Jimbo,
Are democrats truly 'liberal'? No.
Are republicans truly 'conservative'. Again, no.
If liberal means 'based on liberty' then we can assume that means that a person who is truly 'liberal' both socially and economically, wants no governmental interference. We tend to call those people Anarchists (or Libertarians, depending on how you look at it). People who want total government control- socialists (or totalitarians).
Do you see where I'm going? Republicans want (I'm speaking in generalities) less government interference in the economy (taxes, regulations, etc.) but, they seek regulation in moral areas (abortion, drug use, etc) Therefore, Republicans are socially conservative and economically liberal. Obviously, Democrats tend to be the opposite.
But both Republicans and Democrats are a mixture of liberal and conservative viewpoints.
So, you are right. Democrats are no more liberal than Republicans are conservative.
I thougth I would respond to a few of Glums remarks before moving past the whole good vs. evil thing.
Glum you stated,Liberalism has caused the strong not to act, and the willing not to help.
I just don't get either of those. How has liberalism made people less willing to help- is there a sudden dearth of good-will because of Affirmative Action? Did 'liberalism' stop President Bush and Rummy from sending our country into an unfounded war? Unfortunately, No.How? Just look at the social problems creeping into our communities.
So, if I understand what you are saying, the social problems creeping into our communities are because of the political platform of the Democrats?
Wow!
Good thing I don't have to take personal responsibility for my life or problems in society. I feel much better now that I know it isn't me, it's all someone elses fault! It must be that Satanist Ted Kennedy! He wants me to look at porn, divorce my wife, and run off to Vermont to marry a cross-dressing college boy who calls himself Randy.
Could it be that the social problems in our communities are, in fact, of our own creations? These social problems had their starts LONG before the Republican party took up the cause of rightousness. Porn, divorce, prostitution, ambivelence, and apathy are not new and can in no way be correlated to 'liberalism' just like racism and masochism can't be correlated to 'conservatives'- though liberal pundits often try. Now, I will grant that policy can favor any moral, or amoral stance but, all these problems exist wholly by themselves, without the meddling of bureaucrats.
If you rounded up every 'liberal' in this country and shot them in the streets, you'd still have abusive priests, Mark Foley and Ted Haggard.
The opposite is also true. Is the Republican party the moral vanguard of the country? Heck no, that's what religion is for. Has rightousness surged in the past six years of the Republican Triumvirate? No, duder, no.Has political correctness given way to apathy and agendaism? Yes.
I don't understand how political correctness gave way to apathy. How does respecting women, equal treatment before the law, the civil rights act, and respect for ALL religions give way to apathy. I think it downplays apathy and increases diversity which, is a good thing. Unless you like it when people ask you where your horns are. As for agendaism, I guess that's a conservative buzz-word I just don't know yet. I bet it's full of crap though.Has gay marriage ruined the right of an adopted child and squelched the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman? Yes.
I think the sanctity of marriage was squelched long, long before gay marriage became a political issue. Did 'liberals' squelch it? No, married people did. Families defiled the sacred basis of society on their own. You guys both know how I feel about same-sex marriage, I'm no fan, but I think the that men getting married is as much of a threat to my marriage as the liquor store down the street is going to make me an alcoholic. As for the rights of apopted children being squelched, I'm not sure what you mean. In America, last I heard, same-sex marriage is still outlawed in all but one state. How have the rights of adopted children been squelched?Has affirmative action extinguished the chance for a qualified man or woman regardless of race? Yes.
This is wierd. How many times have you been skipped over because you're white? "Sorry, Glum, we offered the position to someone else because you're just too pastey."
Don't you ever go out of your way to make sure your children treat each other fairly? Aren't there times when one is treated differently, perhaps given preferential treatment? I admire you a lot Glum, but none of us are perfect parents.
I know with Linc, there are times when we force him to share what he has, give other people a turn, let someone else go first because he get's his way so often. What happens when we make him? He does the same thing conservatives do when they talk about affirmative action. They blubber and whine- Waaaaaaaaaa, it's not fair!
When great injustices exist, the government should go out of it's way to remedy the situation. In doing so, as in the case of AA, other smaller instances of injustice occur. But the greater good is served. I don't think AA is perfect and I look forward to the day when we don't need it, which could be soon. So, in the mean time, stop whining. The fact of the matter is, Affirmative Action does nothing for the majority of Americans- including you two white guys who will undoubtably be successfull in life- it only helps those who are in the greatest need. The amount of people it has hindered in the since 1972 (arguably the first wave of support for affirmative action) could probably be listed on one hand. But, it has helped to create equality for people who were excluded simply because of their gender and ethnicity.Will leaving Irag early jeoporadize our country immediately for future terrorism on our own land? Yes.
This is a subject for another day. A day when I have lots more time to write.Has not being able to say," Christmas" hurt the principles our country was founded on of free speach and practice of religion? Yes.
Wait a second, since when can you not say "Christmas"? Is this a law in Idaho? It's not a law in the rest of the country- anywhere. You are free to say what you want about Christmas, wherever you want to say it.
Let me ask you this. What would you do if your Mayor, City Council or State Representatives were Zoroastrians and wanted to place fire pits in city hall where they could worship and pray, or perhaps at your childs school Islamic prayers were announced over the PA system where they were urged to face east toward Mecca. You, as a religious person, might have a problem with that. You might think that they had violated the first clause (called the establishment clause) of the first amendment that:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
That means no religion gets a preference, or even religion over non-religion. That's not just me talking, that's our deist forefathers idea. So, while the "free-exercise" clause guarentees your right to celebrate Christmas, that very same amendment guarentees every other, non-christian person in this country that our government will show no deference to you over them. The first amenmend is fair to all people in this country, not just the ones who celebrate christmas. So if you are mad that there's no baby Jesus in city hall this year, don't blame the liberals. Blame James Madison.
Has the debate between pro life and pro choice minimized the eternal nature of a child? Yes.
Glum, on that one I whole-heartedly agree with you. But I don't think the liberals are the only ones who are responsible for how polarized the topic of abortion has become. This is a giant chasm in politics today when you are forced to fall into one of two catagories. Baby-killers or Women haters.
Do I blame liberalism for porn, strip clubs, blah blah blah, and blah blah blah being legalized--Of course. Now, it is up to the individual whether he/she wants to partake.
The reason I hate the liberal stance on these issues is 1. The Children and 2. The social acceptance of evil......while liberals aren't responsible for whether or not I accept porn in my daily life, they are most definately responsible for the stamp of approval by our government.
I understand where you are coming from, but you are misunderstanding my stance entirely.
The idea that libertarians are 'liberals' is false and both Democrats and Libertarians will tell you that.
Libertarians want no government influence in their lives (gun control, immigration, moral issues, economics- the whole shebang)while most democrats do urge for government intervention. BIG differences between the two.
To see what I mean about economic liberalism in Conservative thought refer to Adam Smith, the father of free market capitalism- or just search wikipedia for economic liberalism and see if it doesn't describe conservatives. You might not like the way it sounds, but conservatives are liberals too.
And why the heck are you up this late? Aren't you supposed to be studying?
See, I don't know why we can't see eye-to-eye on this.
Killing babys is bad, born or unborn. But don't you think it's a bad idea to make all abortions illegal? Especially in instances of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is endangered?
I reject the labels of pro-choice and pro-life because they are just politicaly framed titles that cast themselves in the best light possible while casting their opponents in the worst light possible.
I.E. if you aren't pro-life that must mean you are pro-death. And if youre not pro-choice that means you are anti-choice. Neither is true. I think most americans fall somewhere between those two polarized labels.
The label of Social Democrats is generally true. Instead of viewing their actions as limiting the rights of people (affirmative action) social liberals are convinced that they are extending the rights of those who have traditionally had them denied. While conservatives see conspiracies against christianity, they see the rights of everyone being protected.
It's all a matter of perspective.
Glenn Beck- maybe some Hannity and Rush here and there?
By the way, did I tell you we decided to give our kid the middle name of James?
No, I am not kissing up! Geeze!
Who's Glenn Beck (the CNN mormon guy?)? All I've heard from Rush is second hand......usually crap about Michael J Fox. I check out the Hannity and Colmes on the net.......I've yet to hear only Hannity's side.
James is such a lovely name.
I was up late studyin'......this blog is like my cigarette break I guess.
You keep saying that I view Liberalism as such a dirty word. I guarantee I'd be a lot more friendly and understanding to it if it truly was liberalism.
I know the difference between "libertarian" and "liberal".....I said libertarian CAN be considered by some to be synonymous......and I've the thesaurus to prove it.
I've already given my rebuttle on your pro-life/pro-choice statements. I am a 100% on your side......we just have a wording issue. My man Mitt gave his definition of Pro-Life recently and is 100% on our side. Has the definition fo "Pro-Life" evolved?.....I guess it has, because there is room for situational exceptions.
I know, I probably follow Mitt too closely..........I guess there's worse politicians I could support.
I find it interesting that there is an argument that conservatives are also economically conservative......regardless of the different definitions floating around.
There is an argument that liberals are liberal spenders........regardless of the different definitions floating around.