This really does a perfect job of summing up the problem with the two choices these parties offer.

Conservatism doesn’t mean that, stupid or power-hungry politicians do that. Liberalism is tax and spend, conservatism is limited government, less spending.

Don’t use an idealized definition of conservatism which matches nobody in political power without doing the same for the liberals. Perhaps:

Taxes/Welfare: Liberalism is demonstrating compassion for the needy by spending mandatory government resources to improve their lives, conservatism is allowing people to keep their money so that they can voluntarily improve their own lives and the lives of others using their own criteria.

Foreign Policy: Liberalism is trying to avoid getting involved in other nations problems to prevent them getting mad at us (and possibly attacking us), while conservatism is trying to provide security to foreign populations in an attempt to prevent their conflicts from affecting us.

Immigration: Liberalism is trying to reward all those who have come here and contributed to our economy, while conservatism is concerned about the fairness of allowing them to “cut in line” those waiting legal residency.

Healthcare: Liberalism wants to ensure that everyone gets affordable care for themselves and loved ones, while conservatism worries that government management will drive up costs and reduce quality of service.

Villainizing ones enemies doesn’t allow us to meaningfully point out their errors. If you refuse to understand what someone’s goals are, you can’t meaningfully show them why their actions won’t help them meet those goals.

The reason why half the country is Democrat is that the Democrats want good things (people with needs to have them met). The reason the half the country are Republican is because the Republicans want good things (people to be able to improve their own lives and those of others). You may feel that the other sides choice of methods will not effectively achieve their goals, but only a monster would call either of these goals wrong. (Does anyone here honestly believe it is bad to help people with real needs, or to empower people to improve their own lives and those of others?)

Unfortunately the conservative movement today seems to only be able to offer up hate, personal attacks, and all too often hypocrisy (yes rush, it really was a crime). Yes, I know the liberals are friggin hypocrites too, but it’s my house I’m worried about. I really fear that the gingrich, rove, limbaugh “the ends always justifies the means” political style has produced short term gains at the expense of lasting long term accomplishments. We simply need to be better people than that. Meaningful ideas that you truly believe in should not need vicious vitriol in order to be accepted.

Atanamis. great discourse very well stated. we need more of that kind of thinking.

Darius. if you don’t examine what you have done wrong and learn from it then you never know what you have done right either. also, by demonizing any disagreement you completely cut off all possibility that there might be something to learn that you hadn’t considered. conservatism also has managed some pretty evil ends from good intentions. for example leaving a debt of $9,414,912,043,759.99 (as of 10:53am, that’s $30,999.66 for every man, women, and child in america) for our children and grandchildren to repay. we should all be deeply ashamed of that.

“Again, that is not [liberalism]. Perhaps you guys should study what [liberalism] means.”

Calling them thieves who value feeling good over doing good doesn’t accomplish anything of value. Grow up and stop calling everyone names.

Defining your opponents as evil IS one way to end a discussion, though I’d hardly imagine that is a sound debate practice. Repeated attacks across unrelated threads gives pretty strong support to my “Grow up” statement.

it’s very common knowledge that liberals ignore all evidence to the contrary that their policies don’t work simply because they work on emotion and what feels good

Ahh, since its common knowledge our opponents are evil, there’s no need to actually explain why. Of course, the fact that 50% of the US voting populous SUPPORTS their platform doesn’t really mean much, right? Do you believe in the “silent majority” that uphold conservative views but are too disgusted to vote?

There are at present two theories in the US for how to achieve the optimal results. The “conservative” position empowers all individuals to improve their own lives and help others, while the “liberal” position seeks to help those in need by giving them stuff taken from those who HAVE stuff. One can just as well argue that conservatives want the poor or homeless to die in the streets as that liberals just want to “feel good”. These are both truisms believed by many Americans.

The problem is that saying your opponents have the taxpayers / poor and want to take away their ability to live good lives will NEVER change minds. You know why? Because the liberal KNOWS he doesn’t hate taxpayers or want to remove all his freedom. Saying that just convinced him that you are wrong in your other claims. Instead, say that the liberal believes that giving money to the poor will improve their longterm lives, which has not statistically been demonstrated to be true. Use TRUTH to win others over, not SPIN. Unfortunately, by being to aggressive in my own correction of you, I have in all probability removed any likelihood of your thinking about a word I wrote. I apologize for having wasted whatever opportunity I had.

Even though it appears I am wasting my breath responding to your willful blindness, I will try to address your pathetic accusations. I never called liberals “evil,” and to say that I did makes you a liar, plain and simple. I SAID that liberals generally care more about feeling good than actually doing good, and are blind to the difference between the two. I also SAID that they usually genuinely care about the poor and disadvantaged. HOWEVER, just because they care doesn’t make their ideas right or good. And I fail to see how your ad populum argument that because 50% of Americans support the liberal platform makes it right.

Nice non-apology, you’re less mature (this week at least) than I thought you were. Take a deep breath, read the ENTIRE comment section, then move on. If you’re having a bad week for whatever reason, I’ll cut you some slack. But ripping into people on this thread and falsely attributing comments to them is not a civil way to conduct yourself.

Darius, you might not realize this, but your comments about liberals are offensive. It is offensive to say that “liberals generally care more about feeling good than actually doing good.” You don’t mean to offend, but what you’re communicating is that liberals are selfish, immoral hedonists who care only about their own pleasure. That’s quite a different thing than saying that liberal policies are counterproductive and achieve nothing beyond warming the hearts of those who support the policies. The first attacks the character and morals of liberals; the second points out the problems with their policies without impugning their character. You’ve already clarified that you do think liberals “genuinely care about the poor and disadvantaged.” I would ask you to use different wording in the future, so that you aren’t misunderstood again.

“Except liberalism doesn’t help people… but it certainly lets liberals feel good about themselves. Conservatism means doing good, liberalism means feeling good. Yes, you are correct, they generally have good intentions. But good intentions can still lead to evil ends.”

So I did clarify myself immediately. Perhaps though, as you said, I could have worded it better from the get-go.

Like it or not the political spectrum is a bell shaped curve. To form a lasting conservative movement we have to move the middle to the right. Which was what I was getting at in my first posting. Reagan wasn’t a paragon of idealogical purity, but he got legislation through that was a lot better than we would have gotten under carter. The key words here are got legislation through. In 2002 we had the most conservative president and congress in over 100 years. Yet the only substantial legislation of the bush presidency consists of a tax cut, no child left behind, and medicare drugs, the greatest expansion of a social program since lindon johnson. Two of these go against “true conservative” principles. Maybe getting less than perfect legislation under reagan was better than no legislation. How do you boil a frog? put him in cold water and keep turning up the temperature, if you drop him in boiling water, he just jumps out.

I agree that Reagan was a way better option than the WORST PRESIDENT IN OUR HISTORY, Jimmy Carter. He wasn’t truly conservative on some issues, but as politics go, he was better than most.

An aside: I agree that Carter was a pretty bad president. However, you will note that much like GW Bush, his fans tend to justify his failed actions by his godly/moral/ethical motives.

Atanamis, you’re being rude to Darius. At the very least you need to be more careful about reading too much offense into his comments. You do owe him an apology.

My intent was to communicate exactly what you did, that his comments about liberals were insulting and irrational. I’m sick of such blatant demonizing by both sides of the political spectrum. Does either side really believe that the other 50% of the nation are evil monsters? What value does such vitriol add to the discussion? I firmly feel we would be better off addressing one another’s ACTUAL goals, and showing how actions being taken fail/succeed in accomplishing those goals.

That said, I am willing to accept Jew’s judgment of this situation over my own, since my perspective is clearly tainted. Darius, I apologize for reading too much offense into your comments. I have apparently misread the intent of your postings. As a result, I will recuse myself from further posts in this thread. Please accept my apology.

Apology accepted.

Darius was a huge ass in this thread, Atanamis should never have apologized. Darius, all you care about is making other people not feel good.

Gurr, I apologized because I value Jew’s opinion very highly*, and he indicated he thought I misrepresented Darius’s intent. Since my grandfather died last week, it is distinctly possible that I was more combative than normal. It is also possible I am just normally overly combative. Either way, while I appreciate your support I will stand by my apology based on Jew’s assessment.

* This is not something I would say of more than a handful of people.

I admit I am sometimes way too combative… however, I honestly was quite surprised and confused on how we got to the argument in this thread. I never called anyone a name, and spoke only generally about liberals, but never demonized them. I wasn’t even really paying much attention to the discussion, just throwing in some quick thoughts on occasion. So your ripping into me as a name-calling, hate-spewing troll came as a shock. I suppose I did have one comment that was a little condescending, but that’s pretty typical of everyone on here. I thought this case was similar to the case a few weeks ago where Colin jumped into a good discussion you, Chris, and I were having and blamed me for things I wasn’t guilty of, which you defended me of. I suppose I deserve it for some things I’ve said before which were excessive.

My grandparents were staunch liberals all their lives, despite being wealthy enough in their retirement that liberal policies hurt them more than they helped. Their reasoning was that liberals provide a safety net for the unfortunate. My grandfather was made obsolete by improvements in printing presses. He was a highly skilled laborer whose skills became unmarketable overnight. He had to quickly learn new skills (in construction) and get work to support his family. In his mind, liberal policies allow help to people undergoing transitions like this. The intent is NOT for people to sit around getting free stuff, but to help them get back on their feet. Now you and I think this is better done by private charities, but we should be able to understand the needs that a liberal is concerned about. Social Security was designed to help the elderly who couldn’t afford to pay their bills. It never was needed for my grandfather, but he had friends who depended on it due to mistakes they’d made managing their money.

Many blacks are also staunchly liberal, believing that government help is needed to help them overcome the problems caused by racism 40 years ago. There are legitimate complaints about the level of education the older generation received, and it is very hard to better educate your children when you are poorly educated yourself. Now in your opinion and mine the policies chosen by liberals have made the black plight worse, making them dependent on government handouts. In their opinion though, these handouts are their only shot at fixing the problems of their lives.

The same kinds of stories apply to people needing medical care, special education for a child, etc. These are real needs that people really have that make them believe they can’t cope without government help. My own parents have become far more pro-government assistance since having a child with autism who NEEDS large amounts of specialized attention to recover. My mom who said she’d never send a kid to preschool did with Tom because he needed the speech therapy they provided. My parents can also afford a lot of additional therapy the school DOESN’T provide, but a less well off family couldn’t afford. Who is there to help those families?

Basically, the needs seen by liberals are real needs that become one issue tickets for the people affected. What these people need to realize is that conservatives aren’t dismissive of these real needs, but that we want the ability to help them more personally, with voluntary contributions. THAT is the argument that will win them over to our side. (Similarly, calling me a heartless conservative won’t win me over, instead show me how the government can more efficiently and fairly meet the real needs of people with a minimum of waste. Then let me fund those charitable functions voluntarily rather than through mandate. Of course, in doing so you will have become conservative.)

*Note: none of the above applies to politicians. Both the “liberal” and “conservative” politicians often talk the talk but then do whatever gives themselves the most power.

You know, Atanamis, you would probably enjoy reading Theodore Dalrymple’s books. He’s a conservative writer from Britain who isn’t a demogogue but rather honestly and very thoughtfully approaches each subject from a conservative viewpoint. His books “Life at the Bottom: The Worldview that Makes the Underclass,” “Our Culture, What’s Left of It: The Mandarins and the Masses,” and “In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas” are three of the most thought-provoking books I’ve ever read (especially of those written by current authors). He’s an atheist, but one that is quite gracious toward religion, frequently praising Christianity for its better understanding of humanity and society.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/nyregion/10citywide.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin