Fenian's Rainbow

Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

Look, I don't want to wast time with you today on stupid stuff, but you would be wrong about that, or more precisely at best it is unclear & you need twisted logic (read political propaganda) to get the definition you are trying to arrive at.

There is a strong element within liberal academia & pol scientists that try to label all "good" political progress as "liberal" and all resistance as "conservative". This is a garbage definition that is based on one simple dictionary version of the words

Liberal = more open to change
Conservative = resists change

That is all fine and well when talking about say investing policies or something but those defs break down quickly when discussing political philosophies.

Without getting over involved here the terms "liberal" or "conservative" stand mostly for a set of values and platforms & the ideology that underpins them.

Thus, Liberalism is typically most closely related to populism, socialism, communism, and totalitarianism (dictatorships & fascism (yes both on the left). Why? well even though some versions of the liberal philosophy seem appealing and empowering to most people at the end they all wind up enforcing such beliefs via a strong central government. So, strong that individual liberty goes out the window. In the more extreme cases (communism, totalitarianism) it was never there to begin with.

Conservatism and Republicanism can best be summarized by one word - freedom.

It is this individual liberty that all human beings are born with a right to.

This is what Lincoln stood for by freeing the slaves and what the party still stands for today.

This is also why real conservative Republicans are closely aligned (or "next door to") Libertarians.

I could go on into a much deeper discussion of our principals and why a Republic is a better form of government then pure democracy (that often can devolve into mob rule)

But, I think these articles may be beneficial to you and provide a path to a more productive discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party

http://www.gop.com/About/AboutRead.aspx?AboutType=3

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/ideology.htm

http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/polsp.html

Honestly, it is pretty sad that many people on the left have not read these or been informed about the Republican Part's true history and platforms. I grew up in a solidly democratic household with my father being big time involved in Dem politics. So, I am familiar with those.

Did you know that the Rep party was the first to offer freedom and voting to the slaves and pushed Women's right to vote as well.

It is a plain fact that you cannot have political freedom without economic freedom. I am for maximizing both. Thomas Jefferson recognized the same, but somehow the modern Democratic party has lost is way with its efforts to redistribute wealth and guarantee results. It is a laudable goal to help people, but when you do so at the expense of freedom, and productivity for all it becomes counterproductive and unjust.

The true conservative Republicans, we are for freedom, liberty, and equality and those are the values that all people are born with the right to enjoy.

John D. Villarreal.

 

Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

That sentence alone disqualifies you as a political pundit.

What, did you cut and paste from "Libertarianism for Dummies"?

Geesh .

 

Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

Just out of curiosity, I'd like to know what R's you've ever supported in an election. And I don't mean that to embarrass you. If you're a Democrat, you're a Democrat. You don't have to act like you actually consider Republicans.

 

Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

In Massachusetts, I voted for Republicans for governor several times, including Frank Sargent and Frank Hatch. For POTUS, I voted for Ford in 1976 and for John Anderson in 1980 ( I know he was running as an independent, but he was a R.)

 

Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

Look, JR I am trying not to drop more resume but I have a degree in Pol Sci & know this stuff & we don't need to get back to the insults.

Here is the deal - some would put fascism on the right, but that is not correct (or certainly debatable).

Again, without getting way complicated the point is the following:

1.) I did not say liberalism = communism, etc. but rather is closer to those systems

Why?

2.) Because ultimately many liberal policies (social security, universal health care, progressive tax codes, regulation (environmental, etc.) require state control. It is a matter of degree the more state control the more power the gov has and the less the individual has.

(important note: pol parties do not always overlap with "left" "right" ideologies)

Anyway, communism, fascism, dictatorships, etc. are really all different flavors of totalitarianism (very strong state control) Communist China & the former Soviet Union were supposed to be workers paradises & populist havens - how did those turn out?

Similarly Chavez's virtual dictatorship in Venezuela or Hitler's Nazi Germany (that evolved from the socialist Brown Shirts) all wind up in the same place - strong state control. It is a virtual necessity for those systems to exist.

We should be able to agree on this - it is fairly straightforward.

Now that being said we do need a certain amount of government and there is no 100% freedom. Some rights & freedom needs to be sacrificed in order to live in a mutually beneficial society.

The question then becomes where do you draw the line?

I seek a system that gives up as little freedoms & liberty as possible while maximizing the marginal value of benefits for all. As well as I can read it that is traditional conservative values that is friendly with (but doesn't cross over to) Libertarianism.

For those of you scoring at home - we are a long ways from that now.

Government gets bigger each year
The budget increases
The deficit mounts
Regulation increases
Ok Taxes are getting better
Liberties have been threatened (although, yes we are at war, but we need to be careful here)

Over all we have some tuning up to do to get back to the principals of what this country was founded on and makes it great for everyone.

John

 

Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

OK, now tell me why you didn't like the Peanut Farmer so much. I'm intrigued.

 

Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

Whatever school gave you a degree wants it back.

 

Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

Not to mention that he's confusing completely unrelated things.

In poli sci 101, they teach you that most plot the political spectrum on a grid, with left to right on one axis and authoritarian and libertarian on the other.

Like this




His simplistic analysis that liberalism=government control=facism would get him laughed out of any political science department in the country.

But hey, whatever.

 

Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

By that logic, Hitler was a liberal.

Yep.

Sure.

 

Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

Jack -- In '75-'76, I worked for Mo Udall throughout the primaries and was still carrying a grudge. In '80, I actually liked what Anderson was saying and thought him the last chance to keep the R's out of the hands of the crazy people.

 

Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

What party was Hitler a member of?

Socialist (Brown Shirts) - yeah that is what I thought. Go learn some history as opposed to an all-to-frequent basic liberal syllogism

All conservatives = bad/evil, Hitler was bad, thus Hitler = right wing...uh no.

How about Stalin? Chairman Mao? Ho Chi Min? Hugo Chavez? Castro? Kind of a familiar theme isn't it?

BW - I sated clearly that Republican and Democrats (especially any particular admin) does not always equal or stand for a certain ideology. Pretty basic. For instance in the Rep party there are some "values voters" that want to impose their views on morality on others, traditional conservative values are against that, as am I.

Zeke, thanks for the meaningless insults and inability to deal with my reasoning, facts & articles provided.

In any event, your wrong on the Pol Sci 101 thing & your pol spectrum chart is wrong - or more specifically there are lots of charts/grids floating around out there of many varieties. That is not a widely accepted one, particularly where many of those leaders are graphed.

Your so lazy, I found that chart on a quick Google search as well & quickly recognized its irrelevance and kept working on getting something that had value AND was generally accepted. I believe It also comes from a fairly left wing site/organization. Multidimensional plots may become more widely accepted in the future but you have to pick the correct model & related variants (which is one of the big problems).

Anyway, these obfuscations and weak attempts at "Jedi mind tricks" won't work. It does not matter anyway which "model" you use - what you stand for and what are the natural consequences of those choices is what matters (calling it certain names "progressive" or using certain models does not change the facts of what it is & the results & side-effects it produces).

The truth is not too hard to find.

The bottom line is you want people to be free and do their own thing...or you want to control them in some way. No matter what you call it (liberal, "progressive, etc), it all comes down to that.

My question is why do you trust government more than the people?

Why do you want to take our liberty away?

Why do you want to control other people?

For whatever "good" cause or reason you come up with I don't think that is just.

Anyway, look...whatever dude - like I said I can't go around and around with you here - figure it out

But be clear, I am not apologist for the Rep party or any admin but rather a strong believer in certain core conservative/libertarian principals & can articulate why those are best for all.

John

 

Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

Yes, liberty and freedom, John. Those are two good words that come from a party which passed a law that violates almost every civil liberty upon which this country was founded. That makes perfect sense to me. :