endangered Species Act, and he imposed wage and price controls. He was outspoken in favor of Affirmative Action and his drug policy included funds for education. I think it’s fair to say that he wouldn’t even qualify as a Democrat today – and this gives us an indication of just how far the entire political spectrum has shifted to the right.

Ford reduced taxes, established special education for handicapped children, and supported the Equal Rights Amendment as well as abortion. Ford’s position was center to liberal.

Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. can all be lumped together I think. They all spent like crazy and loved to invade other nations – from Central America to the Middle East. Bush Jr. stands out because of his positions on torture and spying on American citizens.

How about the Democrats? Who’s been truly liberal?

FDR was certainly liberal; i.e. the New Deal, social security, etc. Truman railed against corporate greed, he settled railway strikes, fought tax cuts for the rich, and supported a national healthcare system as well as civil rights (the "Fair Deal"). He was liberal.

Kennedy created the Peace Corps and supported federal funding increases for education and medicare. Many of the progressive policies he supported were passed after his death. He also supported some tax cuts. Overall he was liberal.

Johnson: Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, "The Great Society"; which included urban renewal, disease control, education advances, fighting poverty, etc. Had it not been for the Vietnam War, LBJ would probably be known as one of our great liberal Presidents, right up there with FDR.

Carter established the department of energy, had solar panels installed on the White House, and gave amnesty to draft-dodgers. But he couldn’t control the growth of the economy, which was low, and the national debt, which was high. He increased social security tax and deregulated the airline, trucking, rail, communications, oil, and finance industries. I think that Carter was taking advice from Corporate America (obviously) and the destructive economic trends that have continued through today began with his administration.

Clinton was a centrist, while taxing the rich on one hand, he supported NAFTA, WTO, the Telecommunications Act, and so-called Welfare Reform on the other.

================================================

Since the massive deregulation initiated by Carter, we’ve experienced, in real dollars, a steady decline in wages, pensions, and public services. And we’ve experienced a steady increase in working hours, tuition, bankruptcies, etc. Basically every economic indicator has worsened for the general population. For example, in the early 50’s corporate income tax receipts were about 30% of total federal tax revenues, but now they are less than 10%.

So what exactly IS my point here?

Many progressives are railing, with just cause, against Obama because he’s moved towards the center. And many are saying that they won’t vote for him because of this.

Listen up. If Obama loses, then McCain wins. This is a fact.

Obama is clearly the most progressive candidate since Kennedy and Johnson (like 40 years), but some would punish the country and its future because Obama isn’t pure enough for them.

This is irrational and even juvenile.

We are not going to fix 30+ years of Neo-Conservative and Centrist administrations overnight.

Who would be more responsive to progressive pressure, Obama or McCain?

One last fact: politics is compromise.

 

[Trip]

here is an article from the Houston Paper quite a few years ago. It is just something to ponder and take it for what it is worth as it was just one man's point of view. A point of view on how he sees or saw the presidents for his classifications I tend to agree with.

Liberal and Conservative Presidents since Coolidge: What it Means Now

My discussion here is based on the following two definitions: 1) Liberals are primarily concerned with human rights, social justice, and economic fairness, and 2) Traditional conservative values include avoiding foreign entanglements (isolationism), fiscal responsibility, and a government that stays out of citizens’ private business and lives (i.e., "small government").

So, let’s have a look at our past Presidents’ accomplishments and policies. Instead of relying on what they say, lets just look at what they did and compare with the above definitions. But first, when it comes to military action, the US has sent it troops abroad over 200 times since 1798. I think that it’s fair to say that it doesn’t matter whether the President is conservative or liberal when it comes to war.

Who was the last truly conservative Republican President?

I say that it was Calvin Coolidge. He reduced the national debt and taxes, and he strove to keep the US out of international conflicts. The next Republican President was Herbert Hoover and he failed to balance the budget – as in the Great Depression.

The next Republican after Hoover was Eisenhower. Eisenhower was a centrist, who supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and publicly condemned McCarthy. He balanced the budget and ended the Korean War. But conservatives were unimpressed by him and nominated Goldwater in 1964. And, as we all know, Ike warned us of the encroaching military-industrial-complex.

The next Republican was Nixon, and he was a liberal. He established the EPA, OSHA, the Endangered Species Act, and he imposed wage and price controls. He was outspoken in favor of Affirmative Action and his drug policy included funds for education. I think it’s fair to say that he wouldn’t even qualify as a Democrat today – and this gives us an indication of just how far the entire political spectrum has shifted to the right.

Ford reduced taxes, established special education for handicapped children, and supported the Equal Rights Amendment as well as abortion. Ford’s position was center to liberal.

Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. can all be lumped together I think. They all spent like crazy and loved to invade other nations – from Central America to the Middle East. Bush Jr. stands out because of his positions on torture and spying on American citizens.

How about the Democrats? Who’s been truly liberal?

FDR was certainly liberal; i.e. the New Deal, social security, etc. Truman railed against corporate greed, he settled railway strikes, fought tax cuts for the rich, and supported a national healthcare system as well as civil rights (the "Fair Deal"). He was liberal.

Kennedy created the Peace Corps and supported federal funding increases for education and medicare. Many of the progressive policies he supported were passed after his death. He also supported some tax cuts. Overall he was liberal.

Johnson: Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, "The Great Society"; which included urban renewal, disease control, education advances, fighting poverty, etc. Had it not been for the Vietnam War, LBJ would probably be known as one of our great liberal Presidents, right up there with FDR.

Carter established the department of energy, had solar panels installed on the White House, and gave amnesty to draft-dodgers. But he couldn’t control the growth of the economy, which was low, and the national debt, which was high. He increased social security tax and deregulated the airline, trucking, rail, communications, oil, and finance industries. I think that Carter was taking advice from Corporate America (obviously) and the destructive economic trends that have continued through today began with his administration.

Clinton was a centrist, while taxing the rich on one hand, he supported NAFTA, WTO, the Telecommunications Act, and so-called Welfare Reform on the other.

================================================

Since the massive deregulation initiated by Carter, we’ve experienced, in real dollars, a steady decline in wages, pensions, and public services. And we’ve experienced a steady increase in working hours, tuition, bankruptcies, etc. Basically every economic indicator has worsened for the general population. For example, in the early 50’s corporate income tax receipts were about 30% of total federal tax revenues, but now they are less than 10%.

So what exactly IS my point here?

Many progressives are railing, with just cause, against Obama because he’s moved towards the center. And many are saying that they won’t vote for him because of this.

Listen up. If Obama loses, then McCain wins. This is a fact.

Obama is clearly the most progressive candidate since Kennedy and Johnson (like 40 years), but some would punish the country and its future because Obama isn’t pure enough for them.

This is irrational and even juvenile.

We are not going to fix 30+ years of Neo-Conservative and Centrist administrations overnight.

Who would be more responsive to progressive pressure, Obama or McCain?

One last fact: politics is compromise.

Presidents don't raise taxes. Presidents don't write laws. Presidents

And individuals do not embody ideologies, but pretending they do make the analysis far easier and far more superficial.

Libertarians commonly love labels, and throw around pigeonholes like "neo-con", along with claims of "conservative" far more than any other cache in the political spectrum. They have a compulsion to tie their pigeonholes with specific personae, which is just another means to overly simplify the concepts and avoid any real analysis of considerations

"Liberal" is a particularly bad label and has come to mean support of considerations entirely in opposition to the terms that originally embodied the concept.

Obama has not moved toward any sort of center, and that profane claim can only come from total disregard for the heinous specifics of what he's done. Obama is, and has always been, a Progressive globalist statist. He embraces Marxism, global dictate, and individuals being under the thumb of government intrusion in every aspect of our lives, and ties government interests with corporate interests in the pursuit of his agendas. The only people who are "centrists" these days are those unable to identify the terms and pick a side, in times when the sides have never been more clear in American history. Obama is the furthest possible from any sort of moderation in any litmus test, and takes serious rationalizations to consider him a centrist.

The point to my posts in this thread thus far is the overwhelming need for a clear definition of terms, and using these pigeonholes only promotes the fudging of those terms, resulting in false evaluations. Politics may be compromise, but at this point our terms, and our language, and our very framing of the issues, and the Constitution itself, have all been compromise, and that's not "politics", but our form of government is no more on the table than are our freedoms, and the compromise you reference is nothing but a corruption of dishonesties undermining our freedom, our reasoning, and our very resolve.

 

[Trip]

So what exactly IS my point here?

Many progressives are railing, with just cause, against Obama because he’s moved towards the center. And many are saying that they won’t vote for him because of this.

Listen up. If Obama loses, then McCain wins. This is a fact.

Obama is clearly the most progressive candidate since Kennedy and Johnson (like 40 years), but some would punish the country and its future because Obama isn’t pure enough for them.

This is irrational and even juvenile.

We are not going to fix 30+ years of Neo-Conservative and Centrist administrations overnight.

Who would be more responsive to progressive pressure, Obama or McCain?

One last fact: politics is compromise.

While I addressed your post above once, already, the portion of I have included, above particularly bothered me overnight, and for reasons way beyond your ridiculous claim of Obama "mov[ing] towards the center".

First, I get the feeling that you wrote the above portion sometime before the 2012 election, and even before the 2008 election, because you say that "many .. won't vote for him" and "if Obama loses, then McCain wins". Well, two elections have transprited since McCain might win against Obama, Obama is prohibited by the Constitution from running again, and every day in office by Obama has shown the destruction by this individual and his progressive ideology to our standard of living, our employment, our economy, and our individual freedoms.

I promise, there is nothing approaching profundity in your thoughts above that would justify your time-warp re-posting of this perspective 104 days into Obama's second term.

What is really disturbing is that you would indicate that denying Obama would be "punishing this country and its future because Obama isn't pure enough", when Obama's every action has been to punish this country and undermine its future and put its very existence at risk, and not with any sort of "purity" but by enabling and exercising every form of corruption under the sun!

The idea that anyone as radical as Obama, holding the constitution in such utter disregard, might "fix" "Neo-Conservative and Centrist" administrations" is absurd. In truth what you mean is not "fix" those administrations, but entirely overthrow this country into Obama's phrased "fundamental change" of the country, which can only occur by its collapse.

 

[Perotista]

While I addressed your post above once, already, the portion of I have included, above particularly bothered me overnight, and for reasons way beyond your ridiculous claim of Obama "mov[ing] towards the center".

First, I get the feeling that you wrote the above portion sometime before the 2012 election, and even before the 2008 election, because you say that "many .. won't vote for him" and "if Obama loses, then McCain wins". Well, two elections have transprited since McCain might win against Obama, Obama is prohibited by the Constitution from running again, and every day in office by Obama has shown the destruction by this individual and his progressive ideology to our standard of living, our employment, our economy, and our individual freedoms.

I promise, there is nothing approaching profundity in your thoughts above that would justify your time-warp re-posting of this perspective 104 days into Obama's second term.

What is really disturbing is that you would indicate that denying Obama would be "punishing this country and its future because Obama isn't pure enough", when Obama's every action has been to punish this country and undermine its future and put its very existence at risk, and not with any sort of "purity" but by enabling and exercising every form of corruption under the sun!

The idea that anyone as radical as Obama, holding the constitution in such utter disregard, might "fix" "Neo-Conservative and Centrist" administrations" is absurd. In truth what you mean is not "fix" those administrations, but entirely overthrow this country into Obama's phrased "fundamental change" of the country, which can only occur by its collapse.

That was part of an article I posted from the Houston paper. I didn't write it and it was sometime before the 2008 election. I posted it as it showed how the author used traditional conservatism and liberalism to rate the presidents. what he said at the end is his, not mine. I just wanted to show whomever I addressed this to what a traditional conservative was and the three tenets of traditional conservatism vs. the conservatism of today.

I have no problem with President Obama being president, in fact outside of a couple of incidents, I think his foreign policy has been excellent. I disagree with him in about half of his domestic policies, but I would much rather have him than Romney although my first choice is to have neither, I voted for Gary Johnson.

Having grown up in the 50's, I think the three tenets of conservatism is right on. IKE was not a traditional conservative, Taft was and IKE beat Taft. IKE in my opinion was a centrist, as was Clinton and like the author, I also view all in-between as having govern like liberals. Nixon I place as the number one liberal, even more so than Obama or JFK or LBJ.

But whomever I was talking to in the beginning, I made a point about traditional conservatism, he disagreed which was his right and I posted this article to so that I wasn't the only one who viewed traditional conservatism the way I do and go with the three tenets of it. No disrespect on my part was intended if that is the way you took it.

 

[Trip]

That was part of an article I posted from the Houston paper. I didn't write it and it was sometime before the 2008 election. I posted it as it showed how the author used traditional conservatism and liberalism to rate the presidents. what he said at the end is his, not mine. I just wanted to show whomever I addressed this to what a traditional conservative was and the three tenets of traditional conservatism vs. the conservatism of today.

I have no problem with President Obama being president, in fact outside of a couple of incidents, I think his foreign policy has been excellent. I disagree with him in about half of his domestic policies, but I would much rather have him than Romney although my first choice is to have neither, I voted for Gary Johnson.

Having grown up in the 50's, I think the three tenets of conservatism is right on. IKE was not a traditional conservative, Taft was and IKE beat Taft. IKE in my opinion was a centrist, as was Clinton and like the author, I also view all in-between as having govern like liberals. Nixon I place as the number one liberal, even more so than Obama or JFK or LBJ.

But whomever I was talking to in the beginning, I made a point about traditional conservatism, he disagreed which was his right and I posted this article to so that I wasn't the only one who viewed traditional conservatism the way I do and go with the three tenets of it. No disrespect on my part was intended if that is the way you took it.

That was not a traditional conservative speaking; that had ever sign of being a libertarian, trying to pass of their ideas as a traditional conservative, and it's not surprising you'd reference this silly article given your support for Johnson. I've heard of false reference to authority before, but never seen anyone trying to pass off an unknown, nameless person as an authority.

The Constitution has serious problem with Obama being President, as well as his actions as president. Obama's foreign policy has been serving an agenda that validates and promotes terrorism, fails to identify terrorism when confronted with it, and promotes populist uprisings having no foundation in civil society as "democratic" and then pretends surprise when they have democratic roots, and this promotion of terrorism has led to the death of Ambassador Stevens, and others.

You really don't grasp the idea of persons not being the embodiment of ideologies, much less conservatism, do you? This panchant is the hallmark of libertarian thought, which consistently relies on the crutch of pigeon holes terms and persons to replace a thorough grasp of principle. There are no "liberals" in evidence today, and the use of the word is nothing but sloppy reference providing cover for statist authoritarian dictate, all while decrying those "social cons" whose dictate is evident ... nowhere.

By no means are you the only one to identify "traditional conservatism" as you do, but this is not reflecting any traditional perspective, nor conservatism overall, and only is a "neo" contemporary spin involving a superficial appraisal of both fact and history - a corrupt crutch. Overall this corruption of terms explains why contemporary Libertarians are so often in agreement with "Progressives" in discussions.

 

[Perotista]

That was not a traditional conservative speaking; that had ever sign of being a libertarian, trying to pass of their ideas as a traditional conservative, and it's not surprising you'd reference this silly article given your support for Johnson. I've heard of false reference to authority before, but never seen anyone trying to pass off an unknown, nameless person as an authority.

The Constitution has serious problem with Obama being President, as well as his actions as president. Obama's foreign policy has been serving an agenda that validates and promotes terrorism, fails to identify terrorism when confronted with it, and promotes populist uprisings having no foundation in civil society as "democratic" and then pretends surprise when they have democratic roots, and this promotion of terrorism has led to the death of Ambassador Stevens, and others.

You really don't grasp the idea of persons not being the embodiment of ideologies, much less conservatism, do you? This panchant is the hallmark of libertarian thought, which consistently relies on the crutch of pigeon holes terms and persons to replace a thorough grasp of principle. There are no "liberals" in evidence today, and the use of the word is nothing but sloppy reference providing cover for statist authoritarian dictate, all while decrying those "social cons" whose dictate is evident ... nowhere.

By no means are you the only one to identify "traditional conservatism" as you do, but this is not reflecting any traditional perspective, nor conservatism overall, and only is a "neo" contemporary spin involving a superficial appraisal of both fact and history - a corrupt crutch. Overall this corruption of terms explains why contemporary Libertarians are so often in agreement with "Progressives" in discussions.

I think what I spoke of as traditional conservatism, suits me even if you think I am part of the problem. Isolationism, a hallmark of the Republican Party and conservatives until Eisenhower is a bit much for me. Remember Taft the arch conservative IKE defeated in the Republican primaries. But I do not think we should go to war unless our national security is directly threatened. I do not think the Iraq war was necessary under Bush the 2nd. Afghanistan I was for and supported. Having UBL living there and Afghanistan as a training grounds for AQ, for me was reason enough to do what we did. So I am not a complete isolationist nor do I believe it is America’s job to be the policeman of the world. Sometimes we just have to let things play out without our involvement. Other times we have to make a stand.

Fiscal Responsibility, Republicans/conservatives have always believed in this also. I believe in a balance budget. I wish Reagan would have been successful when he pushed for the balanced budget amendment and it is here where myself and Obama depart ways. I have come to the conclusion the Democrats will not cut spending and the republicans will not increase taxes, the ideal solution would be to do both starting with Simpson/Bowles. So I would propose a budget freeze at current levels until the budget is balanced.

On small government, keeping government out of a citizens private business and lives. laissez faire if you will and another GOP/conservative hallmark of old. Yes I also believe in it. I believe one reason we lost our industrial base to overseas is way too much regulation and mandates was placed on them which made it impossible for our industrial base to operate here. I also believe in keeping government out of the bedroom. I have no problem with gay marriage or abortion. But I wouldn’t do away with drug laws making all drugs legal either. This is folly to me.

Perhaps you view people like Coolidge, Taft, Goldwater as Libertarians and not conservatives in the traditional sense of conservatism. I think today’s conservatives have abandoned Isolationism altogether, both parties have for that matter. I think today’s conservatives are trying to be fiscal responsible. I also think today’s conservatives are trying to cut back regulations and mandates as they apply to business, but due to the rise of the religious right which has become a power in Republican circles, they have abandoned keeping government out of an individuals private life.

Just how I feel and if in you view this makes me a Libertarian so be it. The reason I voted for Gary Johnson was I lost faith in Obama when it came to my number hot button issue, the deficit and debt and I never trusted Romney. Johnson was the next logical choice as I didn’t want either Obama or Romney for the next 4 years. But I will always classify myself when it comes to politics as a Goldwater Conservative. I consider Barry as my political mentor and my first presidential vote went to him. For me, having grown up under IKE, conservatism is exactly what I described above.

 

[Trip]

I think what I spoke of as traditional conservatism, suits me even if you think I am part of the problem. Isolationism, a hallmark of the Republican Party and conservatives until Eisenhower is a bit much for me. Remember Taft the arch conservative IKE defeated in the Republican primaries. But I do not think we should go to war unless our national security is directly threatened. I do not think the Iraq war was necessary under Bush the 2nd. Afghanistan I was for and supported. Having UBL living there and Afghanistan as a training grounds for AQ, for me was reason enough to do what we did. So I am not a complete isolationist nor do I believe it is America’s job to be the policeman of the world. Sometimes we just have to let things play out without our involvement. Other times we have to make a stand.

Fiscal Responsibility, Republicans/conservatives have always believed in this also. I believe in a balance budget. I wish Reagan would have been successful when he pushed for the balanced budget amendment and it is here where myself and Obama depart ways. I have come to the conclusion the Democrats will not cut spending and the republicans will not increase taxes, the ideal solution would be to do both starting with Simpson/Bowles. So I would propose a budget freeze at current levels until the budget is balanced.

On small government, keeping government out of a citizens private business and lives. laissez faire if you will and another GOP/conservative hallmark of old. Yes I also believe in it. I believe one reason we lost our industrial base to overseas is way too much regulation and mandates was placed on them which made it impossible for our industrial base to operate here. I also believe in keeping government out of the bedroom. I have no problem with gay marriage or abortion. But I wouldn’t do away with drug laws making all drugs legal either. This is folly to me.

Perhaps you view people like Coolidge, Taft, Goldwater as Libertarians and not conservatives in the traditional sense of conservatism. I think today’s conservatives have abandoned Isolationism altogether, both parties have for that matter. I think today’s conservatives are trying to be fiscal responsible. I also think today’s conservatives are trying to cut back regulations and mandates as they apply to business, but due to the rise of the religious right which has become a power in Republican circles, they have abandoned keeping government out of an individuals private life.

Just how I feel and if in you view this makes me a Libertarian so be it. The reason I voted for Gary Johnson was I lost faith in Obama when it came to my number hot button issue, the deficit and debt and I never trusted Romney. Johnson was the next logical choice as I didn’t want either Obama or Romney for the next 4 years. But I will always classify myself when it comes to politics as a Goldwater Conservative. I consider Barry as my political mentor and my first presidential vote went to him. For me, having grown up under IKE, conservatism is exactly what I described above.

1) you're still trying to tie the ideal of Conservatism with personalities; it's like a Pavlovian response with Libertarians.

2) Republican and Conservative are not synonymous.

3) Republicans do not fundamentally believe in fiscal responsibility.

4) If you have not "departed ways" from Obama long before the issue of fiscal responsibility, then there's a serious problem with your perspective of Obama, the Constitution, and Conservatism overall.

5) Increasing taxes is not a rational solution recognized by any responsible economist during an economic depression. Every economist recognizes that an increase in taxes results in a burden of the economy and slowing of it, and by definition a smaller economy will provide less revenues. The problem is spending, not revenues, with the ever-increasing size of government killing the economy and jobs, as well as our freedoms and this country overall.

6) It is a fundamental lie of fact to indicate that government is "in the bedroom" simply by recognizing that marriage is the union of a man and woman. Each and every person on the face of the earth is the product of heterosexual unions, with gays being responsible for ZERO of the global population. Claiming that gay unions are the same as heterosexual unions is a fallacy of reduction to obtain a false equivalence. Libertarians have no problem with "gays or abortion" because like their leftist progressive counterparts, their visions both disregard outcome and reality. This is not a conservative position.

7) The claimed "rise of the religious right", is a fallacy having no truth to it, and having absolutely ZERO evident effect anywhere, but it is the common red herring of libertarians, who decry the intrusion of government in our lives, but without exception conspicuously IGNORE the intrusion of Progressive totalitarian fascism into every aspect of our lives. There is absolute zero evidence of that "religious right" having any effect on our lives, but still this does not stop Libertarians from providing Pavlovian reference to this canard.

That "religious right" has been a part of this country since its inception, and was not excluded even by Liberals until contemporary times. What you've bought into is the modern secularist propaganda of Progressivism, which must dismiss the idea of there being any external objective value system, so that they might institute and impose their own subjective and highly-variable value system involving such corrupt Orwellian 'blessings' as Political Correctness, "Social Justice", hate crimes, and "fairness". But you hypocritically hate the intrusion of those "religious righties" nowhere in evidence. Your responses regarding Obama alone show you've bought into every bit of nonsense the progressive mainstream media is pushing on you.

 

[Trip]

Libertarians and Progressives so often agree, because each outlook supports an individualized perspective on society, with Libertarians turning a blind eye to Progressive fascistic dictates at this point because they are deconstructing society, which libertarians find gratifying for the moment. However the time will come when Libertarians will recognize the extremely shortsighted error of this perspective, but by then it will be too late to salvage and real freedoms, with the state dictating what freedoms one has.

 

[Perotista]

1) you're still trying to tie the ideal of Conservatism with personalities; it's like a Pavlovian response with Libertarians.

2) Republican and Conservative are not synonymous.

3) Republicans do not fundamentally believe in fiscal responsibility.

4) If you have not "departed ways" from Obama long before the issue of fiscal responsibility, then there's a serious problem with your perspective of Obama, the Constitution, and Conservatism overall.

5) Increasing taxes is not a rational solution recognized by any responsible economist during an economic depression. Every economist recognizes that an increase in taxes results in a burden of the economy and slowing of it, and by definition a smaller economy will provide less revenues. The problem is spending, not revenues, with the ever-increasing size of government killing the economy and jobs, as well as our freedoms and this country overall.

6) It is a fundamental lie of fact to indicate that government is "in the bedroom" simply by recognizing that marriage is the union of a man and woman. Each and every person on the face of the earth is the product of heterosexual unions, with gays being responsible for ZERO of the global population. Claiming that gay unions are the same as heterosexual unions is a fallacy of reduction to obtain a false equivalence. Libertarians have no problem with "gays or abortion" because like their leftist progressive counterparts, their visions both disregard outcome and reality. This is not a conservative position.

7) The claimed "rise of the religious right", is a fallacy having no truth to it, and having absolutely ZERO evident effect anywhere, but it is the common red herring of libertarians, who decry the intrusion of government in our lives, but without exception conspicuously IGNORE the intrusion of Progressive totalitarian fascism into every aspect of our lives. There is absolute zero evidence of that "religious right" having any effect on our lives, but still this does not stop Libertarians from providing Pavlovian reference to this canard.

That "religious right" has been a part of this country since its inception, and was not excluded even by Liberals until contemporary times. What you've bought into is the modern secularist propaganda of Progressivism, which must dismiss the idea of there being any external objective value system, so that they might institute and impose their own subjective and highly-variable value system involving such corrupt Orwellian 'blessings' as Political Correctness, "Social Justice", hate crimes, and "fairness". But you hypocritically hate the intrusion of those "religious righties" nowhere in evidence. Your responses regarding Obama alone show you've bought into every bit of nonsense the progressive mainstream media is pushing on you.

I do not think the main stream media is pushing anything on me; I very seldom listen to them. In fact I do not remember when the last time was I even watched an over the air channel. I use to watch CNN, but when FOX came along I usually turn to FOX first, then to CNN during commercials and go back and forth. I am not influenced by the media. As for gays, I think what opened my eyes was the training of Thai and Lao soldiers I did way back when. They readily accepted gays into their ranks and the gay soldiers were darn good soldiers. I also lived in a culture over there where transvestites were accepted as a third gender, called Katoeys. So I never had a problem with gays. As for gay marriage, I don’t have a problem with it either; I will not push it and am satisfied to let it play out at state level.

Perhaps I do equate conservatism to individuals; this shouldn’t surprise anyone as I can remember Taft being referred to as that staunch conservative. Ike ran just to prevent someone like Taft from bringing America back into the Isolationist mode. So yes I plead guilty to that. My perspective of conservatism was defined back in my day, not today which I really do not understand today’s so called conservatism one bit. For me, I do not know what it is, but it is not conservatism or the conservative values I grew up with. Perhaps new or neo-conservatism as I suppose words change over time and what certain words meant when I grew up have entirely new meanings today.

I have never before been referred to as a Libertarian, but if you think that is what I am, fine as it doesn’t bother me. The same could be said about you and the conservative label. But perhaps that is the problem; we all try to place labels on things, people. Where I stand I make up my mind one issue at a time and I do not care where a particular party or individual stands on that issue, my stance or view is made by me, not a political party, not by another person or movement or anything else. I have been called conservative, liberal, right wing, left wing, a racist as recently as yesterday, a bigot, once even a socialist and a gun nut. Much more have I been called, but those names should be unprintable in a public forum. I really don’t mind what someone calls me. I will be with you on some issues and against you on some, I think this tends to get those die hard partisans of the political parties and ideologies pretty peeved. But that is life.

I hate PC and I don’t practice it one bit and I never understood what a hate crime was. Either you kill someone or you don’t. I am very much against gerrymandering of districts for house races, for that reason I am against minority districts also, because all you are doing is jury rigging an election, choosing a winner before the first vote is cast. Hang around and watch some of my posts, you will find that I am all over the place. I think what I am not is an ideologue. I believe politics is the art of the possible. I believe the constitution was written in pretty plain English and I find a lot of the verdicts of the SCOTUS, pretty much going against that plain English. Social Justice, isn’t that treating each individual equal according to each individual character and deserving? I do not believe any individual should be discriminated on the based of race, sex or religion or even political ideology.

Now if I missed anything let me know, I read George Orwell 1984, good book.

 

[Trip]

I do not think the main stream media is pushing anything on me; I very seldom listen to them. In fact I do not remember when the last time was I even watched an over the air channel. I use to watch CNN, but when FOX came along I usually turn to FOX first, then to CNN during commercials and go back and forth. I am not influenced by the media. As for gays, I think what opened my eyes was the training of Thai and Lao soldiers I did way back when. They readily accepted gays into their ranks and the gay soldiers were darn good soldiers. I also lived in a culture over there where transvestites were accepted as a third gender, called Katoeys. So I never had a problem with gays. As for gay marriage, I don’t have a problem with it either; I will not push it and am satisfied to let it play out at state level.

Even here in practically the same breath after claiming you're not affected by the MSM and progressive agenda, you voice the belief that the "state" has any legitimate authority to engineer society, when that state clearly has no original authority over what constitutes marriage, and the only "state level" determining anything is the decree of state legislatures and judiciaries. You've bought into progressivist statism, hook, line, and sinker.

And really that gays make good soldiers, which is irrelevant, or that a Thai culture might recognize three genders when there are clearly only two, only shows your embrace of Progressive thought.

Perhaps I do equate conservatism to individuals; this shouldn’t surprise anyone as I can remember Taft being referred to as that staunch conservative. Ike ran just to prevent someone like Taft from bringing America back into the Isolationist mode. So yes I plead guilty to that. My perspective of conservatism was defined back in my day, not today which I really do not understand today’s so called conservatism one bit. For me, I do not know what it is, but it is not conservatism or the conservative values I grew up with. Perhaps new or neo-conservatism as I suppose words change over time and what certain words meant when I grew up have entirely new meanings today.

Taft really isn't the epitome of conservatism unless one ignores the Constitution and its limitations on government, and imagine that government's job is to make society in its image, no matter the the side doing it. Taft was promoted to candidacy by Theodore Roosevelt, who pushed to move the Republican party to Progressivism, and whose 'square deal' involved government dictation of society from corporations, to consumerism, to conservation. Taft continued this Progressivist outlook with those previous ideas, and also strengthening the Interstate Commerce Commission, when government's only power over interstate commerce was to "regulate" or make it "regular" and prohibit imbalances that would cause strife between states, and not to police interstate commerce, and ply it with regulations and taxation! It is no coincidence that an enormous spurt of amendments to the Constitution began under Progressivist Taft and continuing under the even more Progressive Wilson, with these including 16th Amendment tax on income, 17th Amendment direct election of Senators undermining state sovereignty and control of the government, 18th Amendment Prohibition, and 19th Amendment women's suffrage.

Incidentally, Isolationism is not a fundemantal of conservatism to anyone but Libertarians. Jeffersion tried that Isolationism with the Barbary Pirates, attempting to bribe them to prevent their attacks, and then eventually engaged the First Barbary War, and commissioned the first ships in the U.S. Navy to do so. At least you called it "Isolationism", rather than "non-interventionism".

Yeah, Taft really isn't any sort of totem for Conservatism.

I have never before been referred to as a Libertarian, but if you think that is what I am, fine as it doesn’t bother me. The same could be said about you and the conservative label. But perhaps that is the problem; we all try to place labels on things, people. Where I stand I make up my mind one issue at a time and I do not care where a particular party or individual stands on that issue, my stance or view is made by me, not a political party, not by another person or movement or anything else. I have been called conservative, liberal, right wing, left wing, a racist as recently as yesterday, a bigot, once even a socialist and a gun nut. Much more have I been called, but those names should be unprintable in a public forum. I really don’t mind what someone calls me. I will be with you on some issues and against you on some, I think this tends to get those die hard partisans of the political parties and ideologies pretty peeved. But that is life.

I did not mean to say you were a Libertarian but that you evidence Libertarian arguments. I have not actually stated what ideology you evince, except to indicate in embraces Progressivist ideology. You're welcome to try to argue that I'm in any way Libertarian; good luck with that.

My point specifically was to not award people with any sort of ideological authority, as such is laziness of thought, and analysis.

I hate PC and I don’t practice it one bit and I never understood what a hate crime was. Either you kill someone or you don’t. I am very much against gerrymandering of districts for house races, for that reason I am against minority districts also, because all you are doing is jury rigging an election, choosing a winner before the first vote is cast. Hang around and watch some of my posts, you will find that I am all over the place. I think what I am not is an ideologue. I believe politics is the art of the possible. I believe the constitution was written in pretty plain English and I find a lot of the verdicts of the SCOTUS, pretty much going against that plain English. Social Justice, isn’t that treating each individual equal according to each individual character and deserving? I do not believe any individual should be discriminated on the based of race, sex or religion or even political ideology.

Now if I missed anything let me know, I read George Orwell 1984, good book.

Legitimate politics in this country is constraint to the Constitution's limits. The reality of politics is that it is the corruption of those Constraints to make any sort of tyranny possible, and appear reasonable.

Social Justice is actually elevating an individual's position, or minority status, above the equal application of the rule of law, giving us the "wizened Latina" of Sotomayor, allowing her 'insight' to corrupt her judgements with factors that are unrelated to the facts under the law. The result of this ideology is the Orwellian rule that "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". And when men can no longer rely on the equal application of the rule of law, then they take the law into their own hands. Welcome to the fruits of progressivism.

 

[Perotista]

Even here in practically the same breath after claiming you're not affected by the MSM and progressive agenda, you voice the belief that the "state" has any legitimate authority to engineer society, when that state clearly has no original authority over what constitutes marriage, and the only "state level" determining anything is the decree of state legislatures and judiciaries. You've bought into progressivist statism, hook, line, and sinker.

And really that gays make good soldiers, which is irrelevant, or that a Thai culture might recognize three genders when there are clearly only two, only shows your embrace of Progressive thought.




Taft really isn't the epitome of conservatism unless one ignores the Constitution and its limitations on government, and imagine that government's job is to make society in its image, no matter the the side doing it. Taft was promoted to candidacy by Theodore Roosevelt, who pushed to move the Republican party to Progressivism, and whose 'square deal' involved government dictation of society from corporations, to consumerism, to conservation. Taft continued this Progressivist outlook with those previous ideas, and also strengthening the Interstate Commerce Commission, when government's only power over interstate commerce was to "regulate" or make it "regular" and prohibit imbalances that would cause strife between states, and not to police interstate commerce, and ply it with regulations and taxation! It is no coincidence that an enormous spurt of amendments to the Constitution began under Progressivist Taft and continuing under the even more Progressive Wilson, with these including 16th Amendment tax on income, 17th Amendment direct election of Senators undermining state sovereignty and control of the government, 18th Amendment Prohibition, and 19th Amendment women's suffrage.

Incidentally, Isolationism is not a fundemantal of conservatism to anyone but Libertarians. Jeffersion tried that Isolationism with the Barbary Pirates, attempting to bribe them to prevent their attacks, and then eventually engaged the First Barbary War, and commissioned the first ships in the U.S. Navy to do so. At least you called it "Isolationism", rather than "non-interventionism".

Yeah, Taft really isn't any sort of totem for Conservatism.




I did not mean to say you were a Libertarian but that you evidence Libertarian arguments. I have not actually stated what ideology you evince, except to indicate in embraces Progressivist ideology. You're welcome to try to argue that I'm in any way Libertarian; good luck with that.

My point specifically was to not award people with any sort of ideological authority, as such is laziness of thought, and analysis.




Legitimate politics in this country is constraint to the Constitution's limits. The reality of politics is that it is the corruption of those Constraints to make any sort of tyranny possible, and appear reasonable.

Social Justice is actually elevating an individual's position, or minority status, above the equal application of the rule of law, giving us the "wizened Latina" of Sotomayor, allowing her 'insight' to corrupt her judgements with factors that are unrelated to the facts under the law. The result of this ideology is the Orwellian rule that "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". And when men can no longer rely on the equal application of the rule of law, then they take the law into their own hands. Welcome to the fruits of progressivism.

Wrong Taft, I was talking about William Howard Taft, the senator from Ohio in 1952 challenging Eisenhower. Not his daddy which was the one you referred to. I am not that old. I suppose the important thing is I am comfortable in my skin and am who I am. Perhaps I do have today’s libertarian traits, I never thought about it much. Also a man is basically the sum of his experiences and that is true for me. My basic political beliefs came from Goldwater and more recently Perot added a bunch.

But as far as some being more equal than others, it has always been that way. Some being exempt form the very laws they pass even. Perhaps the torch of rebellion or correction or what ever is to be carried by the young. Has the government grown too big, no doubt about it. Do I wish we could go back to the size and scope of government we had back in the 1950’s? Sure I do. But that is not reality. Back then Washington D.C. might as well been on Mars for all the influence they had in peoples daily lives. Today it is just the opposite, Washington D.C. can’t take a breath without influences the people’s daily lives, but this is what the people want. They basically have traded individual freedom, liberty if you will for security. Charity use to begin at home, someone lost a job, had a barn hit by a tornado, family friends, neighbors etc, would come and help, they would help with their time, their energy and their money. Today, charity and help is sending an individual down to the nearest federal office which their help is paid for by the taxpayer.

If you think you can change this, more power to you my friend.