Go to What the Hell is a "Liberal" or "Conservative" ???
- Add a comment
- Go to Give Me Some Help Here
Mysteria
If you do not see yourself belonging to any political or cultural group, then you are free to take the best ideas of all of them.
But once you select those ideas, you must act on them. We are free until we choose, then our freedom ends. Then comes the commitment and the responsibility, the drudgery and the frustration. Perhaps you are reluctant to let go of the freedom.
Freedom is of no value unless we use it to choose, but in choosing we lose the freedom we cherished. The irony is maddening. Such is life, but it is better than the alternative.
As far as solipsism goes, are you imagining me, or am I imagining you? LOL
posted by
GoldenMean
on
December 13, 2004
at
10:11 PM
| |
reply
GoldenMean I am enjoying this discussion
As far as any useful input, I am really at a loss. I am like unicorn in that I really only know one thing and that is that I am an earth creature. I fail in decision and have never been one to follow any lead, trend, or much else. Especially not exclusively. I would not say I am an anachist, I just don't buy anything. It seems to me that all of the to and fro, here and there, this and that, he said she said, is just a way that people distract themselves from the really burning questions. Or as Rove points out, a psuedo sense of belonging, accomplishment, or purpose. Great analogy with the angels on the head of a pin BTW.
I once was very clear on a lot of issues. Things made a lot more sense before I came to be so distracted. When I close my eyes I see myself as very separate from this world. All I can do really is watch, learn, observe, speculate, accumulate, and wonder. Which brings me back to mystery and awe in this great classroom I see clearly defined in solipsism. Thank you teacher 
. Tis much goodness I find. mysteria
posted by
mysteria
on
December 11, 2004
at
9:15 PM
| |
reply
Norseman,
TRUE liberals are for small government. The whole point of my previous post was that Americans misuse the terms! I study political ideology for my degree so I do know what I'm talking about. When you speak of liberals in America you often really mean socialists. Liberals and socialists are entirely different!
posted by
tomcopley
on
December 8, 2004
at
5:54 AM
| |
reply
Good point
We get so wrapped up with agendas and hidden meanings, we forget what the words literally mean. As for liberalism being generally a trait of the young, I think there is some truth to that. There is a quote from Winston Churchill to the effect that
When we are young, if we are not liberal, we do not have a heart.
When we are older, if we are not conservative, we do not have a brain!
That is not an exact quote.
posted by
GoldenMean
on
November 30, 2004
at
1:51 AM
| |
reply
Perhaps if we think of the words in their root meanings...
To liberate is to set free, as a horse into the wild rather than bridled, saddled, and kept in a barn at night. Of course, everyone knows that the wild horses are all caught by someone, and the owners are either good to them, or they don't know what they are doing. So, to liberate the horse may very well be to its detriment.
To conserve is to save, as one who puts aside what is necessary for a later date, store away for the winter, etc. For this reason, I always consider the conservative person to be the wiser, while the liberal person is more likely to be young and fool hardy.
posted by
TARZANA
on
November 29, 2004
at
7:48 AM
| |
reply
well, fortunately, I DON'T label myself a Christian based on what
society's view or perspective of a Christian is. My beliefs and faith are too radical for most, therefore I can't be categorized-which is a WONDERFUL thing.
There's a writer/Christian teacher friend of mine; Robert Fulgham, who got so tired of being asked during his travels across the world, "what do you do for a living?" and "what is your 'religious' doctrine?" and "what is your political view of this?" etc. etc., that he had business cards printed up to answer all of these questions; it simply says; "Robert Fulgham, Human Being"
posted by
PastorB
on
November 29, 2004
at
7:39 AM
| |
reply
Goldenmean...
You know I thought I knew what work that was from but as soon as you asked me...now I can't think of it. I have used it for so long. In my boxing gym I had it painted real big on the wall above the ring. Hmm, if I remember I will let you know. I may have to do some research now. Good, very concise comment you made there at the end by the way. I had forgotten Tomcopley was from Brittain, they have a different spin on liberals and conservatives over there I gather?
posted by
A_Norseman
on
November 29, 2004
at
12:34 AM
| |
reply
Norseman
I really like that favorite quote you have on your "About Me" page, by Shakespeare. Do you happen to know which of Willy's works it came from? I would like to use that quote myself, but I always like to list the exact source, if possible. Thanks.
posted by
GoldenMean
on
November 29, 2004
at
12:23 AM
| |
reply
Thanks for the new comments, all
I was wondering if this blog would attract any new attention after the 2004 elections, and sure enough it did. I almost feel like a prophet, because the liberals acted in such a predictable fashion in their reaction to losing the election. But I must direct you to another of my blogs to see this. Take note of the quote from John Stuart Mill I included in my blog
The Emerging Intolerance of Liberalism:
"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid.
I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative.
I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle
that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."
--John Stuart Mill (famous liberal philosopher), from A Letter
John Stuart Mill lived from 1806 to 1873, but his statement here could have been written in response to the 2004 election! It points to a universal, timeless viewpoint that liberals have: that they are
smarter than conservatives. This is not true. Liberals have no monopoly on intelligence. But they seem to think that they do. They will continue to lose elections as long as they have this false, elitist view of reality. I have tried to leave this warning as a comment in every liberal blog I can find that calls Bush supporters stupid, but they pay no attention. It does seem to stop some of them from being quite so rabid, though. They do not answer me directly, but they stop their current ranting in that series of comments.
Unicorn, you say you hate labels, but you embrace the Christian label, and endeavor to teach us what you mean by it. Stand by your beliefs, and do not compromise them. Strong beliefs invite labels, but labels mean nothing to truly intelligent people. That is what Tomcopley is trying to say here-- I hope Tom is not one of those Brits who asked how 58 million Americans could be so stupid as to vote for Bush. Tom is criticizing the way Americans use the terms liberal and conservative, but I do not see how liberals could be described as wanting smaller government or less taxes, or how they could be describe as anti-state control.
Liberals need governmental power to enact their intellectually superior views on the rest of us, whether we share their enlightenment or not. Liberals need tax money to uplift the oppressed and less fortunate people in society, to right the social wrongs they perceive. This liberal need for power and money rise mostly from the liberal view of responsibility and justice, as brilliantly articulated in the crucial book
A Theory of Justice by John Rawls (1971). Liberal dismiss individual responsibility to a excessive degree, and value collective responsibility to an equally excessive degree. Conservatives do just the opposite. Until both sides see the value and truth in the other side's argument, we will see no synthesis between liberal and conservative. I try to see the value and truth in both sides.
posted by
GoldenMean
on
November 28, 2004
at
11:07 PM
| |
reply
geez!!! No wonder I HATE labels! Labels suck.
I still don't know what I am, other than a human being, which in itself is a hard enough task at times, without worrying about what others want to pigeon hole me as, which can't and shouldn't be done anyway.
I'm with SCOOP on this one.
posted by
PastorB
on
November 28, 2004
at
11:49 AM
| |
reply
Goldenmean...I thought you did a good job here.
It is more than I would have attempted. The problem is that there almost as many different perspectives of this topic as there are people. I was alomost knocked out of my chair when I read Tomcopelys comment saying that liberals are for small government??? Hello??? What planet were you raised on Tom?
I am more conservative leaning than anything else, and the hallmark of conservative thought is the concept of small government and individual liberty. My parents are both democrats so we have this discussion all the time. My father was a union man and was indoctrinated into the false belief that democrats stood up for the little guy, fighting evil big business on their behalf. It may have been that way at one time, but no more. Look at all the red states...those states are filled with working men, farmers, small business people trying to make it...who did they support? But there are many dgrees of each stripe.
Some people may be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, or visa versa. I think the biggest misconception on the part of liberals is that conservatives are in general, racist and biggots. Sure the democratic party mollycoddles you for your vote if you are in a special interest group, but what have they really done for you? Take black people for example...It is my belief that all the many programs supported by the democrats in the name of civil rights have done nothing more for the black race than keep them dependant, enslaved, and otherwise governmentally institutionalized. Not all black people of course but a large number of inner city blacks have been held back by the very programs that were supposed to lift them up. I have a vested interest in this subject as many close relatives of mine are black, including two of my grandchildren.
Boy I had better stop...I am starting to ramble. This is why I normally avoid political blogs...good subject Goldenmean...good luck deciphering all the comments.
posted by
A_Norseman
on
November 28, 2004
at
11:32 AM
| |
reply
Misusing the terms
Americans always seem to misuse the words "liberal" and "conservative". I regularly read posts here on Blogit that describe liberals as being in favour of tax rises and higher public spending. This is the opposite of what liberals believe! Liberals believe in individual freedom and small government. This is exactly what most "conservatives" want. Most Americans who label themselves conservatives are actually liberals economically speaking but conservatives socially speaking. Basically what they say is that people are responsible enough to do what they like with their money and then turn around and say they're not responsible enough to choose the gender of the person they sleep with. This seems ridiculous to me. A big mistake made by a lot of conservative Americans is to lump liberals and socialists together. The ideologies of liberalism and socialism could not be further apart! Socialism is pro-state control whilst liberalism is anti-state control.
Conservatives are basically anti-change. Their philosophy is simple: "If it ain't broke don't fix it. If it is broke, still don't fix it. If you have to fix it then change it as little as possible". Conservatism is regressive where liberalism is progressive. It is anti-modernity, anti-intellectual and hierarchical. Because of its negative view of human nature it is also tough on law & order.
One of Liberalism's greatest philosophers was John Stuart Mill, and his book "On Liberty" is widely studied by students of liberalism.
Conservatisms greatest writer is Edmund Burke. His book "Reflections on the revolution in France", published in 1790 is widely regarded as one of conservatism's greatest texts.
Bear in mind that socialists can be "conservative" as well. In Britain in the 1970s and 1980s it was Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Party that was the most radical party. The Labour Party (socialists) were the in effect the "conservatives" because they resisted Thatcher's radical economic reforms, instead calling for the status quo to remain unchanged. When Thatcher first came to power many in her own party were suspicious of her free market reforms to the economy because of their own "conservative" nature, preferring to keep the more socialist mixed economy intact.
posted by
tomcopley
on
November 28, 2004
at
11:03 AM
| |
reply
my perspective
Good post. Without claiming any particular expertise, I started with
http://www.bloggingnetwork.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/Able_Ergot7302/71477 your post adds to it.
posted by
Able_Ergot
on
January 20, 2004
at
3:32 PM
| |
reply
Interestingly, Before I...
...came across your blog, I posted something yesterday
here that forms part of one answer to your initial question.
Go to the source, and you'll find all the terms used are themselves links to other explanations.
Great discussion, guys!
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on
October 20, 2003
at
2:26 AM
| |
reply
Yes I enjoyed the discussion
Thanks for your good points. They made me think, that's what this blogging stuff is all about. I have never before had such a pleasant exchange with someone I suspect is so fundamentally different in lifestyle and ideology. You are a gentleman and a scholar, and I salute you!
posted by
GoldenMean
on
October 20, 2003
at
12:29 AM
| |
reply
if we keep this up we'll know how many angels can stand on the head of a pin!
another way to came at it (there are so many). I don't like meat, for the taste and particularly the texture. I like mushy foods like cheese and rice. But i will eat meat on occasion, particularly in pizza pockets or beaf and bean burritos. However if i could always choose an option that didn't have meat i would probably never eat it again. And yet i would absolutely refuse to call myself a vegetarian, because implies a way of looking at the world and, typically, one that someone has chosen deliberately. Therefore if someone, as people often do, casually asks me if i'm a vegetarian and i say yes i'm imediately saddled with a host of ideas and opinions that have nothing to do with my disinclination to chew my food. For many people the stereotype will remain in the back of their head, for others it will be a tag that say you're generally with me or you're generally against me. Perhaps i'm merely stumping for an ideology of not taking an absolute postion because you can never be absolutely sure you are right. When things are stated as opposites they often seem sure but the "right" position is always capable of splintering into a new set of opposites and suddenly you are forced to choose again and again and again until there are 10,000 angels on the head of the pin. Anyhow, it's always (or should i say almost) healthy to be forced to rethink your opinions. You've done a good job of suggesting there is something in making deliberate choices of world view that i am not getting. Perhaps it is simply that some people need the freedom to believe and others the freedom to doubt. I any case it's been a profitable exchange. Thanks.
posted by
rovesciato
on
October 12, 2003
at
6:46 PM
| |
reply
Liberal orthodoxy
I would express your excellent last point this way. Liberals used to be political and religious heretics. They had to shout and protest and expose corruptions. They mostly succeeded, and now they are entrenched in power, so THEY are now the new orthodoxy. That power has made liberals fat and happy and overconfident, and some even corrupt. Now the conservatives have a turn at being the fiery heretics, pointing out the errors and corruptions of the orthodox liberals. This is most evident in the flood of conservative talk shows on the radio. Can the conservatives gain the advantage and become the popular orthodoxy among the people? They have made gains in the elections of the last 10 years. Maybe the liberals better start trying to figure out why, before they find themselves as heretics shouting on the street corners once again.
posted by
GoldenMean
on
October 6, 2003
at
9:06 PM
| |
reply
Lifestyle bigots
Political parties on both sides are full of lifestyle bigots. They are not content with following a lifestyle that they choose for themselves. They become prejudiced or bigoted toward other lifestyles. They seek the power to FORCE their lifestyle upon everyone else, or to OUTLAW the lifestyles they dislike. To me, that is the most disgusting part of politics.
posted by
GoldenMean
on
October 6, 2003
at
8:39 PM
| |
reply
More grist for the philosophical mill
Yes, our lifestyle is very important to us. But which comes first, the lifestyle or the ideology? I suppose for individuals the lifestyle comes first, because we are born into a family that follows a certain lifestyle, and we learn the ideology behind it later, if at all. In my lifestyle, which mostly came before my ideology, I enjoy eating a little meat with most of my meals. This puts me at ideological odds with those who say that killing and eating animals is immoral. In my lifestyle, I enjoy riding and racing dirt bikes (motorcycles). This puts me at ideological odds with those who say that dirt bikes are evil creations that destroy the environment. So I must compare ideologies and decide if my lifestyle is in fact destructive or evil. If I decide that it is, then I must change that part of my lifestyle. If I choose to continue my lifestyle, I must find an ideology that will justify it. This applies to every lifestyle, from vegetarians to meateaters to musicians to drug addicts to prostitutes to preachers to peaceniks to warriors. To follow a lifestyle and feel good about it, one must construct or follow an ideology that justifies it. So maybe you are right, politics IS just a battleground of lifestyles, with people making up ideologies to justify them. But lifestyles, ideologies, philosophies, and moral principles are all part of the same larger human process of deciding how to conduct our lives, individually and collectively. Political parties are collections of people who are probably having the most success at expressing and selling their lifestyle/ideology/philosophy.
posted by
GoldenMean
on
October 6, 2003
at
8:30 PM
| |
reply
Respectfully, i still think that the philosophical differences between are grounded not it ideology or organized conviction but in lifestyle. I am utterly digusted with both of the patries and am not terribly impressed with either of their stated and rather unruly ideologies, but in default i tend to lean toward the democrats because much of the republican social platform (i can't think of the right word) represents a threat to my lifestyle. I've never believed that silence trumps noise and inaction trumps action and i consider some of the people who make a point of complaining about their neighbors to be themselves a public nusiance. I can also easily understand why many people in this country see the liberal social platform to be a threat to their lifestyles. To clairify lifestyle a bit, i mean primarily what people are comfortable with and the "space" that they can precieve making for themselves in the future. I think when people begin to feel threatened or at least run down and going nowhere in particular they begin to clutch at the ideological tags that are already there, ie. i don't feel comfortable with that and this is what is being put up against it - and so it becomes a conviction, all the more so since when one comes to doubt there are lots of places to turn to be reassured. Essentially what i am saying to anyone who is unsatisfied with the identity that is involved with associatinig with a party, is that these identities are untimately artificial. They apply to and support groups and not individuals, as can be observed in the "grotesque" personalities of individuals that have taken these identities deliberately upon themselves. An individual who tries to live by the same convictions that are espoused in the parties will find themselves moving in a diferent direction and a much wider sphere. Individuals can adapt to other individuals without loosing their identities or fundamentally betraying their convictions whereas groups cannot. Political identity is just ugly, ugly, ugly! And the posibilities for policy and organization so broad. How do we get individuals into the government?
Since i'm rambling i'll also add that another political term is presently skewed. People think of Democrats as "radical" and Republicans as "reactionary" but since the institutionalization of the New Deal and Great Society programs and the precedents of the Warren court, not to mention the influence of unions and environmental awarness the democrats, or groups associated as liberal, even if they are virulent are essentially trying to retain the system as it currently stands, or are "reactionary" whereas the conservitives are trying to tear much of these, usually called protections, down or fundamentally change the way things currently are and are therefore "radical".
posted by
rovesciato
on
October 4, 2003
at
3:17 PM
| |
reply
A most worthy comment!!
When individuals keep their convictions pure, the groups they form can have the same strong convictions. I have experienced this as an Armor officer in the Army. Warriors who are ready to die, must believe that they will die for a noble and just cause. But that is an exception to the rule, so your point is well heeded. When political power is as stake, moral principle is usually sacrificed at the sacred altar of power. You state this case extremely well.
But I remain convinced that there are basic philosophical differences between the prevailing "liberal" and "conservative" positions. If we can identify those philosophical principles, we can better hold party leaders accountable when they violate those principles. And people can better choose which philosophy they wish to support. The philosophy is the driving force, behind all of the name-calling and personal attacks of politics (AND BLOGGING, TOO!!)
posted by
GoldenMean
on
October 3, 2003
at
9:22 PM
| |
reply
A liberal or a conservative is merely whatever it takes to come out ahead of the other
Individuals can have convictions but groups cannot. Political tags represent groups and have the unsavory purpose of herding wide varieties of people before a single mantle. The reason for this is to gain political power (the ability to do, or make others do, what one pleases) and/or the sense of being part of a rising tide (to find an artificial purpose in life) . This is true o f monarchies, communisms, despotisms, as well as in democracies. Since strength or the sense of strength is what is more important (in general) than any specific policy the parites and the people who support them will do or say whatever is necessary to stay ahead of the other on that particular day or session; therefore the actual ground beneath the name tags are always shifting. For example: low taxes would seem a permanent fixture of conservative ideology and therefore suggests stability in political identity, but one reason for supporting low taxes was a belief that the size of government should be limited, and another is the belief that every individual should have as much control over their own lives as possible. The current conservatism, however, is actively increasing the size and reach of government and, most importantly, FOR THE SAME EXPRESSED REASONS that the old conservatives wanted it decreased. On the national stage, so long as party identity stays intact these ideological changes are unimportant (of course they are very important as far as the actual condition of the country is concerned, but party come before country 95% of the time, and precisely because of the constant insistence that they are always acting 100% for it). Since the party identiy is so important everyone MUST BE defined as one or the other if they, or some issue the people take an interest in, comes to the public stage with anything like an influence on people. Individuals, unless they have defined themselves as this or that, tend to drift away from the party "line" but in public the situation is predominately ugly and perhaps can best be pictured as a pack of swarthy rats skulking after a quack piper.
posted by
rovesciato
on
October 3, 2003
at
12:16 PM
| |
reply
I must take some blame here
Time for a confession. Long ago I comforted a female friend who just had an abortion. She was crying, feeling guilty. I told her it was OK. I told her she wasn't ready to be a mother. That was the understatement of my life, because she was 18 and a drug addict, also a member of a Satanist coven, which I had just found out. This girl was full of unpleasant surprises. I felt she should have had the baby and put it up for adoption, but I didn't tell her that. I condoned her abortion and told her she should put it behind her and stop agonizing about it. I told her to get away from the evil people she was associating with, and straighten up, so that the next time she got pregnant, it would be by her husband in a loving relationship. I don't know what happened to her, but the fact that she was agonizing over her abortion indicated there was hope for her. I don't agree with either the liberal or the conservative positions concerning abortion, but I do think it is better to hold the irresponsible mothers (and fathers) responsible for their actions, than to give them the easy out of abortion. Make them have the child, then either raise it themselves or put it up for adoption. Plenty of people are eager to adopt, and I am one of them. I have a 17 year old son who I adopted when he was 4. I am glad that his mother did not decide to abort him.
posted by
GoldenMean
on
October 2, 2003
at
10:14 PM
| |
reply
Interesting, but on the other hand...
Liberals are generally less "spiritual" than conservatives (except for the New Age liberals with their unlimited reincarnations). As you say, liberals tend to focus on "quality of life," because they tend to believe they only have ONE life to live. No reward in heaven, no torture in hell. How then do they justify allowing women to end the ONE chance at life that an unborn baby has? I am not for or against abortion, I am just trying to understand the liberal reasoning. How does the "quality of life" of the mother justify extinguishing the ONE CHANCE AT LIFE of their baby? The word "selfish" is trying to creep into my mind, should I let it in or not?
posted by
GoldenMean
on
September 30, 2003
at
9:53 PM
| |
reply
Liberals tend to view life in terms of 'Quality of Life.' Conservatives tend to view life in terms of 'Value of Life.' So for a liberal, life is less likely worth living if quality is low. Hence the need for abortion and assisted suicide. Conservative
view life itself as having absolute value. Hence the opposition to abortion and assisted suicide. Sean
posted by
itisdone
on
September 29, 2003
at
6:16 PM
| |
reply
And then there was one...
I posted an article that approaches "liberalism" from a different perspective. Check out
I Can See Clearly Now. You may find some answers there, or at least a grein of understanding...
posted by
arGee
on
September 28, 2003
at
9:33 PM
| |
reply
Wow, comments! Lets see here...
Macbilly says the labels are more appropriate at the extreme ends of the spectrum. I agree, because I think just about everything in human life can be described with a spectrum or scale. Ideally, it is not an attempt to rank everything, but an attempt to understand differences.
Dropped-On-Head says he is not a conservative, and takes the opportunity for a little Bush-bashing. Cheap shot, and no help.
Scoop says forget labels and vote for the person who can do the best job, even if they did foolish things in their past. I say RIGHT ON, SCOOP! If everyone did that in the next election, the Dems and Reps wouldn't know what hit them! But sadly, we can't even get half the eligible voters to vote, much less determine for themselves the best man/woman for the job.
And Ritchie, the top-earning blogger on BN, drops in to offer the opinion of another person that conservatives are moral weaklings who preach moral strength (hyopcrites). Is it better, then, to be a moral weakling who does not even recognize the value of "prudence"? Ritchie defers to the dictionary to define liberals, giving several definitions which he apparently agress with. Thank you, Ritchie, but may I ask what do YOU think? You didn't get to be top blogger by quoting newspapers and dictionaries.
posted by
GoldenMean
on
September 28, 2003
at
7:51 PM
| |
reply
Liberal:
lib·er·al (l b r- l, l b r l) adj.
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.
n.
A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.
posted by
ritchie
on
September 28, 2003
at
3:17 PM
| |
reply
Conservative:
Saturday, September 27, 2003, NYT, page A27, under David Brooks story titled LONELY CAMPUS VOICES, this paragraph:
"Others say it is possible to have a satisfying career and do good work if you learn not to fly straight into the prevailing ideology. "Conservatives are people who teach the value of prudence but are incapable of exercising any," says Mark Lilla, a politically unclassifiable professor at the University of Chicago."
posted by
ritchie
on
September 28, 2003
at
3:16 PM
| |
reply
That should be following we
are like lemmings. Everyone has some shit in the closet, people have to get over it. Do I care if Arnold the terminator showed his ass, who gives a shit?
posted by
scoop
on
September 27, 2003
at
3:35 PM
| |
reply
Who cares?
Liberal, democrat, republican or conservative all the parties are a raving bag of assholes! Vote for the person who can do the job. We have to stop follow like a bunch of goddam sheep for christs sake.
posted by
scoop
on
September 27, 2003
at
3:32 PM
| |
reply
CHECK THIS...
I am a conservative... because I gained money in a liberal fashion and want to protect it.
I'm not really a conservative... I can't even joke about supporting Bush and risk people thinking I really do. But yes he protects the families money.
posted by
Dropped-On-Head
on
September 27, 2003
at
3:14 PM
| |
reply
oops'
I meant that Pat Buchanan would seem liberal...ooops
posted by
macbilly1
on
September 27, 2003
at
2:48 PM
| |
reply
right up my alley
after reading this I don't really know what I am anymore. But I do think that the terms are exacerbated by the political climate at the time. During Hitlers time I'm sure Pat Buchanan would be considered conservative. I do think that the labels exist for those at the extreme ends of the spectrum. I throw the terms around,ummm, liberally despite gray areas. But I define my conservatism by my differences with the reigning liberals of the day and so on and so forth. Compared to Hilary, who I think is a Marxist, I am a hard-core conservative but I believe in compassion and individual responsibility. What am I?
Excellent post, I enjoyed it.
Macbilly1
posted by
macbilly1
on
September 27, 2003
at
2:47 PM
| |
reply
Copy (or write down) this comment's web address (URL), which is:
Next, go to the email or web page where you want to link to this comment, and paste
(or type) the web address.
