Conservative thought versus Liberal thought
-
The 'unity' these people refer to is the same thing that Mussolini meant by unity - an entire society committed to the achievment of goals defined by an all knowing political elite.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Chris Austin wrote:
Loved his comment on the political parties "They organize our animosities."
But also notice that he was echoing John Adams (and using milder language, suitable for the modern ear). Another way to look at it is that politics and political parties give us a structure of ritual with which we may (if we, individually and culturally, so choose) *tame* our animosities -- we can oppose one another without having to resort to murder to "settle" the issue. Another way to look at it -- a vastly important way to look at it -- is that those who whine about the "evils" of partisan politics have no idea what they're talking about (and frequently don't care to learn). And those who take it even further, extolling "unity" as the be-all-and-end-all of politics, and demonize the "dividers," are *dangerous* and should always be opposed as a matter of principle. The "unifiers" want to win the argument(s) without actually having to do the tedious work of convincing others on the merits of their arguments. And, when they aquire a sufficient backing swayed by their emotiveness, they frequently will stop at nothing to get what they want.
Ilíon wrote:
The "unifiers" want to win the argument(s) without actually having to do the tedious work of convincing others on the merits of their arguments
Same way with the far left, they always love to use people who are victimized or suffering some loss to do their worst attacks, i.e. Cindy Sheehan, because any attempts to refute their claims do not need to be met with arguments, just hysterical sobbing and buzzwords.
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
modified on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 11:16 PM
-
The 'unity' these people refer to is the same thing that Mussolini meant by unity - an entire society committed to the achievment of goals defined by an all knowing political elite.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Oh, so you mean only a leftist would demand that everyone should support the president in time of war. It is your duty as an American citizen to support the successful outcome of a military committment once made by our elected representatives, regardless of any other consideration.[^] Stan, you again reveal yourself as a marxist. :laugh:
-
Chris Austin wrote:
Loved his comment on the political parties "They organize our animosities."
But also notice that he was echoing John Adams (and using milder language, suitable for the modern ear). Another way to look at it is that politics and political parties give us a structure of ritual with which we may (if we, individually and culturally, so choose) *tame* our animosities -- we can oppose one another without having to resort to murder to "settle" the issue. Another way to look at it -- a vastly important way to look at it -- is that those who whine about the "evils" of partisan politics have no idea what they're talking about (and frequently don't care to learn). And those who take it even further, extolling "unity" as the be-all-and-end-all of politics, and demonize the "dividers," are *dangerous* and should always be opposed as a matter of principle. The "unifiers" want to win the argument(s) without actually having to do the tedious work of convincing others on the merits of their arguments. And, when they aquire a sufficient backing swayed by their emotiveness, they frequently will stop at nothing to get what they want.
Ilíon wrote:
Another way to look at it -- a vastly important way to look at it -- is that those who whine about the "evils" of partisan politics have no idea what they're talking about (and frequently don't care to learn). And those who take it even further, extolling "unity" as the be-all-and-end-all of politics, and demonize the "dividers," are *dangerous* and should always be opposed as a matter of principle.
I'll agree 100% with you on this. My problem with partisan politics in it's current state is that it has seemingly spiraled into talking points while both parties have become devoid of meaningful long term plans and have abandoned the constitution. I just see so little being accomplished that I have given up on our parties in their current configuration. In short, I think we've been willing for far too long to elect liars and crooks on both sides of the debate and it has undermined the design and intent of our republic.
Ilíon wrote:
The "unifiers" want to win the argument(s) without actually having to do the tedious work of convincing others on the merits of their arguments. And, when they aquire a sufficient backing swayed by their emotiveness, they frequently will stop at nothing to get what they want.
Unity and I have never gotten along :) I enjoy it when people have a heterogeneous views of the world. I don't buy into the Dogma of Otherness but I do think it is healthy to have these different views. Also, I guess I've never fully seen the merit of convincing others to my point of view. Sure, it's fun to argue, debate and sometimes get genuinely worked up but, at the end of the day the only thing I can control is my thoughts.
-
Oh, so you mean only a leftist would demand that everyone should support the president in time of war. It is your duty as an American citizen to support the successful outcome of a military committment once made by our elected representatives, regardless of any other consideration.[^] Stan, you again reveal yourself as a marxist. :laugh:
Warfare is indeed an inherently fascist undertaking. It must be accompanied by a unified national spirit - because your countrymen are sacrificing their lives. That is precisely why military type institutions (such as the CCC and the WPA) and war itself were so important to the progressive movement and all other collectivist philosophies. There is no denying that either way.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Warfare is indeed an inherently fascist undertaking. It must be accompanied by a unified national spirit - because your countrymen are sacrificing their lives. That is precisely why military type institutions (such as the CCC and the WPA) and war itself were so important to the progressive movement and all other collectivist philosophies. There is no denying that either way.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Warfare is indeed an inherently fascist undertaking
Stan: Fascist, Marxist, enemy of Jefferson. Poor Stan.
-
Will was really game. Loved his comment on the political parties "They organize our animosities."
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long
Chris Austin wrote:
Will was really game
I agree. The interaction really highlighted the differences between conservative and liberal thought. The two "camps" may as well be from different planets and I do not see how the opinions of one side will ever influence the other. I particularly like the underlying concept that you should be given the opportunity to succeed or fail and the only governmental responsibility is to stay the hell out of the way.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Warfare is indeed an inherently fascist undertaking. It must be accompanied by a unified national spirit - because your countrymen are sacrificing their lives. That is precisely why military type institutions (such as the CCC and the WPA) and war itself were so important to the progressive movement and all other collectivist philosophies. There is no denying that either way.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is no denying that either way.
So all a President have to do is engage in some kind of military activity (I note that we are not at war with anyone right now, although I suppose some kind of a case could be made for a police action) and any and all Jeffersonian principles go by the board? Does this include the Bill of Rights?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Chris Austin wrote:
Will was really game
I agree. The interaction really highlighted the differences between conservative and liberal thought. The two "camps" may as well be from different planets and I do not see how the opinions of one side will ever influence the other. I particularly like the underlying concept that you should be given the opportunity to succeed or fail and the only governmental responsibility is to stay the hell out of the way.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
The two "camps" may as well be from different planets and I do not see how the opinions of one side will ever influence the other.
From the economic standpoint, the conservative camp caters to the rich and hopes that they in turn will help those less fortunate. (The trickle-down effect.) The liberal camp focuses on helping those at the bottom get on their feet and hopefully on their way to economic prosperity. I believe both camps have merit.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
the only governmental responsibility is to stay the hell out of the way.
The problem is that those at the top are under no obligation to help those less fortunate than them, and may in fact hurt them more. And those at the bottom may feel no incentive to get on their feet if they can just get by on handouts. That's where a responsible government comes in a makes sure those at the top don't exploit those less fortunate or that the less fortunate don't advantage of the contributions of those above them.
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
The two "camps" may as well be from different planets and I do not see how the opinions of one side will ever influence the other.
From the economic standpoint, the conservative camp caters to the rich and hopes that they in turn will help those less fortunate. (The trickle-down effect.) The liberal camp focuses on helping those at the bottom get on their feet and hopefully on their way to economic prosperity. I believe both camps have merit.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
the only governmental responsibility is to stay the hell out of the way.
The problem is that those at the top are under no obligation to help those less fortunate than them, and may in fact hurt them more. And those at the bottom may feel no incentive to get on their feet if they can just get by on handouts. That's where a responsible government comes in a makes sure those at the top don't exploit those less fortunate or that the less fortunate don't advantage of the contributions of those above them.
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
Al Beback wrote:
From the economic standpoint, the conservative camp caters to the rich and hopes that they in turn will help those less fortunate. (The trickle-down effect.) The liberal camp focuses on helping those at the bottom get on their feet and hopefully on their way to economic prosperity. I believe both camps have merit.
Both camps steal from the middle-class in order to serve their catered banquets?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
The two "camps" may as well be from different planets and I do not see how the opinions of one side will ever influence the other.
From the economic standpoint, the conservative camp caters to the rich and hopes that they in turn will help those less fortunate. (The trickle-down effect.) The liberal camp focuses on helping those at the bottom get on their feet and hopefully on their way to economic prosperity. I believe both camps have merit.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
the only governmental responsibility is to stay the hell out of the way.
The problem is that those at the top are under no obligation to help those less fortunate than them, and may in fact hurt them more. And those at the bottom may feel no incentive to get on their feet if they can just get by on handouts. That's where a responsible government comes in a makes sure those at the top don't exploit those less fortunate or that the less fortunate don't advantage of the contributions of those above them.
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
You've made some good points and I sort of agree, but ... On the conservative camp catering to the rich, I'm pretty conservative and far from rich but what I do appreciate in conservative thought is the general idea that we're all largley responsible for our own success or failure. In my lifetime I've had to start over from scratch, twice. Each time a result of poor personal decisions. What I honestly appreciate is that I felt there were no restrictions, nothing that kept me from dusting myself off and starting over. I also agree that those at the top are under no obligation to help those less fortunate. I believe that is appropriate. While under no obligation, my wife and I do a pretty decent job of helping others through charitable donations and charitable work. When the government "helps" they do it through confiscatory tax, redistributing someone else's success and I do find that offensive as well as self perpetuating (I've never seen a temporay tax do anything other htan become permanent, have never seen a givernmental body do anything but grow).
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Warfare is indeed an inherently fascist undertaking
Stan: Fascist, Marxist, enemy of Jefferson. Poor Stan.
With the difference being that I, unlike the progressives, do not believe in the military as a means of achieving national unity, but merely acknowledge the need for national unity to win wars once they are started.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Thursday, June 5, 2008 4:37 PM
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is no denying that either way.
So all a President have to do is engage in some kind of military activity (I note that we are not at war with anyone right now, although I suppose some kind of a case could be made for a police action) and any and all Jeffersonian principles go by the board? Does this include the Bill of Rights?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
So all a President have to do is engage in some kind of military activity
Once it is approved by congress than absolutely yes. That is precisely how we have done things through out the history of Jeffersonian democracy. And, BTW,we are at war. The president said: "I'd like to use the military to kill some people" and congress said: "Cool, dude, go fer it!" Thats war.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
So all a President have to do is engage in some kind of military activity
Once it is approved by congress than absolutely yes. That is precisely how we have done things through out the history of Jeffersonian democracy. And, BTW,we are at war. The president said: "I'd like to use the military to kill some people" and congress said: "Cool, dude, go fer it!" Thats war.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
"Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government. They receive it with their being from the hand of nature." Doesn't say, "Except in time of war." Neither does the bill of Rights. "rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal right of others. I do not add, 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." Always so. Not just when the nation is at peace. It seems that, at other times, you have used the anti-Federalist resolutions of Virginia and Kentucky which codified the concept of "states rights" and which had been written by Jefferson and Madison as justification for state nullification of Federal law, while now you are upholding Adams and the Federalists abrograting the First Amendment which was what Jefferson was fighting. Are you actually on both sides at once? :confused:
Stan Shannon wrote:
The president said: "I'd like to use the military to kill some people" and congress said: "Cool, dude, go fer it!" Thats war.
No, we aren't, and you know better. The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." That is not a declaration of war, rather, like The Korean War, the authorization was to use the army to enforce UN resolutions. Thats why I said it might be called a police action. I might note that it seems unlikely that we need to worry any longer about the continuing threat posed by Iraq. :laugh: Seems to me you need to choose between Adams and Jefferson. The federalist/anti-federalist debate is not a chinese restaraunt menu when you choose one from column a and two from column b.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
With the difference being that I, unlike the progressives, do not believe in the military as a means of achieving national unity, but merely acknowledge the need for national unity to win wars once they are started.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Thursday, June 5, 2008 4:37 PM
Sorry, Stan, but your world view does not allow for nuance. You have declared that behavior both marxist and fascist within this thread. You support that behavior, ergo you are a marxo-fascist. ;P