Differences Between Conservatives and Liberals

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by REASON

This is exactly why I became an Independent. I refuse to align myself with any political party, and I will support the benefits and reject failures of all as I see them.


I believe there is a disconnect as to what it actually means to have a Liberal or Conservative viewpoint in our society.

Let's explore it.

Question:

Is the desire to drill for oil in ANWR conservative or liberal ideology?

Or how about the desire to protect our National Parks and National Forrests, conservative or liberal?

I'm not sure how to respond to this, i truly think we need to drill in ANWR but only if we can do it with a reasonable expectation of no oil spills or damage to wild life. I think the preservation of national forests should be the ideal of all political parties. Short term profits by destroying long term resources is stupid. This would seem to indicate a Conservative issue at least to me but these days it seems the Conservatives are all about short term profits at any cost. Both sides are about gaining power, basically power to tell others what to do. Personally I think both these issues are too important to allow either side to have power over them.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

I'm not sure how to respond to this, i truly think we need to drill in ANWR but only if we can do it with a reasonable expectation of no oil spills or damage to wild life. I think the preservation of national forests should be the ideal of all political parties. Short term profits by destroying long term resources is stupid. This would seem to indicate a Conservative issue at least to me but these days it seems the Conservatives are all about short term profits at any cost. Both sides are about gaining power, basically power to tell others what to do. Personally I think both these issues are too important to allow either side to have power over them.

My goal with the questions is to initiate a discussion on what it actually means to have a liberal or conservative viewpoint because I believe the labels are misused to create a false sense of segregation in our society.

I would argue that the desire to drill in ANWR would represent a liberal approach because it represents a significant change in policy, and the desire to protect National Parks, Forests, and Wildlife Refuges is conservative because it resists a change in policy and attempts to maintain an established tradition or approach.

I don't believe this is consistent with our perceptions because on this issue, the so called conservatives are the ones pressing for change and the so called liberals are resisting change.

I know this is a general perspective, but upon consideration, there are actually many instances like this one in the world of politics. The labels have become a way to classify and demonize those with differing positions or values. But I find that they are often misapplied.

[questor]

This is a true statement..

What if the Reps feather their nest just like the Dems?
What if the correct statement is: "The Congress feathers its nests."

I believe an even more descriptive statement is... Whenever people gather as an interest group, they eventually learn to game the system to line their pockets/resumes, etc.

[questor]

The compromises reached between the Dems and Repubs allow the congress to continue doing business, but they also compromise someone's true beliefs.
No one is correct all the time, but all too often bipartisanship means the Repub loses the battle. Examples: no drilling in ANWR FOR YEARS. Now we will drill over two years down the road. Failing education system. Headed by National Education Association, a group oof liberals seemingly acting as a PAC for the Dems. They fight merit pay and support tenure for incompetants. The USA ranks 18!!! in developed nations. They don't seem to have a clue how to run a school. The US government. A giant welfare system where one can be totally incompetent with no fear of being fired. Oversight always occurs after the crime, never before or during. Big government is not a conservative idea, and please don't mention Bush, he follows liberal principles more than conservative ones. more later..

[Pyrotex]

The most consistent set of definitions for Conservative & Liberal--definitions that have remained mostly consistent for a century or so--are these:

Conservatives honor tradition and the past. They hold to principles of personal and financial responsibility, loyalty and honor. To them, a promise is a promise. They are proud proponents of a strong defense, and protectionism of hearth, home and personal freedom. They have a strong tendency to resist change, and often accompanied by an inability to see that the World around them is changing. Conservatives make excellent business leaders, and expect their children to follow in their footsteps. They are frequently uncomfortable around people who do not share their viewpoiints.

Liberals honor progress, justice, equality and tolerance. Liberals are often those who have suffered or witnessed oppression, intolerance, injustice or poverty at first hand. They have little problem with changing a tradition if they see that this might improve the future. They value many of the core personal liberties that Conservatives do, but feel strongly that these liberties should be available to everyone if possible. Liberals are usually quite adaptive and able to deal with change creatively and confidently. They tend to be comfortable around a wide diversity of people and personalities. Liberals tend to have excellent educations and make good teachers. But they are frequently too optimistic about their abilities to improve the future, underestimate the cost of their changes, and often have a rose-colored view of human nature.

These definitions do not reflect our current separation of Republican and Democrat. As far back as we have detailed written histories, we see that humanity has almost always split into these two great stereotypes--those who want to continue the past into the future, and those who want to experiment with a new kind of future.

Who should rule? Both. Absolutely and unequivocally BOTH.
But NOT at the same time.

Conservatives rule best (typically--but no guarantee) when changes in the World are small or at least constant. They can also be good at managing wars, though they are greatly tempted to conquest. When the economy is smooth, they can be relied on to keep the wheels humming, though they are greatly tempted to greed.

Liberals rule best (typically--no guarantee) when great changes, especially great social and economic changes are shaking the World to its foundation. When the peasants rise in revolt. They are the ones who institute the sharp-angled bends in History, using the pen rather than the sword. Sometimes, however, their experiments with the future carry heavy costs and consequences.

The only REAL point of arguement (IMHO) is simply this: Is this a time in History when we need to hold fast to the traditions of our grandfathers? Or is this a time when great shifts are afoot and we need to jump in order to adapt and thrive?

My personal opinion is that our economic "sins" of the last decade have altered the financial landscape so badly that we must change with them, adapt to a new landscape--or face an unbearable future. The Earth has shifted and we must shift with it. Therefore, THIS is a good time to put a Liberal in charge. Liberals know how to handle change.

And when the dust settles in a decade or so, it will be a good time to vote the Conservatives back in. I hope. If they're real Conservatives.

[questor]

Since the business of business has been around for thousands of years, certain practices have proved to work in all societies and in all circumstances. For a few examples consider; educating yourself in your work, offering a good product, being honest in your dealings, showing up for work on time, standing behind your work, dealing fairly with your employees, and exhibiting personal responsibility These are just a few customs that lead to success. These customs do not need to be re-invented every year. They have worked for centuries and still work today. I think one problem certain people have is the inability to understand cause and effect, therefore they are constantly looking for a better (different) way to solve problems. This leads to social experimentation such as The Great Society. political correctness, and our current financial meltdown, which was an attempt to let unqualified people enjoy home ownership.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by questor

Since the business of business has been around for thousands of years, certain practices have proved to work in all societies and in all circumstances. ... which was an attempt to let unqualified people enjoy home ownership.

questor, questor, questor...

as usual, you start off so good, so intelligent, and then you descend into tiresome twaddle.

You are absolutely CORRECT in your listing of good business practices. Amen and rat own! But...

But nobody is trying to change those business practices. Hello? They are still in force today. People still have to show up for work on time. If you disagree with this, then by all means, show me any evidence that those bad ol' Liberals have ever tried to pass a law making it an acceptable business practice to show up late for work, or lie on their time card.

There are any number of excellent sources of "timelines" for our current economic crisis. Please take a look at a few of them. CNN has a good one, there are others. Try to understand the following facts:

Congress was not trying to get the poor and the shiftless into homes they couldn't afford. It was folks in the commercial sector, like Ameriquest (may they be chained in hell ) and others who saw they could make a lotta fast bucks. And it was financial brokers, who deluded themselves into thinking that they could make a lotta fast bucks without risk. (Because everyone else was doing it, too). And it was some big investment banks like Lehman Brothers, who were under pressure to turn big profits and had nowhere else to invest their capital except personal real estate! Nowhere! Because interest rates were so low, that other potential investments weren't paying big enough returns.

This problem is way, way, waaaaay bigger and more complex than you describe. And what irks me, is that you, questor, are obviously smart enough to see this.

My second point begins with this question: how were these great investment banks able to sink so much of their capital, leveraged up to as much as 30-to-1, in obviously risky "paper", without [metaphor] the bartender telling them, "sorry buddy, but you've had enough. Go home and sober up."??? [/metaphor]

The answer to this question is: because back in the Clinton administration, Phil Gramm (and others) passed legislation deregulating the investment banks. Deregulation has traditionally been a Conservative keystone policy. You know, "smaller government"??? And yes, Clinton signed it, so there's egg on everyone's face.

I know you mean well, but your simplistic, jingoistic explanations for this financial crisis are not helping anyone. Me thinks you've been listening to too many conspiracy theories. Really, the world of politics and finance is very complex, but certainly within your ability to understand.

Best of luck.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by questor

...and our current financial meltdown, which was an attempt to let unqualified people enjoy home ownership.

Isn't Michele Bachmann just *brilliant*? Yep, the *only* reason that those banks made all those loans to unqualified people was because they're a bunch of bleeding-hearts who just couldn't help themselves, and wanted to do good!

Seriously, can you do more than just regurgitate *FALSE* talking points from the Republican Party?

From Michele's HOME PAPER, the Minnesota Independent:

Originally Posted by Against all reason, Bachmann and others blame 1977 fair-lending law for adding to economic crisis, Andy Birkey 9/24/08

“This is the height of chutzpah,” said Rep. Keith Ellison in a scathing statement on Tuesday. “To suggest that the greatest financial crisis we face since the Great Depression was caused by legislation that was created to help PREVENT low-income individuals from assuming high-cost, subprime loans that have caused the crisis today is absurd.”

“To suggest that struggling families trying to keep their homes brought down the ‘Titans of Commerce,’ ‘The Masters of the Universe’ on Wall Street, is ludicrous. To suggest someone who is raising three children while holding down two minimum-wage jobs on a high school education was able to stall one of the greatest economic engines on earth needs their head examined,” Ellison said.

And empirical data back Ellison’s assertion. A number of studies show that CRA has in fact decreased predatory lending in minority neighborhoods and that banks subject to CRA regulations were less likely to offer subprime loans.

Its fine to argue a conservative viewpoint, but you'll honestly be taken more seriously if your proof points aren't so easily laid waste....

Quoth Hudibras, I smell a rat; Ralpho, thou dost prevaricate,
Buffy

[questor]

Buffy, your own credibility could be enhanced if you didn't accept everything you read from liberal sources. Do you have a reason to reject all conservative input? This latest problem was initially started by an attempt to increase home ownership among the disadvantaged. It has civil rights roots starting back to 1968.

There were victories in civil rights in 1968. Protests about fair housing led to the Fair Housing Act of 1968 that allowed open housing for people of all races. President Johnson's answer to King's assassination was the Civil Rights Act of 1968, an amendment to the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. It focused on one of the most important aspects of a free society: It prohibited discrimination based on race, religion or national origin in the sale, rental, financing, or advertising of housing.

This led to elimination of any type discrimination for almost any reason. It started to increase the demands to provide low cost housing for the underprivileged. Builders were forced to set aside certain sections of communities for low cost housing in order to get zoning permits. With congress deregulating certain banking activities and congress pushing to have more low cost housing, the unregulated lenders devised ways to package loans to take advantage of this laxity. There is blame here for everyone and the hands of congress are not clean. The underprivileged did not have houses before this, and they won't have houses now. If they put down 0%, which many did, they could walk away and it's the lender who loses. They can go back to renting as they were before. Don't try to put this on the Repubs, when the whole structure of this debacle was caused by trying to subvert normal market forces. The underlying theme of this was to transfer assets to underprivileged people who were also unqualified to afford the payment. While this may be an altruistic goal, it just didn't work.

[Essay]

Questor, in post #45 I asked:

Originally Posted by Essay

Are you assigning blame to the decades old practice of helping the poor, and not to the recent Phil Graham sponsored deregulation of those old practices?

I realize it was Dem & Rep legislation that allowed the financial wizards to get so incredibly creative with that basic asset, but c'mon.... I think blaming this on the poor (or attempts to help them) is fairly lame.

Speculation, leveraging, bubbles, slashing regulations and hampering regulators....

Is this the 6th or 7th time that we've repeated this in our economy's history (mortgage-based speculation)?

Thanks,
~