When Progressive Liberals Write What the GOP Should Be

[Fiddytree]

Has anyone noticed the odd amount of articles written by self-described progressive liberals who vote for Obama speaking about how the GOP needs to adopt one platform or another?

I'm sure that rubs some conservatives the wrong way.

 

[Renae]

Has anyone noticed the odd amount of articles written by self-described progressive liberals who vote for Obama speaking about how the GOP needs to adopt one platform or another?

I'm sure that rubs some conservatives the wrong way.

The smart ones laugh at this. "Hey, we think your wrong on everything, but in order to win and be a good party, you must do this!"

It's hilarity to read.

 

[jamesrage]

If one party is trying to be like the other then how is that a choice? If anything it is cause republicans to go extinct, why vote for a republican lib when there is a democrat lib.

 

[Orion]

It's important to remember that both parties embody a full spectrum of viewpoints and leans depending on what state you are looking at. In a similar thread, I posted a graph showing "liberal" leaning politicians from the GOP and "conservative" leaning politicians in the Dems. Just because your personal views tend to be left-leaning does not mean you can't relate to aspects of the GOP, for example.

For instance, I know quite a few people who are social liberals but fiscal conservatives, and thus they tend to vote for moderates in either party depending on who has the best pitch.

So yeah, it makes perfect sense that a liberal could critique the structure of the GOP, as there are bipartisan elements to both parties.

 

[Strucky]

I'm sure that rubs some conservatives the wrong way.

Your damn straight it rubs the wrong way.

 

[Whip Comes Down]

Since republicans despise government, why not just stay out of politics all together?

 

[Ockham]

Correct - Republicans don't hate government --- some libertarians may, some conservatives might too. Second, it takes people to put restraints on government which is what the Constitution... (remember the Constitution... this is a post about the Constitution ...) that the Constitution addresses. One has to be involved in government in order to keep government from bloating and spreading as a virus does. Which is what is happening now. How can one kill the virus if one isn't involved?

Kind of a silly question don't you think?

 

[Strucky]

Since republicans despise government, why not just stay out of politics all together?

:shock: And let the Liberals rule unchecked?I dont think so.

 

[obvious Child]

Has anyone noticed the odd amount of articles written by self-described progressive liberals who vote for Obama speaking about how the GOP needs to adopt one platform or another?

Who are these self proclaimed progressive liberals?

I'm sure I don't need to remind you that many so called conservatives here know very little about the actual ideology.

The fundamental problem with conservatism in government is the pillars of conservatism. On one hand you have social conservative and the other fiscal/governmental/economic conservatism. The fiscal section calls for smaller government and less intervention. That's all good and well and typically wins elections on a country wide scale. Except that fiscal conservatism is inherently at war with social conservatism. Social Conservatism as we saw with the all Republican years promotes massive government, intervention into private lives and pretty much the abandonment of fiscal conservatism. In a way, Neoconservatism works well in ideological balance because fiscally liberal policies work well with socially conservative policies. They aren't in an internal struggle. Socially progressive liberal policies also work well with fiscally liberal policies.

It will be interesting to watch how the GOP balances the internal conflict. As many posters on this forum has stated, the GOP has lost its way because it unbalanced the pillars. A moderate social conservative policies can stay in balance with fiscally conservative policies. that creates somewhat of a problem as the GOP base is typically strongly socially conservative. In many ways, that is the reason the GOP has lost libertarians in droves.

 

[Renae]

No, that doesn't make any sense at all. How can you say that?

 

[Fiddytree]

Who are these self proclaimed progressive liberals?

I'm sure I don't need to remind you that many so called conservatives here know very little about the actual ideology.

The fundamental problem with conservatism in government is the pillars of conservatism. On one hand you have social conservative and the other fiscal/governmental/economic conservatism. The fiscal section calls for smaller government and less intervention. That's all good and well and typically wins elections on a country wide scale. Except that fiscal conservatism is inherently at war with social conservatism. Social Conservatism as we saw with the all Republican years promotes massive government, intervention into private lives and pretty much the abandonment of fiscal conservatism. In a way, Neoconservatism works well in ideological balance because fiscally liberal policies work well with socially conservative policies. They aren't in an internal struggle. Socially progressive liberal policies also work well with fiscally liberal policies.

It will be interesting to watch how the GOP balances the internal conflict. As many posters on this forum has stated, the GOP has lost its way because it unbalanced the pillars. A moderate social conservative policies can stay in balance with fiscally conservative policies. that creates somewhat of a problem as the GOP base is typically strongly socially conservative. In many ways, that is the reason the GOP has lost libertarians in droves.

Dione, for one. I object to the idea that Neoconservatism works well with social conservatism, because, well, what primary source confessions we have thus far shows a spotty record on that front-with some allying themselves with social conservatives, and others confused as to how they become linked to them by virtue of their designation.

For whatever it is worth, liberals seated in the Democratic party in one fashion or another, take great interest into what the message of the Republican party is going to be. The recent trend has been to promote Ron Paulism, or if you will, paleoconservative or the somewhat related (but ultimately distinct) libertarianism. The goal is stated as serving the people well by having distinctions between the parties, or the author promotes the so-called pragmatic notions of government's abilities (particularly in foreign affairs). However, it becomes clear that, really, it is kind of a disingenuous argument of respect and nonpartisanship, so as to attack one group or another that is currently holding the reigns of power. Promote the old, bash the new.

 

[the makeout hobo]

Dione, for one. I object to the idea that Neoconservatism works well with social conservatism, because, well, what primary source confessions we have thus far shows a spotty record on that front-with some allying themselves with social conservatives, and others confused as to how they become linked to them by virtue of their designation.

For whatever it is worth, liberals seated in the Democratic party in one fashion or another, take great interest into what the message of the Republican party is going to be. The recent trend has been to promote Ron Paulism, or if you will, paleoconservative or the somewhat related (but ultimately distinct) libertarianism. The goal is stated as serving the people well by having distinctions between the parties, or the author promotes the so-called pragmatic notions of government's abilities (particularly in foreign affairs). However, it becomes clear that, really, it is kind of a disingenuous argument of respect and nonpartisanship, so as to attack one group or another that is currently holding the reigns of power. Promote the old, bash the new.

Don't self-described conservatives write articles about what Liberals should do?

 

[Ockham]

Don't self-described conservatives write articles about what Liberals should do?

I don't know -- do you have an example?

 

[the makeout hobo]

I don't know -- do you have an example?

Any article by a conservative telling Obama what to do... would that count?

 

[liblady]

Who are these self proclaimed progressive liberals?

I'm sure I don't need to remind you that many so called conservatives here know very little about the actual ideology.

The fundamental problem with conservatism in government is the pillars of conservatism. On one hand you have social conservative and the other fiscal/governmental/economic conservatism. The fiscal section calls for smaller government and less intervention. That's all good and well and typically wins elections on a country wide scale. Except that fiscal conservatism is inherently at war with social conservatism. Social Conservatism as we saw with the all Republican years promotes massive government, intervention into private lives and pretty much the abandonment of fiscal conservatism. In a way, Neoconservatism works well in ideological balance because fiscally liberal policies work well with socially conservative policies. They aren't in an internal struggle. Socially progressive liberal policies also work well with fiscally liberal policies.

It will be interesting to watch how the GOP balances the internal conflict. As many posters on this forum has stated, the GOP has lost its way because it unbalanced the pillars. A moderate social conservative policies can stay in balance with fiscally conservative policies. that creates somewhat of a problem as the GOP base is typically strongly socially conservative. In many ways, that is the reason the GOP has lost libertarians in droves.

until the gop really comes to terms with the diverse make up of our country, they will continue to struggle. that's a shame, because i think we do need checks and balances.

 

[Renae]

until the gop really comes to terms with the diverse make up of our country, they will continue to struggle. that's a shame, because i think we do need checks and balances.

LIAR.

Your party has some of the most hard left partisans in government in charge, and I don't see you saying the DNC needs to reach out, to moderate.

 

[Ockham]

LIAR.

Your party has some of the most hard left partisans in government in charge, and I don't see you saying the DNC needs to reach out, to moderate.

Well, that's the benefit of being a Democrat - they get to have the percieved double standard: The Democrats always request Republicans to moderate their position, but never moderate their own position when the roles are reversed. And to some extent, that tactic has been, over time, successful because many Republicans are "Liberal lite", and to some extent a good portion of our society thinks that moderation is a good thing but only hear about it in that double standard.

I think to some extent the invention or re-invention of the Yellow Dogs as "blue dog" Democrats has tried to soften that view of the double standard. But we see that in the Health Care bill, 54% of blue dog Democrats voted for the bill giving Pelosi who is as far left as one can get, just enough votes to pass the bill.

Then people think this double standard is a GOOD thing, and that politicians should be more MODERATE, only because most people don't have the time, interest or dedication to really looking at all these things like a political junkie does.

 

[obvious Child]

Dione, for one. I object to the idea that Neoconservatism works well with social conservatism, because, well, what primary source confessions we have thus far shows a spotty record on that front-with some allying themselves with social conservatives, and others confused as to how they become linked to them by virtue of their designation.

Perhaps. I'd agree that hard core American social cons got the raw end of the deal with Bush. But we did see the expansion of government into private lives and morality under a Neoconservative regime. When the federal government gets involved in a strictly private family matter, I think it's hard to argue that they don't work together. In many ways, Bush co-opted social cons and then failed them on many of their dear to heart ideas.

Still, fiscal and social are inherently in a tug of war.

For whatever it is worth, liberals seated in the Democratic party in one fashion or another, take great interest into what the message of the Republican party is going to be.

As does the GOP about what the Democratic party will say.

The recent trend has been to promote Ron Paulism, or if you will, paleoconservative or the somewhat related (but ultimately distinct) libertarianism. The goal is stated as serving the people well by having distinctions between the parties, or the author promotes the so-called pragmatic notions of government's abilities (particularly in foreign affairs). However, it becomes clear that, really, it is kind of a disingenuous argument of respect and nonpartisanship, so as to attack one group or another that is currently holding the reigns of power. Promote the old, bash the new.

Perhaps, but you do have to recognize that a large number of former Republicans are saying the same thing.

 

[the makeout hobo]

Just to be sure, people are claiming that the right doesn't do this, right?

 

[Renae]

Just to be sure, people are claiming that the right doesn't do this, right?

Is the thread about what the Right does or what the Liberals have been doing?

 

[Orion]

Is the thread about what the Right does or what the Liberals have been doing?

His point is a valid one. Both sides make structural analysis of their opposing party all the time. It's not fair to focus on one side while omitting the other.

I do think it's mainly the hyperpartisans that engage in such analysis though. As I said earlier, both parties encompass a diverse range of views falling under the same banner. Making blanket statements for either party tends to not pan out.

 

[Strucky]

Any article by a conservative telling Obama what to do... would that count?

No,it's different.....When Conservatives write articles telling Obama what to do,they do it because they know his policies are bad for America.

When Liberals write articles telling Conservatives how to attract more voters,they do so knowing that compromising Conservative values will drive away the party base .

 

[the makeout hobo]

No,it's different.....When Conservatives write articles telling Obama what to do,they do it because they know his policies are bad for America.

When Liberals write articles telling Conservatives how to attract more voters,they do so knowing that compromising Conservative values will drive away the party base .

Just to make sure I have this right: your side is just and righteous, and the other side is wily snakes. Right?

So when conservatives wrote op-eds describing how liberals should attract more voters, were they legitimately trying to help liberals get more votes?

 

[Strucky]

Just to make sure I have this right: your side is just and righteous, and the other side is wily snakes. Right?

Wrong,I never said such a thing.

So when conservatives wrote op-eds describing how liberals should attract more voters, were they legitimately trying to help liberals get more votes?

Conservatives are NOT describing how Obama should attract more voters....They are describing how Obama's policies are bad for our economy and nation.

When Republicans were in power the opposite happened.Republicans were lecturing Democrats on how to attract more voters and the Democrats were describing why they felt Bush's policies were bad.

I guess I could've been a tad bit more descriptive of what I was talking about,for that I apologize.

 

[the makeout hobo]

Wrong,I never said such a thing.



Conservatives are NOT describing how Obama should attract more voters....They are describing how Obama's policies are bad for our economy and nation.

When Republicans were in power the opposite happened.Republicans were lecturing Democrats on how to attract more voters and the Democrats were describing why they felt Bush's policies were bad.

I guess I could've been a tad bit more descriptive of what I was talking about,for that I apologize.

What's the difference between Dems lecturing Republicans now, and Vice versa a few years back?